Druggo Driving - BUSTED!! - Page 4 - Ford Forums

hoon69 · 12-23-2004, 02:07

like it was said..

whats to say the right are being accused wrongly whilst the guilty are being found innocent,IMHO its a test thats not gunna work in the long run.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 12-23-2004, 04:53

I could write an essay on this... But I won't, it would just bore most of you and be a waste of my time, IMO.

So I'll keep my opinion fairly short and to the point.

THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is fat soluable. This is why some people cook with it, make it into cookies, chocolate brownies, butter, etc. This also means that once it is in your body, it not only affects your brain, but also is absorbed by the fat cells in your body, which then slowly "leak" it out over a period of months back into your blood stream. This simple fact makes the roadside testing as used an unreliable test, because while someone might have had a few tokes on a joint two weeks ago, they will certainly no longer be under the influence (due to the body cleansing itself of all foriegn matter in the blood stream within the first few days), however it could still show up on the test thanks to the fat cells re-releasing it into the blood stream to be disposed of via the kidneys. The amount the fat cells would release into the blood stream would be such a small amount that no person would feel as though they are under the influence, and it would also not be enough to impare them in any way. But it could still be enough to show up in drug testing.

For the record, I don't smoke marijuana, not anymore. I know a fair bit about it because I did a lot of study on it when I was doing Year 11.

I think anybody that thinks someone who has the occasional joint or bong is a druggie, well, with all due respect I disagree, and I think it reflects the enviroment (both home and social/school) that they have grown up in, which I'd be willing to bet would be a little more sheltered then some of the other people who are regular posters here.

If someone wants to label me as a "druggie" because I'll admit to having smoked marijuana once upon a time, well, I can't stop them, but I think they would be only making themselves look stupid.

The number of people who use marijuana - despite it's illegal status - would suprise most people. I can't remember the figures off the top of my head, but I'd also be willing to bet it would be between 1 in 5 and 1 in 20, it would certainly be no less then 1 in 20.

And, in my opinion at least, I'd rather be around people who had been using marijuana then using alcohol, for the simple reason that I've been around too many people who become agressive, unpredictable, unreasonable arseholes after having a few drinks too many, and I've never seen marijuana have that sort of effect on anyone.

Quote:

A dude on dope wandered into Burger King, and stood there for 20 minutes. Finally the guy at the counter said "Can I help you?". The dude replied "Yeah, I wanna see the king!"

LuvinmyEB · 12-23-2004, 19:22

Driver drugs testing a 'fiasco'
By Marc Moncrief
December 23, 2004 - 9:53AM
The Age. Melbourne.

State Opposition Leader Robert Doyle has labelled the Government's roadside drug testing regime a "fiasco", and has pinned the blame for the program's apparent failure on police minister Andre Haermeyer.

Pressure is mounting on the Victorian Government to suspend the testing program with a drug user education group and a prominent legal service also voicing their opposition.

Police yesterday revealed two of the first three drivers to test positive had been cleared after laboratory analysis of their samples.

Speaking on ABC radio this morning, Mr Doyle defended roadside drug testing as an idea, but said the pilot program initiated by the government earlier this month was in disarray.

"This program was rushed out by Andre Haermeyer. He assured us at the time that it was completely reliable. And now we find, unfortunately, that the first case is a complete fiasco. We got it wrong. And apparently there is a second case where, equally, we got it wrong," Mr Doyle said.

"I would suggest the public now have lost confidence, not just in the speed cameras after the fiasco we had earlier this year, but now in the drug testing regime as well.

"I don't think it's good enough to say: 'Well, we may or may not be right with this first indicative test.' What do those people do if they test positive? Do they tell their employer? Do they tell their families? Do they live with it for 10 days and then, you know, wipe their brow when they're let off? I mean, that's just not good enough.

"If we're going to have this testing, it has to be accurate."

In the current testing structure, motorists submit to a roadside as a primary screening device for the presence of illicit drugs in their system. If the test positive, they must take a second test accurate enough to be used in court.

The controversy surrounds the accuracy of the first test.

Two of the first three people who have tested positive in the roadside testing pilot have been cleared by the second, evidentiary test.

Victoria Police released the results of the laboratory tests following demands for an apology and threats of legal action from van driver John De Jong, who tested positive for drugs at a highly publicised launch of the system last week.

Private tests supported Mr De Jong's claims of innocence and subsequent police laboratory tests confirmed he was drug-free.

While NSW today announced it would begin a 12 month trial of roadside drug testing in March next year, but would not prosecute offenders during the trial, Victoria will penalise drivers whose positive drug tests were confirmed by laboratory testing.

Police insist this proves their testing system works and that no charges are laid until the evidentiary test result is known.

Mr Doyle compared the roadside drug testing scandal to the speed cameras controversy that erupted earlier this year.

The Government stopped issuing fines from speed cameras after finding a number of faulty cameras on the Western Ring Road.

The cameras have not yet been replaced and the controversy continues to embroil the Government.

Mr Doyle suggested the Government should step back from the drug testing program, as it did in relation to speed cameras, until a more reliable system is available.

"I think you have to say that we will withdraw it from use until we can be absolutely assured that the testing regime is accurate."

Fitzroy Legal Service principal solicitor Stan Winford said the service and drugs education group VIVAIDS would support a "well designed campaign to remove (drug) impaired motorists from Victorian roads".

But Mr Winford called on Victoria to suspend penalties for positive tests "until the questions raised about the sensitivity and accuracy of drug driving tests are satisfactorily answered".

VIVAIDS manager Damon Brogan said the Victorian tests looked for the presence of a substance rather than a level of impairment, as with alcohol, and did not focus on prescription substances known to impair driving.

quote: "As it stands, we fear that the current scheme could be seen as a stunt targeting drug users rather than a road safety initiative," Mr Brogan said.

In the first nine days of testing, 283 drivers had provided saliva samples with only three indicating a positive result.

Under the Victorian drug testing regime, first offenders face a fine of up to $600 and loss of licence for three months, while second and subsequent offences would be fined up to $1,200 and up to six months without a licence.

All drivers detected would undergo a drug education program.

Victoria Police vowed to continue the program and are not offering Mr De Jong an apology for the stress his family has endured.

No apologies, no fixing the problems, we'll just keep taking people's money and destroying their lives.

all4ford · 12-23-2004, 20:06

What I don't get, sorry if it is in that story above, but sometimes I miss things. But anyway if they do not charge or declare someone guilty until after the second test is proved to be positive does that mean that after a positive road side test they let you proceed to drive away or are you taken into custody etc??

If you are allowed to proceed to drive because they are not sure whether or not you are definately guilty then they will be just as effective as speed cameras where they only make money, but do not actually stop the people from offending.

Cancerman · 12-23-2004, 20:21

Isn't there a law that says the media can't show your face or name until you've been convicted of the crime? Isn't that why they sometimes blur out people's faces in COPS and shows like that?

LuvinmyEB · 12-23-2004, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by all4ford

What I don't get, sorry if it is in that story above, but sometimes I miss things. But anyway if they do not charge or declare someone guilty until after the second test is proved to be positive does that mean that after a positive road side test they let you proceed to drive away or are you taken into custody etc??

If you are allowed to proceed to drive because they are not sure whether or not you are definately guilty then they will be just as effective as speed cameras where they only make money, but do not actually stop the people from offending.

I'm assuming that they would book you on the spot and take you in to do a blood test like they do with drink driving. That would be why they have drug buses. You test positive to drugs they make you get out of your car and get in the bus. I don't know the exact procedure, so I'm guessing that the drug bus would be like a booze bus.
Except the drug bus would probably a little more chilled out than a booze bus.

I can imagine the conversations that would go on, "But I only had a couple of tokes on a joint dude.", "Yeah? must have been some good sh*t man." I had a bong, someone said something about these buses but I can't remember what it was now, any one got a Mars Bar or some Twisties?" "Yeah I'm hugry too man, Officer can you order us a pizza?"

LuvinmyEB · 12-23-2004, 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cancerman

Isn't there a law that says the media can't show your face or name until you've been convicted of the crime? Isn't that why they sometimes blur out people's faces in COPS and shows like that?

I always thought that too, but the media would have been invited along to the launch of the first 'Drug Bus'. I doubt the police or Bracks would have had any qualms about making example out of the first person to be caught, even if it the test did turn out to be false. If that were me I'd be calling my lawyer and hauling them into court. Although they would make your life hell after that. They'd be raiding your house every second week, following you everywhere, you wouldn't be able to go anywhere. Then if you made one mistake your name would be plastered every where again.

Bit of a lose lose situation really.

loxxr6 · 12-23-2004, 20:49

I think it should be legalised, just for the simple point it leads onto harder drugs

People with no will power will get caught up in harder drugs anyway. Blaming pot on doing this is stupid.

Lots of my old mates still occasionally do weed and none of them are remotely interested in any "club drugs". In fact they're adamantly against them.

The number of people who use marijuana - despite it's illegal status - would suprise most people. I can't remember the figures off the top of my head, but I'd also be willing to bet it would be between 1 in 5 and 1 in 20, it would certainly be no less then 1 in 20.

Several harder drugs like speed and ecstacy are very very widespread in all walks of life. I'm sure Australia is in the top 3 drug taking countries of the world. In fact not long ago I could have sworn we were no 1 in the world for amphetamines.

And, in my opinion at least, I'd rather be around people who had been using marijuana then using alcohol, for the simple reason that I've been around too many people who become agressive, unpredictable, unreasonable arseholes after having a few drinks too many, and I've never seen marijuana have that sort of effect on anyone.

Almost never in the time I've spent clubbing have I seen aggressive behaviour associated with club drugs/pot. There is always more aggressive and violent behaviour in pubs rather than clubs where consumption of alcohol is the main thing done.

I don't approve of drink driving. I don't think ppl should be driving under the influence of drugs either (after a big night out sometimes it happens) however if you are caught then yeah you deserve to be charged. Pure and simple its against the law.

Being done for something that has occurred weeks before or due to a reading thats given off by something non drug related is unfair and embarrassing to the person and any family involved. People don't easily forget mistakes about an incident that's happened to someone even if they are cleared of any fault.

Isn't there a law that says the media can't show your face or name until you've been convicted of the crime? Isn't that why they sometimes blur out people's faces in COPS and shows like that?

They protect names and faces in court charges I think if there's a likelihood of the person being harmed in public. Some of those rapists from Bankstown had their identities hidden for a while.

loxxr6 · 12-23-2004, 20:51

I always thought that too, but the media would have been invited along to the launch of the first 'Drug Bus'. I doubt the police or Bracks would have had any qualms about making example out of the first person to be caught, even if it the test did turn out to be false. If that were me I'd be calling my lawyer and hauling them into court. Although they would make your life hell after that. They'd be raiding your house every second week, following you everywhere, you wouldn't be able to go anywhere. Then if you made one mistake your name would be plastered every where again.

If anything that sort of shit ruins peoples lives.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 12-23-2004, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by loxxr6

I don't approve of drink driving. I don't think ppl should be driving under the influence of drugs either (after a big night out sometimes it happens) however if you are caught then yeah you deserve to be charged. Pure and simple its against the law.

Being done for something that has occurred weeks before or due to a reading thats given off by something non drug related is unfair and embarrassing to the person and any family involved. People don't easily forget mistakes about an incident that's happened to someone even if they are cleared of any fault.

I agree, I don't approve of drug driving OR drink driving, either one is an incredibly stupid thing to do and a stupid risk to everyone. Simple as that.

I think if testing like this is to be used, it has to be reliable, or at least reliable beyond reasonable doubt, but from what I know, the testing methods used are not. Not good enough. Perhaps test on the spot as the method is now, but not press charges (and of course, don't involve the media) until there is confirmation using a more reliable method. I don't think it is responsible to let them just drive off after a positive on-the-spot test, but pressing charges or making a spectacle of the driver is wrong if there can be ANY doubt.

Ok, ok, I'll stop ranting now.