Australian ~ World first

[Sharni]

Drivers tested for drugs in world first (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=24505)
16:56 AEDT Mon Dec 13 2004

A world-first random roadside drug testing facility took just 15 minutes to detect its first alleged drugged-driver in Melbourne on Monday.

Assistant Commissioner Bob Hastings said police did not know what to expect when they began testing on Monday in Whitehall Street, Yarraville, in Melbourne's inner-west.

"We turned out here this morning with the expectation of not quite knowing what to expect really, and it was surprising that so early we got some driver who tested positive," he told reporters.

"We will crank this up as we move towards Christmas and focus on those areas where we believe there's high usage of illicit drugs."

Preliminary tests on a man, who appeared to journalists to be aged in his 30s, returned positive results to methamphetamines, or speed, at 11.15am (AEDT) on Monday.

The man, who was driving a white van, was just the fourth person to be tested after the roadside station began operating at 11am.

He returned positive results from both a roadside saliva swab and a second more detailed test in the police van.

That sample will be sent away for laboratory analysis which will take 14 days.

He will not be issued with an infringement notice until the results of the comprehensive laboratory test are available.

A second man on Monday returned a positive sample to speed at the roadside test, but the following analysis in the police van turned up negative.

Drivers who return a positive sample to preliminary tests would be provided with a sample, which they can have independently analysed, a Victoria Police spokesman said.

If the final laboratory test results are positive, a traffic infringement, $300 fine and three demerit points are issued.

If the matter is contested in court, there is a possible $600 fine, and up to six months licence cancellation where a conviction is recorded.

[LixyChick]

So...now you can't do drugs as well as not drinking and driving? I've a feeling there's gonna be lots MORE road rage!

Ahhhhh...sorry! It's early and I shouldn't make jokes about this situation anyway! Sorry!

But this sentence gave me the giggles...

"We will crank this up as we move towards Christmas and focus on those areas where we believe there's high usage of illicit drugs."

We call crystal meth..."crank". And, don't all illicit drugs get you "high"?

Oh geezzzzzzz...ok, I'll stop now!

[Sharni]

Oh geezzzzzzz...ok, I'll stop now!


Good idea

[LixyChick]

Good idea
It's early...and already I had a good idea? Damn, I'm good!

*giggle*

[PantyFanatic]

lmao@ Lixy :D

[cowgirltease]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. If they don't have probable cause to stop you it should be illegal.

[jseal]

cowgirltease,

This may be one of those "different country, different customs" culture clash things we have here at Pixies. :)

[Irish]

As a recovering alcholic & former(lighter)drug user,I agree with CGT.I know
that MANY disagree with me,but I see it from BOTH sides! Irish
P.S.By lighter,I mean no heavy drugs.Only Pot,pills,etc.Except when others
were offered to me FREE.

[Sharni]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. If they don't have probable cause to stop you it should be illegal.
Well it isnt illegal

Police have every right to do random breath testing for alcohol.....they just extended it to drugs...and good on them

I know if it happened to be one of my family members some driving deadshit on drugs or alcohol killed because he/she had dulled senses, i prefer them off the road than that chance ever happening

Why should it be illegal to pull you over?? If you havent done anything wrong then they will soon let you go....it amazes me that ppl seem to blame the policeman when all they are doing is trying to make the roads a safer place to be

I think its a brilliant invention and am extremely proud that Australians appear to care enough to have got it up and running

*NOTE: I am not anti drug....except when you take ya drugged ass and put it behind the wheel of a car...or ya think its your god given right to steal from hard working ppl to feed YOUR addiction!

[Lilith]

I think the main difference is that here in the US police must have probably cause and random screening is illegal where as in Oz it is legal. It's part of the illegal search and seizure clause we have here. I think people who are in no shape to drive shouldn't and am grateful to the cops who stop them from hurting people.

[Sharni]

I didnt realise its illegal in the US...interesting....bet that makes it difficult for the poor police

But the title does state Australia in the title....and ppl need to realise that not all countries follow the US lead

Here you can be pulled over at anytime...

[Lilith]

Yeah....I think it's interesting how what is considered a basic right in one place is not even a question in another. Is what makes this big globe so cool. Do you know what is the legal limit for alcohol while driving in Oz? Here is varies from state to state.

[Sharni]

Queensland

Holder of learner or provisional licence and aged under 25 years: Zero BAC

Holder of learner or provisional licence and aged 25 years and over: Below 0.05 per cent BAC

Holder of an open licence: Below 0.05 per cent BAC

Holder of a licence when driving or in charge of a truck, bus, articulated motor vehicle, B-double, road train, vehicle carrying dangerous goods, taxi limousine, tow truck, pilot vehicle, and public passenger vehicle or a vehicle while it is being used by a driver trainer to give driver training: Zero BAC

I think the other states are the same except:

Western Australia

Probabationary drivers: .02 per cent

South Australia

Learners and Probationary drivers no matter what age: Zero Bac

Perhaps those members from other Australian states can add to it.....Queensland is my state :)

[Lilith]

very cool....I like how your area takes a driver's age/ length of time driving/ type of driving they do in to consideration

[Scarecrow]

Sharni, as has been stated, it is illegal to do random stops, so the police will do a road block stop, in which they stop everyone for safety checks and Driving Under the Infullence(DUI) of alcohol. There are also a lot of little laws that they can stop you for such as not using your turn signal or not wearing your seat belt.

P.S. Legal limit is .08 in Illinois

[Sharni]

Cool....i'd be intersted to hear other countries drinking limits and such....so anyone feel free to add

Random stopping is not done often here...generally its for some minor thing that they'll pull you over( as Scarcrow said turn signal. seat belts etc)....but they can do it if they wish

[Belial]

There are a couple of things that concern me here. Are they only testing for illicit drugs? In which case, why aren't they testing for legal drugs that impair driving also? Also, unless the law changed and I wasn't aware, driving under the influence of drugs is illegal - not driving with detectable amounts of drugs in your system. THC, for example, stays in your system a long time after its influence has worn off to any noticeable level. BAC has a line that demarcates safe and unsafe...why not other drugs?

[jseal]

Belial,

Good points. I followed Sharni’s link, and the story leaves the licit/illicit issue ambiguous. I suspect (especially after Sarni’s subsequent expansion), that if someone tested out with a BAC greater than that allowed in Victoria State, a traffic citation would be issued for that also. In re the presence of an illicit drug: here in the States, the presence of a controlled substance (illicit drug) in the blood or urine is often admissible as evidence of possession – which is illegal.

One item which did catch my eye was the increase in probability of a more severe penalty in the case of a failed appeal. Assuming that it is all on the up and up (and I do make such an assumption), there is no necessary reason to incorporate the disincentive for the motorist to contest the issue in court. You’ll note that there is no corresponding sanction on the state should the appeal be successful.

[WildIrish]

Also, unless the law changed and I wasn't aware, driving under the influence of drugs is illegal - not driving with detectable amounts of drugs in your system. THC, for example, stays in your system a long time after its influence has worn off to any noticeable level. BAC has a line that demarcates safe and unsafe...why not other drugs?

As Jseal touched upon with his point of possession, one could effectively argue that there is NO acceptable amount of drugs your system can contain while operating a vehicle. Not like the FDA's determination that there is, in fact, an acceptable amount of rat droppings allowed in hot dogs. :rolleyes:

I'm not one to promote a police like state where everyone needs to pee in a cup and show their papers when they so much as go to the grocery store to pick up diapers, but auto accidents happen easily enough when people aren't impaired. I don't mind a little random testing.

[Sharni]

.....that if someone tested out with a BAC greater than that allowed in Victoria State, a traffic citation would be issued for that also.

It certainly would...also they would lose points....or the loss of licence altogether

You’ll note that there is no corresponding sanction on the state should the appeal be successful.
I would assume that if the state lost, it would be required to pay all legal costs of the winner and the winner would not have to pay the fine obviously

The state does NOT like paying out money *LOL*

[Sharni]

New Driver Drug Testing Device (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C4057%2C7262692%255E1702%2C00.htm)

As to what the other drugs are it tests for i dont know....i'm attempting to find out

[Sharni]

Random Drug Testing For Victoria (http://www.trucknbus.com.au/abc/displaystory.cfm?storyid=17137)

This one mentions that legal over the counter drugs will not be tested for

[Sharni]

Motorists Face Drug Testing Over Christmas (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/27/1101495459946.html?from=top5&oneclick=true)
Another interesting read

[Sharni]

RE: WA & NSW (http://www.ozbiker.org/news_current/drug_testing_inwa_17_11_03.htm)

It's heading Australia wide....good

[Sharni]

Victorian Police website (http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugsAD.html)

Straight from the GeeGee's mouth :D....it IS illegal to drive under the influence of drugs

[Sharni]

Road Safety (Amendment) Bill ~ Parliment of Victoria

***"This bill is part of a package of legislative and policy initiatives that the Bracks government is taking under its Road Safety 2000 campaign to achieve a significant reduction in the road toll over the next five years.

The provisions of the bill concerning drugs arise from the recommendations of the parliamentary Road Safety Committee as a result of its inquiry into the effects of drugs (other than alcohol) on road safety in Victoria. It is the policy of the present government to expedite the implementation of those recommendations which were made more than three years ago, in 1996.

The Road Safety Committee expressed concern at the increasing incidence of drug-driving and the potential impact on road safety in this state. In its report, the committee indicated that the annual cost of the road toll attributed to road crashes where drugs alone or drugs mixed with alcohol were present was $143 million or one-eighth of the state's road toll.

The new offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug will be in addition to existing offences such as culpable driving and driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug. These are serious offences but have limited effect in combating the problem of drugs and driving as they are usually prosecuted after a serious accident has taken place. There are people driving motor vehicles who have taken drugs, and whose driving is impaired but who will not necessarily have had an accident. The new offence will enable these people to be dealt with much more effectively.

The bill defines impairment to mean that the driver's behaviour or appearance is such as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he or she is unable to drive properly. Drivers whom the police suspect are impaired will be required to undergo an assessment of drug impairment.

If the assessment indicates that the person may be impaired by a drug or drugs, the person will be required to provide a sample of blood and/or urine. The procedure to be followed in assessing drug impairment will be specified in the Government Gazette. Performance on the assessment of drug impairment will be videorecorded unless the prosecution satisfies the court that there are exceptional circumstances for not doing so. If a person is charged with driving while impaired by a drug, a copy of any video record will be provided to the person. The person will also receive a copy of a written report on the assessment of drug impairment."

***The bill (http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=VicHansard.peruse&house=ASSEMBLY%0A&pageno=417&date1=16&date2=March&date3=2000&speech=7022&db=hansard91)

[Lilith]

Typical U.S. DUI stop :D (http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1693&NEXTID=0&PREVID=1717&DISPLAYORDER)

[Sharni]

OMFG.....LMFAO

Too funny Lil

[Belial]

Victorian Police website (http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugsAD.html)

Straight from the GeeGee's mouth :D....it IS illegal to drive under the influence of drugs

I know. What I was saying was that while I knew driving under the influence was illegal, I didn't think it was illegal to drive with any drugs in your system.

[Belial]

As Jseal touched upon with his point of possession, one could effectively argue that there is NO acceptable amount of drugs your system can contain while operating a vehicle. Not like the FDA's determination that there is, in fact, an acceptable amount of rat droppings allowed in hot dogs. :rolleyes:

I'm not one to promote a police like state where everyone needs to pee in a cup and show their papers when they so much as go to the grocery store to pick up diapers, but auto accidents happen easily enough when people aren't impaired. I don't mind a little random testing.

One could argue it, but one would fly in the face of mountains of anecdotal evidence. This is why drunk-driving laws permit a safe BAC threshold.

[Sharni]

Errrr how could ya know, if ya thought it was illegal? :confused:

[Belial]

Okay, so the bill says that suspect drivers will be videorecorded and then tested if it seems they are impaired, yet the article says the testing is random? Did I miss something? Is the random testing in support of the existing law forbidding "driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug"?

And while I'm on that subject, is it not patently ridiculous to have a law against "driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug", and an additional law forbidding "driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug"? How difficult would it be to make this one law?

[Belial]

Errrr how could ya know, if ya thought it was illegal? :confused:

How could I know that driving under the influence was illegal, if I thought it was illegal? :confused:

[Sharni]

Wether it is 2 laws or 1 is irrelevant really....there are many laws like that pertaining to other crimes...so thats seems pretty normal to me

Yep...as in random testing....like hmmm lets pull over that car...hmmmmm he seems a little odd...i think we should do a drug test on him....
I mean if the car driver is behaving in a suspicious manner it would be pretty obvious that something is going on....a test for influencial properties would seem prudent would it not
When your pulled over for a breath test for alcohol...it would seem you will be tested for drugs as well

It has always been illegal to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of either drugs or alcohol....and if ya read the bill anyone suspected of doing either was put to test...blood/urine

Now they just have a speedier way of testing

[Sharni]

A note on 'over the counter' or 'prescription' drugs

All that knowingly affect your ability to operate machinary say so on the packet....i dont know about anyone else but i always ask the chemist or my doctor if what they are perscribing will affect my abilty to operate a vehicle (of course telling them if i am on any other medication incase a reaction between the medication i'm already on and the newer one could cause drowsiness)

If you read the pack properly and ask questions then driving whilst using any influencial drug like that should not happen

So testing for it should not be a big problem

[Belial]

Wether it is 2 laws or 1 is irrelevant really....there are many laws like that pertaining to other crimes...so thats seems pretty normal to me

Yep...as in random testing....like hmmm lets pull over that car...hmmmmm he seems a little odd...i think we should do a drug test on him....
I mean if the car driver is behaving in a suspicious manner it would be pretty obvious that something is going on....a test for influencial properties would seem prudent would it not
When your pulled over for a breath test for alcohol...it would seem you will be tested for drugs as well

It has always been illegal to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of either drugs or alcohol....and if ya read the bill anyone suspected of doing either was put to test...blood/urine

Now they just have a speedier way of testing


Whether or not it's 1 or 2 laws is quite relevant, firstly because each corresponding offence has its own setencing guidelines, secondly because it has implications for the sentencing of future crimes (especially where mandatory sentencing applies) and the accused's future in general - more offenses = more charges even if the accused is found innocent in the end.

What you've described is not random testing. Random testing is where the driver is pulled over for no particular reason, as close as possible/practical to a mental "roll of the dice" on the officer's part. I have no problem with random testing (even though "random testing" tends to play into prejudices) nor with testing drivers who show visible signs of having taken influential substances, I just found it odd that the article referred to random testing when the bill calls for the exact opposite.

Prescription drugs pose no problem if we trust those taking them not to drive if the drug can impair driving. What's to say people won't say "Bugger it, I'll be right", and then cause an accident?

[Sharni]

1 or 2 laws to me is irrelevant

While i'm not a police officer so i dont know for sure....they may look at a young persons hotted up car and decide to pull it over...to me thats random and i know for certain thats happend....what else could it have been that caused them to pull me over?...all my lights were working, indicators were used....they told me it was for a licence check...but blow in this while you're here :rolleyes:

Breath testing stations are still called random testing...so that is where the police maybe calling it random and the bill is not...i dont know

Did you go to the link on the bill or just read the part i posted? Go to the link and read page 2 it covers perscription drugs...i hadnt read it myself...and managed to get it pretty right actually *LOL*

I am not a lawyer or in anyway have a great deal of legal knowledge...i am only going on what i have read and some common sense

What i have written here are what i believe in...take it or leave it

For me this new testing is excellent...the hows and whys really dont interest me....but the technology does...and hope it soon hits my State