SA Introduces Random Drug Testing On July 1st

[SaBReT00tH]

That's right. I know a similar thread was discussed many months ago but I thought I'd resurrect the discussion seeing the date is so close and more changes and discussions are evolving in the media and in parliament. It was set to currently test for Methamphetamine and THC but now the media have constructed a field day in pushing to close what they call a 'loop hole' whereby ecstasy is not tested, and in comparison with their police research data saying 1 in 3 people who had car crashes were on ecstasy they are now hurrying legislation through parliament for July 1st. With the acceleration of the New World Order in Australia, including my home state South Australia it bothers me, especially since world first draconian legislation has just been passed in South Australia to allow police to PERMANENTLY keep the DNA and fingerprints of ANY person arrested for ANYTHING, even if they are not charged or convicted. This includes if someone is picked up for pissing on a fence or being drunk in public, and means the police will be able to track any DNA or fingerprints a person leaves behind to them. This is especially frightening if you consider the huge case of identity theft in the world and the now easy ability to frame people for things. Formerly, the law was semi-passed in SA and the police were supposed to destroy it if a person was not convicted or charged with an offence but police corruption kept occuring and it was foundout that DNA evidence which SHOULD have been destroyed of innocent people was indeed not being destroyed, so as usual the government does whatever it wants to do and passes a law so it can do what it wants.

Getting back to the random drug testing section this is a worry because it has nothing to do with saving lives on the road, no matter what the media or parliament will originally tell you. Their government agenda is to keep a more advanced eye on people and gain greater control. Forget the permanent red light/speed cameras being installed in every traffic light, random drug testing will allow the police to know exactly WHO has and uses what drug and when. Just wait and you will see, methamphetamine and THC will be the original substances they'll test, a few months later they'll start including MDMA, LSD, Psilocybin, DMT, PCP, probably Mescaline, Cathinone, and anything else which is illegal, thereby invading a persons freedom as they may not be driving on the substance but still have it in their system.

Currently, my main general concern in the law is the THC one. THC has a halflife and is quite hard to get rid of from one's body. What if someone smoked Marijuana the day before, or days before, or smoked a HUGE amount of Marijuana the day before. Would THC still showup positive and thus cause MANDATORY 6-12 month disqualification of one's licence, with a court hearing 4 months down the track and a $500 fine?

Just thought I'd make people aware of what's happening and rebel against the media propaganda and the claim that their long term objective is a positive one.

Edited June 20, 2006 by SaBReT00tH

[AndyAmine.]

I belive the THC test will only show if you have smoked in the last 4 hours (give or take) or something like that.

If this is the case then I think its reasonably fair, most people feel stoned enough for it to effect thier driving for a good 4hrs after a heavy session.

Please dont get me wrong, I dont like the idea of the test, I jst think its a reasonable period of time.

[SaBReT00tH]

but do you believe the test period will be extended after the success of eradicating drug drivers to test for consumption of illegal drugs in general rather than DUI?

[Torsten]

I wouldn't have a problem with drug testing of drivers if there were legal limits set that reflect a degree of incapacitation such as 0.05 BAC or similar standards.

When driving a car you surrender your privacy because what you do in your time suddenly affects other people.

I do however totally disagree with the current method of testing for varying amounts which may be as low as traces and hence totally irrelevant to driver competence. I wouldn't even mind if the saliva tests were used as probable cause to obtain blood samples as long as these blood samples could then reliably establish a level of drugs that has an unacceptably negative effect on driver competence. They are taking the easy way out and eroding our rights in the process.

It just occurred to me that many people take drugs so as not to have to worry about the 0.05 BAC limit. Now that this advantage has been removed more people will return to alcohol because at least alcohol will be out of the system quicker.

[botanika]

its very much an easy way out, they hack this onto existing police ops instead of trying to mature drug legislation and education. If people on here are confused about the quantitive and qualitive issues, imagine how the conservative public and twisting media will play it.

[Pelinster]

Is this a bit of a step towards the eventual legalisation and control of recreational drug use? The random drug testing kind of says to me that they are accepting some kind of responsibility for the fact that people within this society choose to use illegal drugs.

I have always found it ridiculous the fact that the government's are so concerned with legal drug abuse on our roads whilst ignoring the potentially more dangerous illegal drug abuse, which they are well aware of.

A FOAF once pondered when he drove through an RBT in a capital city under the heavy influence of an illegal drug. At first he was afraid, because he knew he should definitely not be driving (please excuse this FOAF for his young ignorance and lack of responsibility, I believe he has matured a lot since this incident ), and was barely conscious. But then he realised that because the substance he was on was illegal (even though a very large population of this city, in this particular area are very well known to be users of this substance) that the focus would be on alcohol intoxication, not illegal drugs, and of course was allowed to continue. He was relieved because he really needed to get home and thought that was important enough to risk his own and others lives.

He ended up nodding off at the wheel on the freeway doing 140, and is very lucky to be alive today.

Anyway, since this incident it has always been on my mind that any number of people driving could be heavily influenced by illegal drugs, and it scares the crap out of me. Just about every decent sized trip I go on (in the car that is ), there is some kind of incident where I witness some really bad driving and suspect alcohol, drug use or an elderly person who can't see or respond properly as being the cause, and usually there was a potential for the outcome to be extremely bad.

If drug testing can reduce the amount dangerous driving on the roads, that at least is a good thing. If it came down to there being no test for any illegal drugs or one that was grossly unfair, well as a driver who frequently travels with a family, I would have to be in favour of the unfair testing.

I don't smoke weed, so I don't fear the dodgy testing, but I really hope no-one looses their driving license for having smoked it at some stage other than around the time they were tested. That would be severely Fucked Up!

Is there any known way to decrease the effectiveness of a swab test? (fisherman's friends anyone? )

[occidentalis]

Anyway, since this incident it has always been on my mind that any number of people driving could be heavily influenced by illegal drugs, and it scares the crap out of me. Just about every decent sized trip I go on (in the car that is ), there is some kind of incident where I witness some really bad driving and suspect alcohol, drug use or an elderly person who can't see or respond properly as being the cause, and usually there was a potential for the outcome to be extremely bad.

Try being a cyclist

Someone tries to kill you every five minutes - maybe they are all drunk or otherwise UTI but there seems to be some level of general malice towards bike riders...

[botanika]

I think drug testing is ok for our roads in principal... just so long as the punishment matches the crime, there is open non biased inquiry on the potential hazards of use and hazards of such enforcement and there is a high value placed on education (of both public and officers). It would be nice to think that this means we're closer to legalisation but I dont think so...its amazing how quickly these sort of laws come to fruition in contrast to how slow hemp laws progress. The police/government are not actually admitting any redeeming qualities of cannabis (or other drugs) such as its potential for paper, fuel, textiles and medicine.

Edited June 20, 2006 by botanika

[PD.]

Is there any known way to decrease the effectiveness of a swab test? (fisherman's friends anyone? )

lol, yeah i have heard a few good ones....

An onion. mmmmm tasty

Balsamic/red wine vinegar. not as tasty as the onion

mouthwash.

i did hear that the "lollipop" tests were avaiable from chemists(can someone verify this). It is the same as the ones used buy the poolice, these would be good just to make sure before you drive. They are marketed at parents to test their children for drugs........ if only my parents had used this.

A friend that drives buses for a living(he gets tested regularly and must not have ANYTHING in his system) was told by an RTA official that even a heavy smoker will not give a positive after nine hours. He always waits nine hours and hasnt tested positive yet.

But if the fuckers want ya they will get ya.

[SaBReT00tH]

The most recent news on this topic is that if driver's are caught drink driving and over 0.08 they will automatically lose their licence (already known) but will NOT be random tested for any drugs. I think they are debating to close this loophole at the moment.

Checkout this cool map showing US occupation of the middle east (Theatre of War):

Edited June 22, 2006 by SaBReT00tH

[Rev]

He ended up nodding off at the wheel on the freeway doing 140, and is very lucky to be alive today.

its no laughing matter but LOL

its a worry to me that this happens to me often

theres nothing more dangerous than sleep deprivation/ driver fatigue

with practice you can do it. your attention span increases

at firts a 2 hour drive was hard.

then you learn

then a 4 hour drive is hard

but you adjust

id say i can will myself to be on the ball for up to 10 hours these days, 14 hours with a break.

ie sydney to home.

An old friend used to do the geraldton to esperance run in 10 hours

no-doz can help but i try and avoid. raucous singing ive found keeps me conscious when alone

safest thing is to have a 'sitter' though

anyway.. point is

i think driver fatigue is far more dangerous than stoned drivers

Edited June 22, 2006 by Rev

[stonewolf]

I actaully agree with the testing of drivers for cannabis if its only testing the last 4 hours. I know alot of people are safe drivers while stoned and whatnot, but its something i would never do, just like driving drunk. My immediate assumption at reading the title was that cops would turn up at peoples houses and ask for a sample...which is fucked up, because drug use at home in my opinion is completely acceptable.

[Maturin]

The first person to get caught for cannabis claimed he had smoked 5 hours before the test, this was reported in The Advertiser. Of course, we have no real evidence apart from what the guy said, but if that is true, then all I can say is - be careful people!

Also it gets worse (as again reported in The Advertiser Jul 19), sniffer dogs are now patrolling the streets of the CBD! Cops are targetting any public areas (their first beat was the train station during morning peak hour) and plan to take the dogs down the mall, Rundle street and to check people in nightclub line ups. Can you say Police State?

This begs a question of me, what if you had smoked before going out, so that in effect you don't have anything on you...but the dogs will still be able to smell it. I remember reading in The Advertiser years ago of an unfortunate guy who had gone to the airport. He had smoked before leaving his house and was in possession of nothing incriminating, yet - you guessed it - the dog came and sat next him. He was taken away to that little room they have for searches ( ). They couldn't do him for anything, but you can imagine the humiliation.

[Moses]

This begs a question of me, what if you had smoked before going out, so that in effect you don't have anything on you...but the dogs will still be able to smell it. I remember reading in The Advertiser years ago of an unfortunate guy who had gone to the airport. He had smoked before leaving his house and was in possession of nothing incriminating, yet - you guessed it - the dog came and sat next him. He was taken away to that little room they have for searches ( ). They couldn't do him for anything, but you can imagine the humiliation.

i have seen on tv shows airport & border patrol people/luggage thats been stopped and there was nothing on them

the offficers said that they must have been carrying at some stage and the residual scent was enough for the dog to locate.

one of the passengers actually stated that he had a bag in the pocket of his jeans that he discarded before boarding(bloody lucky)

so to my knowledge yes if you handle something really skunky you could get sniffed up the wrong way

feel free to shoot me down if this is crap as i too would like the truth

also hear that the amount of time between last consumption and testing positive is being falsely reported to give users a false sense of security so that more can be caught

[SaBReT00tH]

Ecstasy has just been added to the list and I've read now that one state in America is testing for ALL illegal drugs and prosecuting even if drivers are not under the influence of them.

[nmethyl]

Same as here then, you won't be under the influence of E's after 24 hours, but the test with show the presence, the bloody lab test will only reinforce this detecting nanogram concentrations.

If snything the whole thing is back to front...ultra sensitive to detect presence, then low sensitivity test to determine if you could be under the influence.

I'd be demanding the equivalent of a 0.05 for all drugs, otherwise this is a persecution excersise and nothing more!!!