WA "random" roadside drug testing

[John Smith]

New laws were came into effect in WA last month that allow for "random" roadside drug testing, or targeted testing based on a police officer's "suspicions" that a driver is affected by drugs.

I think we would all agree that people affected by drugs should not be on the road. As I would imagine is the case with most of the population, I had assumed that there would be predertemined levels of a drug that would constitute impairment, as is the case with blood alcohol. However I was disturbed to hear the copper in charge of traffic in WA on the radio the other day saying that it is now and offence to have detectable traces of the applicable drugs in your blood or saliva. There are now 2 offences, drug impaired driving and drving with detectable traces of drugs in your system.

The latter offence stinks. It amounts to "random" (HUH!) drug testing of most of the population of WA. If the government is serious about drugs they should have regular testing for every single person over the age of 16. Then we would see draconian big brother style laws like this tossed out the window quick smart.

The potentioal consequences are horrific. Have a puff on a joint at a party one night when you are a bit drunk. 2 weeks later driving to work on a mid week morning you get busted for having detectable traces in your system. You get a criminal record, insurance problems, employment problems....and so on.

Lots of details here http://www1.drugaware.com.au/campaigndrugdrive.asp

[gromit]

what bullshit

will they also test for prescription drugs that can effect your driving? doubt it.

[chilli]

Man, that's fucked up. Australia is really starting to creep me out.

This is funny though, on that page you linked to:

Random drug testing will focus on identifying the presence of a prescribed illicit drug in the salvia or blood of a driver and does not attempt to quantify any level of impairment.

Also, I noticed this:

7. How long after consuming cannabis, methamphetamine or MDMA can these drugs be detected in saliva?

THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) can be detected in saliva for up to four hours after use, but is dependent on the amount and potency of the cannabis, on the individual’s metabolism and the method of use. THC residue from using cannabis in previous days or weeks will not be detected.

Edited October 31, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[AndyAmine.]

I read that they are starting up roadside drug testing in SEQLD (maybe QLD?) in the near future....

Im glad I have decided to quit.

That said I can drive around medicated up to my eye balls on Methadone or other opiates and not even be concerend....

[naja naja]

Costing the gov $75 per test, doubt they will be using them very "randomly" How many people can they afford to test a year?

[gilligan]

Costing the gov $75 per test, doubt they will be using them very "randomly" How many people can they afford to test a year?

lol

with a budget surplus of 2.1 billion (half year) they could test 28,000,000 people.

with 4.2billion, it rises to 56,000,000 people.

Bastards.

[PD.]

The latter offence stinks. It amounts to "random" (HUH!) drug testing of most of the population of WA. If the government is serious about drugs they should have regular testing for every single person over the age of 16. Then we would see draconian big brother style laws like this tossed out the window quick smart.

I dont see a problem with these kinds of tests. I dunno why you guys are going on about the "random" part, ever heard of a "random breath test"?

Bottom line is if you are considered responsible enuff to drive then you should be resposible enuff not to get behind the wheel stoned or scattered. Pretty easy as far as im concerned. Everyone seems to respect the laws in regards to drink driving and im sure we all agree that an impared driver on the roads is not a good thing. Its not as if the poolice are breakin down ya door to see if you are havin a smoke or a snort before you drive.

I have said this before and ill say it agan. A friend of mine is a bus driver and a smoker. When these such tests were brought into Victoria he had to attend a seminar at Vic roads, like IB qouted, cannabis is only detectable for 4 or so hours in the saliva. My mate was told to wait at least 9 hours if he was to have a smoke, this would give a negative result (if tested) every time.

Fair enuff i say. Just makes for more responsible driving and to a lesser extent, drug usage. The cops arent out to get you or unfairly targeting you, they just want safer roads like the rest of us.

[Vertmorpheus]

I'd like it if we saw coppers pulling over more bad drivers, for whatever reason... but making it discretionary in terms of who gets tested will basically guarantee that any local longhairs, pinkhairs, or dredded types are doomed, while all the office tokers and boardroom bongheads in nice new shiny cars will have no worries at all.

I want the roads to be safe... I don't want anyone I love being splattered by someone elses shortcomings. But if we are going to decide that any amount of certain compounds is a no no, it's probably time they were testing for sleep deprivation, vision impairments, attention issues, came down harder on mobiles in cars, stupid VDUs, unrestrained dogs and kids. Of course they won't be testing for most of the things that REALLY fuck with your understanding of your surroundings.. just pick on the things that the underclasses tend to use more often.

Not sure about the methadone or codine thing.. I think it all shows up as morphine anyway doesn't it? Not sure.

three quarters of the ppl I share the road with are a fucking crash scene waiting to happen...speeding, tailgating, no indicators (blinkers are optional in brisbane esp at roundabouts), people that own bigarse fourbies they don't know how to handle, young dickheads strapping it around every corner in the wet... nothing seems to happen to them. Least not from the police, maybe just at the hands of physics and later on, the courts.

pity they can't test for stupidity, and wouldn't dare start testing peoples reaction times in the context of sleep dep etc, as come monday morning half the town would bein lockup, driving aroud on 6 hours sleep.

revenue, class war, and politics..nothing to do with safety in most instances, methinks. Safety wouuld be things like more sensibly made roads, intersections etc. decentralised traffic systems. better lighting. better timing of traffic lights. restrictions on having massive slow vehicles in the heart of the city in peak hour. cheaper public transport, bla bla bla.

at 75 bucks per test they can't test everyone, no matter what the surplus is...its just not that simple but they can sure give a select group a really hard time.. this is nearly as good as the "gang car legislation" about being able to card anyone in a car with more than three people in it, bla bla.

place is starting to feel like another planet, and it's NOT because of the drugs! Everytime we turn around there is another law on the table designed to make just a few more of us feel unsafe and uncomfortable being in our own public spaces.

VM

edity bit... some of the silliest driving I ever see around here is caused BY the police presence..minute a marked car wanders down a road,double lanes, noone can over take em. I've seen em drive slower and slower, 5 to 10 to 20 under the limit just to get a giggle at watching a hundred ppl being made later and later by their own fear of persecution. Can't blame em, I admit I would do it myself haha.

next edity bit..one of those days.. just remembered nearly being wiped out by an unmarked car driven by a uniformed bloke as he popped up onto the road from a northside suburban bikepath without looking... part of the safer bikeways thing, entirely understand that (half the reason we got a big dog, so the girls could still go for walks) but I was mildly upset n amused to be nearly annhilated by a cop car as I went about my business. I shudder to think what would've happened had it been a few littlies on bikes or nan on a mobility scooter... bad press that'd be.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Vertmorpheus

[shruman]

"drving with detectable traces of drugs in your system."

I think this is what they were concerned a bout PD, u do'nt even have to be impaired IE a dangerous driver to be charged.

I agree there probly should be laws in place to handle dangerous driving caused by drugs be they legal or not but people being charged for merely having traces of a drug in there system is bullshit.

[The Dude]

Costing the gov $75 per test, doubt they will be using them very "randomly" How many people can they afford to test a year?

They'd Prey on Bogans and Hippies as the major 'lower class' drug taking community, and the yuppies will be free to coke-drive all day long, cuz of the 'randomness' of testing.

The residual traces of drugs is bound to cause problems as I doubt their precision in determening when the drug was taken. That's not the point anyway is it? I figured that the test was a) impairness and a drug test as usual because we are zero tolerance and you can't ever take drugs even if you aren't impaierd by them now.

So how long ago you took it makes no difference, the fact is you DID take it and that would be enough. However in SA I believe there've been quite a few cases that discredit the whole tests where people have been found to be under the influence of speed and weed when they've never touched the stuff, or i think in one case he'd never had speed and had a joint a few months before and tested as being under the influence of them both!

I figure if detectable traces are being tested for, that is totally irrespective of that persons ability to drive at the moment of police interception then surely a fairer and less 'random' (ie: discriminating) test would be a compulsory testing done by all the citizenss of the state. If it is Detectable trace elements we're concerned with, not the actual impairment at the time - then the on the spot testing is rediculous. In fact how about we just check the census for low income households and just test them, i mean odds are high they're high on something.

Edited October 31, 2007 by El Duderino

[PD.]

Bottom line is fellas, if ya wanna drive, dont drink or use drugs before you do so.

The tests are done on saliva, like i said and IB quoted, detectable levels are only for around 4 hours. I know if i was to have a smoke rite now, i would still be feeling it in four hours time. Now im not gonna argue whether or not you are too stoned to drive after this amount of time, some ppl believe they are better drivers when stoned. The fact is that police dont want ANYONE on the road that is in ANYWAY impared, be it a little bit or alot. I mean i was silly enuff to get behind the wheel after a few cans one evening. I had waited what i thought was enuff time, had a large meal and off i went. I blew 0.056. .006 over the limit. Do you think that my driving was impared? Fuck no, i couldnt taste, smell, or feel ANY effects of the drink but i still copped the ticket. What is sober for one person is pissed for another, there is no way they can take EVRYONES metabolism into account so therefore they must make a average level of intoxication(0.05)as over the limit to cover the whole population. Now some ppl can smoke a few grams a day and be comfortably stoned, whereas i know some ppl that would be in smashed all day from one cone. The test is designed to find the drugs in your system if you have had them a few hours before, you may not be impared or you mite just be off ya fuckin tree. There is no definite, other than the drugs in your system and the positive result on the lollipop. Its just a shame it doesnt test for opiates, then again that would cause a freakn big mess, too much confusion with ppl on legit meds, subby and done.

Freakin makes me laugh, waa waa, they are gonna target all us smokers. OF COURSE THEY FUCKIN ARE. They want stoners, meth freaks and bloody pill poppers off the road and fair enuff. Dont tell me a copper is gonna let a person go if they suspect them of being smashed just because they are in a suit or nice car. If you look stoned or wired they will test ya, regardless of what or who you are.

Yeh yeh, there are many bad drivers out there and until they design a random roadside nuff nuff test we must all endure their shitty driving.

On another note, im sure you will be all glad to hear that now the Vic police force must themselves endure "random" drug testing :D, bout bloody time too.

[shruman]

"The tests are done on saliva, like i said and IB quoted, detectable levels are only for around 4 hours."

Thats only cannabis the test also covers MDMA & meth.

[PD.]

the test also covers MDMA & meth.

GOOD, the 2 shittiest substances man has had placed before him. The less of that shit around and wankers usin it the better.

I hope that the shit lingers in ppls systems for weeks after they use it and then they get "RANDOMLY" drug tested whilst driving.

[shruman]

"GOOD, the 2 shittiest substances man has had placed before him. The less of that shit around and wankers usin it the better.

I hope that the shit lingers in ppls systems for weeks after they use it and then they get "RANDOMLY" drug tested whilst driving."

I think that way about meth but its attitudes like that are the reason why people are being tested at all. I mean a lot of people who support these laws probly think the same way about cannabis as u do as meth or MDMA

[PD.]

I think that way about meth but its attitudes like that are the reason why people are being tested at all.

LMFAO, did you even read that before you posted.

...and the reason behind testing for alcohol is? Its not because it may impare your driving ability its because someone in power doesnt want anyone to drink alcohol because they dont like it. FFS man, grow up.

[naja naja]

I wonder if they can do salvia saliva tests

I wonder if detectable amounts are transferable via kissing? If someone had been smoking a joint and then kissed another, would that other person not have detectable THC in her saliva, for atleast a little while?

And while RBT are pretty much fre to conduct ,the saliva tests cost $75 each. I doubt their budget allows for more than 20 000 peeps tested a year.

Edited October 31, 2007 by naja naja

[shruman]

"LMFAO, did you even read that before you posted."

Yeah I did, its hard to explain, I hate meth but it's not meths fault it is users who get addicted to the shit. I like to think all drugs are okay used responsibly & in moderation. & I do'nt think my attitude towards meth should be the deciding factor towards other drugs such as cannabis or MDMA.

"...and the reason behind testing for alcohol is? Its not because it may impare your driving ability its because someone in power doesnt want anyone to drink alcohol because they dont like it. FFS man, grow up."

LOL did u even read that?

U just said impair the new law does'nt give a shit wether ur impaired or not.

Ummm they do'nt quite test alcohol in the same way, they do'nt test if u have used alcohol wether u are impaired or not & they do for meth MDMA & cannabis FFS. 90% of Aussies would be charged if it were.

Edited October 31, 2007 by shruman

[gromit]

I wonder if they can do salvia saliva tests

LOL, i wondered that about salvia to...anyone smoking salvia behind the wheel should be locked up : D

[botanika]

can they test if u voted for Howard? ;)

[marsha]

we been randomly testing roadside drugs in wa for years it nuffin new ;)

[PD.]

I like to think all drugs are okay used responsibly

this means thinkin about what you do before during and after using said substances, which would include driving.

"...and the reason behind testing for alcohol is? Its not because it may impare your driving ability its because someone in power doesnt want anyone to drink alcohol because they dont like it. FFS man, grow up."

LOL did u even read that?

yeh, but obviously you didnt man, look at it again.

because it may impare

go back and re read what I wrote in regards to an average that needs to be set. One cone mite be enuff to smash someone all day but 10 of the same may have fuk all effect on another.

Like i said, at .05 i couldnt even notice any effects of alcohol, then again, miss jones from down the road mite be legless. Same goes with illicit drugs, that one cone for you mite just be a breakky bong but for lil miss jones it could be wipeout. There is no fair way to test these things on an idividual basis so therefore there has to be an average. The average that has been set in regards to illicit drugs is that if you have used them then you are deemed not to have full ability to control a vehicle.

To me, even the fact that these laws have been put in place shows that the powers that be are in a way accepting the said substaces, OR, they know that they have little control to stop ppl doin what the hell they want to their own bodies. They can (at least) have some sort of control over who is driving on the roads. They know that drug use is widespread and often common place for some parts of the community. Im sure you would prefer having a lollipop stuck in your mouth whilst you are in your car rather than a shotgun shoved down ya throat as they search your home for illicit drugs. Lesser of 2 evils afaic and truth be known, i cant say i know one person that has been "lollipopped" the bus seems to hover round melbourne during large festivals and parties, why? because they know ppl will be using drugs and therefore are a risk on the roads if they decide to drive. I havent noticed them hangin around outside Johnny dredlocks house just waiting till he gets in the car so they can nab him. They are going to go where they KNOW ppl are going to be using drugs and then target the DRIVERS, driving is a privilege. If you are naughty you dont get dessert.

I guess this sort argument would have come up when RBTing was introduced. All the piss heads sittin around crying that the coppers were out to target them and ruin their day just because they enjoy a quiet beer or 6.

By all means, go out and have fun, take or smoke whatever ya want, just dont get behind the wheel and think its all ok because it was only a lil joint or half a pill and "your not that fucked up"

.......and they do use RBT to see if you have only consumed alcohol or not, in Vic a P plater must be 0.00% alc concentration in the blood. If you have "used" even a tiny portion yet are in no way impaIRED and you are tested, you are screwed. Same shit different copper

[ethnodude]

i tend to agree with PD on this one.

thing that concerns me is how long drugs can be detected in saliva for and what is done with the results. i mean will all those who test positive be put into the little black book and hassled by authorities for years to come?

i find it strange that people are allowed to drive with any alcohol in their system at all. it is hypocritical to have no tolerance of illicit drugs yet allow alcohol consumption before driving. imo it sends completely mixed message to the youth. is it ok to drink before driving or not? its pretty obvious the liqueur industry has a lot to do with it as there is so much money being made from the drug. they rely on the fact that people will risk driving home after a few bears at a nightclub. i mean PD is a classic example of this fact.

i guess what i am getting at is that there are double standards in our culture which are clearly driven by profit and the economic gain rather then safety and wellbeing. i also feel the the authorities are aware that they are loosing the war and want to look like they are doing something about it when in reality they are just using cultural bandaids. if they were serious about addressing the issue they would deal with the reason's people feel the need to use drugs and then drive. if adequate transport was provided by the gov at these events then surely thats better money spent then simply attempting to bust those who risk driving under influence. its much like zero tolerance vs harm min. then there should be counseling provided to those who do offend.

so will the offenders be given some type of education or counseling? surely this would serve greater value then simply paying a fine. i'm sure the fine will be steep enough to pay for it.

Edited October 31, 2007 by ethnodude

[nabraxas]

as i recall, the last time that legalising MJ was seriously considered the main argument against it was that people would drive stoned & that there was no test for that.

Now that there is a test & it's being used, maybe the question ov legalisation should be brought up again.

[John Smith]

I must admit to not having fully read the page I linked to. I was under the apparently mistaken belief that the drugs covered are detectable in saliva for a fair bit longer than the times stated:

7. How long after consuming cannabis, methamphetamine or MDMA can these drugs be detected in saliva?

THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) can be detected in saliva for up to four hours after use, but is dependent on the amount and potency of the cannabis, on the individual’s metabolism and the method of use. THC residue from using cannabis in previous days or weeks will not be detected.

Methamphetamines, including MDMA, can be detected for approximately 24 hour after use. Extremely large doses, a person’s metabolism and whether other drugs were taken at the same time may affect the duration of the effects of these drugs.

If these times are accurate then I take back much of my criticism. Even still, I'd argue that many would be safer driving late within the detection window for MDMA (especially after a good sleep) than would be the case for THC.

[n00dle]

unless the officer cuts your tongue and samples blood into the test i can't see how this affects anyone who digests things in capsules or swallows whole pills.

I mean, this is really an attack at smoking as a route of consumption. Bombing pills whole (not suggested) or recapping in vitamin caps would prevent any of the drug from being found on the tongue.

Also, weed could be activated by boiling in alcohol and put in caps as an extract too.

I mean, it's all good unless you get the stuff on your tongue right? Let them waste thier money testing our tongues..