police drug testers

[RonnySimulacrum]

Sorry if this has already been chatted about at length.

But I was wondering if any one had hard scientific papers or info on what drugs the police drug testers will pick up. And what the chargers will be when people test positive.

I do not agree with people driving on drugs, but most of us probably have at one time or another.

Unluckily I believe the testers are more likely to push people to use les stable and more obscure drugs when driving, which in turn will leed to more danger. Also people like ministers and politicians sons and daughters are going to suddenly find themselves in strife where they very well may have been protected. Also proscription drugs may show up, so all the king’s horses and man may well get done as well.

This may all turn out to be a political nightmare revealing just how many people do drive under the influence of substances and create a back lash the government can not handle.

once they open the gate and reveal the number off people they have ‘busted’ all hell may break loss.

In the long run the introduction of this new weapon against ‘sinners’ could have a positive or a negative affect on the oz drug laws.

[ 29. December 2003, 14:34: Message edited by: RonnySimulacrum ]

[Guest electro]

The sooner they bring the testers in the better (there are some at the moment but are not routine)

The amount of drug fucked wankers ive seen jump into their cars at raves & doofs then swerve all about the road (cause they cant see it properly, or as several people have told me with a look of fear in their eyes "im swirving to avoid the leprachauns/little people - they are chasing us !"

People can take what they want, so long as they dont get behind the wheel, swear they are fine then almost kill me while trying to avoid runing into hallucenations !

I do believe that people are able to safely drive on some drugs, but many canot (though they believe they can). Limits are needed - safe limits for all chemicals (1.5 cones per hour for males 1 for females etc etc etc) ... standardise it, enforce it and all will be MORE well ...

That way peoples insurance wont be void if they are under the SAFE limit of x substance.. AND people wont be getting run into as much by sheep on drugs .....

[nabraxas]

electro, while i agree w/your general sentiment, i disagree w/the method.

 

quote:

---

safe limits for all chemicals (1.5 cones per hour for males 1 for females etc etc etc) ... standardise it, enforce it and all will be MORE well ...

 

---

--do i really need to point out how 1.5 cones ov leaf compare w/1.5 cones ov bud? or the effect on regular or part time smokers?

standardisation is impossible.

my solution-

BAN ALL DRIVING ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.

the tech is there to make all cars computer controlled--like they do w/airoplanes.

the tech is there to make "driving" obsolete.

the tech is there to reduce the road toll to 0, while increasing the speed limit 100%.

just take all the drugs you want & let the car drive you home

[Auxin]

nabraxas:

just take all the drugs you want & let the car drive you home

Not a bad idea, then the 'designated driver' would be the one person sober enough to tell what button says 'Home' rather than 'Rome'.

[Torsten]

I would have no problem if the drug tester could only detect levels that affected your driving ability. problem is that drug testing goes for even the most minute amounts and really, what I did on my day off yesterday isn't the cop's business if i stayed home and didn't endanger anyone. This right to privacy needs to be weighed up against the need for getting wastoids off the road. But if RBT is anything to go by it won't make much of a difference other than to the government coffers.

[nabraxas]

auxin--a button? my car's not havin no buttons---voice activation-- still.. the problem exists--drunken slurred speech :D

torsten--i half believe that drug testing drivers is the first step to mandatory drug tests at work & finally at home.

[John_Barleycorn]

RonnySimulacrum:

But I was wondering if any one had hard scientific papers or info on what drugs the police drug testers will pick up.

Depends which testers you are referring to. I would imagine a major practical issue here is whether we are talking about breathalysers, urine samples, or blood tests. The general word with urine samples is that these will detect most of the common stuff, with the exception of potent psychedelics like acid and psilo. MJ takes several days to clear, whereas other metabolites can be out of the system within a day or two. And then there is the issue of pharmacy medicines like codeine and pseudoephedrine showing up as false positives, which could be used to advantage by those with some creativity

[gerbil]

nabraxas:

torsten--i half believe that drug testing drivers is the first step to mandatory drug tests at work & finally at home.

I wouldn't be suprised about mandatory tests at work, not too sure what you are getting at about home tests though.

I would never work for a company that had continuous drug testing, if i wasn't working for myself at the time, i would definately self employ.

Some jobs i can see why they might need to test, but the majority isn't justified, it's no ones business if people choose to use substances responsibly.

You'd most likely get fired for having amphetamine in your system, but nicotine and alcohol is okay ... as always. Ah australia better not become mini america...but sadly it looks it in so many ways.

[Auxin]

gerbil:

I wouldn't be suprised about mandatory tests at work, not too sure what you are getting at about home tests though.

Home tests would mean the gov't tests everyone. Regardless of necessity or privacy issues. Unfortunatly its not that far fetched, they would probably start with mandatory testing for drivers licences and renewals and it would spread from there.

 

gerbil:

You'd most likely get fired for having amphetamine in your system, but nicotine and alcohol is okay ... as always.

You might be surprised! Many companies insure their workers, some forms of insurance costs more for people that smoke. Its not legal but the issue has come up of companies firing smokers for bullshit reasons to save money on insurance bills.