TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- Drug Testing Drivers
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Drug Testing Drivers

quote:

Police roadside agony awaits the ecstasy driver Email Print Normal font Large font Vanessa Burrow August 30, 2006 DRINK and drive, you're a bloody idiot. Take ecstasy and drive and you face a possible six-month driving ban and a $1289 maximum fine. That was the message from Police Minister Tim Holding yesterday as he announced world-first anti-drug laws designed to improve road safety. But Australian researchers are yet to study the effects of ecstasy use on driver behaviour. Swinburne University's Katherine Papafotiou, head of the Drugs and Driving Research Unit, said $100,000 to $400,000 was needed for such tests. "There's limited research on the topic," she said. "In terms of research that we have done here, we have concentrated on cannabis and methamphetamine (speed). We are hoping to continue our research and expand it to include ecstasy." The National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund and the Australian Research Council are yet to fund any Australian research on ecstasy and driving. One study conducted in the Netherlands found ecstasy may actually improve basic car control. But ecstasy-affected drivers were more likely to take risks and had slower response times. Another study found when the stimulant was combined with other drugs, such as cannabis or speed, driver behaviour became "extremely dangerous". Michael Lenne, of Monash University's Accident Research Centre, said driving was a complex task that required a "sound state of mind". In random drug testing trials run from December 2004 until last week, police found that one in 49 drivers tested positive to cannabis or speed. More than half of the confirmed 436 drug drivers had a combination of drugs in their system, including ecstasy. Assistant Commissioner Noel Ashby said that from Friday police would begin charging drivers who tested positive to ecstasy use. "There's no doubt that ecstasy is one of the core drugs that causes problems on our roads," he said. "Higher than 30 per cent of all motorists that have died on our roads have had the presence of drugs in their system." A mouth-swab drug test, akin to a litmus paper test, takes five to seven minutes. If drivers return a positive result, they will be retested using the German-made Cozart machine and another saliva sample, delaying them about 10 minutes more. The Government has allocated $14.1 million for the drug-driving crackdown. Police used one drug bus in the trial and will soon receive a second new $750,000 drug bus. The seven existing booze buses will be refitted, and probably renamed, to reflect their new use. Mr Ashby said Victoria's world-first drug-testing regime was attracting interest from Europe, North America and Britain. He said he had confidence in the accuracy of roadside drug tests. "The testing regime we have is fail-safe," he said.

Does anyone know what timeframe they consider a person from consumption to be under the influence and unsafe to drive?

If they are really concerned about preventing road deaths they should allocate funding to research on the effects of drugs over periods of time after consumption, similar to alcohol. There is an awareness campaign about .05 and how many drinks a person can consume based on body weight and gender before going over the limit, there should be something just like this with illegal drugs.

Anyone got any thoughts on this or know anything about the testing methods that is not covered in the article?

I see this topic has come up again...

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=police

How fun would it be to be pulled over on the side of the road, told to wait 7 mins and then possibly another 10 mins? Man, that'd suck bigtime.

Driving whilst under the influence of any drug is not recommended.

well, like drinking, theyre looking for presence of the active ingredient of said substances. i still think its bollocks though. the reason these techniques havent been pioneered elsewhere in the world is that theyre unreliable (according to the stuff ive read at least).

you couldnt have a promo campaign similar to the .05 with drugs, as theyre hardly of a uniform strength or purity.

testing methods are booze buses only, the testing kits are simply too expensive to equip cars with. so if youre not pulled over by an RBT youre fine.

we\'ve had them down here for about a year or so. a few people caught, but havent seen any court cases yet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you couldnt have a promo campaign similar to the .05 with drugs, as theyre hardly of a uniform strength or purity.

I can imagine the slogans
"Double drop, bloody idiot"

"Guys 2 pills an hour, girls 1"

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN we've had them down here for about a year or so. a few people caught, but havent seen any court cases yet.

When they were introduced here they caught the first person within 1 hour of starting.

a lot of the time they'll create news to both create awareness that 'it's becoming THE problem on our roads' to allow them to push this through the legislative council. It's the most unreliable way to test for anything. What would happen if people smoked a bud the night before and were tested the next day?

Clearly they would be fine to drive, but traces may come up in their test....obviously with far too many questions regarding it's reliability, surely you wouldn't release something that will generate many false positives esp with the penalties they're imposing?

I do know of a few that were caught right after a party and booyah, ~$300 fine and 3 demerit points. Definately a sobering thought for those contemplating getting round it. Catch a cab!

oh, I love how the testing regime is 'fail-safe'...yeah like our speed cameras. lol comedy if you ask me.

OMG what Pana said: catch a cab!

And don't completely gak yourself and you'll probably be alright the next day (ok maybe two days after). It should be about the music anyway...

Or you cold do the scott bateman 12ml challenge,

Drop 10 x 12 ml charges,
2 x acid trips,
3 x trumpet joints
and a sprinkle of cocain

After that if you can turn on the car you're fit enough to drive.

I got past the cops on the weekend, by shafting 2 pills!!!!!

should make a new reality show based on this,
just sit the buses outside two tribes n gods (which im sure they have already started doing)

Re: Drug Testing Drivers

quote:

Originally posted by Teflon_Teapot Does anyone know what timeframe they consider a person from consumption to be under the influence and unsafe to drive?

Under the old system at least, if they could detect any illicit substances in your system at all then you were deemed unfit to drive. There was a thread on ITM a while back and I can remember someone there with training in a related field saying that after about 1.5 strong pills (~100 micrograms of MDMA?) it would be detectable by the saliva swabs for about 24 hours afterwards (MDMA can stay in your system in trace amounts for more than 72 hours), depending on other factors. This means that there's a theoretical chance you could drop on the Saturday night and get done for drug-driving on the way to work on the Monday morning... :-/

quote:

If they are really concerned about preventing road deaths they should allocate funding to research on the effects of drugs over periods of time after consumption, similar to alcohol. There is an awareness campaign about .05 and how many drinks a person can consume based on body weight and gender before going over the limit, there should be something just like this with illegal drugs.

It won't happen. If they do that then they run the risk of getting results they don't want to see, like this:

quote:

One study conducted in the Netherlands found ecstasy may actually improve basic car control.

It's a lot easier for a politician to stand on a podium and moralise against the "horrors of drug use" than it is for him to instigate an open, honest debate on the topic. No-one's ever been voted out of office for being too tough on drug-users.

quote:

Originally posted by narcism should make a new reality show based on this, just sit the buses outside two tribes n gods (which im sure they have already started doing)

quotas would be met and fortunes would be made.

Re: Re: Drug Testing Drivers

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It won't happen. If they do that then they run the risk of getting results they don't want to see, like this: It's a lot easier for a politician to stand on a podium and moralise against the "horrors of drug use" than it is for him to instigate an open, honest debate on the topic. No-one's ever been voted out of office for being too tough on drug-users.

keep it in context Renegade "But ecstasy-affected drivers were more likely to take risks and had slower response times."

I'm positive officer? Must be my drink was spiked.

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e I'm positive officer? Must be my drink was spiked. Would you like a hug?

This is interesting,

Drugs: the real deal
This is the first ranking based upon scientific evidence of harm to both individuals and society. It was devised by government advisers - then ignored by ministers because of its controversial findings

Published: 01 August 2006
1: Heroin (Class A)
ORIGIN: Vast majority comes from poppy fields of Afghanistan
MEDICAL: Sedative made from the opium poppy. Can be smoked or injected to produce a 'rush'. Users feel lethargic but experience severe cravings for the drug
NO. OF UK USERS: 40,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 744
STREET VALUE: �30-100 a gram
DANGER RATING: 2.75/3

2: Cocaine (Class A)
ORIGIN: Made from coca shrubs from Colombia and Bolivia
MEDICAL: Stimulant made from leaves of the coca bush. Increases alertness and confidence but raises heart rate and blood pressure and users will crave it
NO. OF UK USERS: 800,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 147
STREET VALUE: �30-55 a gram
DANGER RATING: 2.25/3

3: Barbiturates (Class B)
ORIGIN: Synthetic lab-made drugs, used to be prominent in clubs
MEDICAL:Powerful sedatives. Widely prescribed as sleeping pills but dangerous in overdose and now superseded by safer drugs
NO. OF UK USERS: Not many
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 14
STREET VALUE: �1-2 a tablet
DANGER RATING: 2.10/3

4: Street Methadone (Class A)
ORIGIN: Synthetic drug similar to heroin but less addictive
MEDICAL: Similar to morphine and heroin and used to wean addicts off these drugs because it is less sedating. Street versions may be contaminated
NO. OF UK USERS: 20,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 200
STREET VALUE: �2 a dose
DANGER RATING: 1.90/3

5: Alcohol (Legal)
ORIGIN: Brewed across the world in many different forms
MEDICAL:Central nervous system depressant used to reduce inhibitions and increase sociability. Increasing doses lead to intoxication, coma and respiratory failure
NO. OF UK USERS: Most adults
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 22,000
STREET VALUE: �2.25 pint of lager
DANGER RATING: 1.85/3

6: Ketamine (Class C)
ORIGIN: Anaesthetic drug popular on club and rave scene
MEDICAL:Intravenous anaesthetic used on humans and animals which, when taken in tablet form, creates hallucinatory experiences
NO. OF UK USERS: Unknown
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: �15-50 a gram
DANGER RATING: 1.80/3

7: Benzodiazopines (Class C)
ORIGIN: Tranquilisers used to beat anxiety and insomnia
MEDICAL:The most common prescription tranquillisers. Effective sedatives which have a calming effect, reducing anxiety, but are addictive
NO. OF UK USERS: 160,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 206
STREET VALUE: Prescription drug
DANGER RATING: 1.75/3

8: Amphetamines (Class B)
ORIGIN: Synthetic stimulants snorted, mixed in drink or injected
MEDICAL:Man-made drugs that increase heart rate and alertness. Users may feel paranoid. Newer form, methamphetamine, is addictive
NO. OF UK USERS: 650,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 33
STREET VALUE: �2-10 a gram
DANGER RATING: 1.70/3

9: Tobacco (Legal)
ORIGIN: Most of the leaf comes from the Americas
MEDICAL: Contains nicotine, a fast-acting stimulant which is highly addictive. Tobacco causes lung cancer and increases the risk of heart disease
NO. OF UK USERS: 12.5m
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 114,000
STREET VALUE: �4.50 a packet
DANGER RATING: 1.65/3

10: Buprenorphine (Class C)
ORIGIN: Can be made in a laboratory
MEDICAL: More expensive alternative to methadone used to wean addicts off heroin. Preferred by some addicts because it leaves them more 'clear headed'
NO. OF UK USERS: Unknown
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: Unknown
DANGER RATING: 1.55/3

11: Cannabis (Class C)
ORIGIN: Plant is easily cultivated in temperate climates
MEDICAL: Leaves of the cannabis sativa plant or resin can be smoked or eaten. It is a relaxant but stronger forms can also cause hallucinations and panic attacks
NO. OF UK USERS: 3m
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 16
�40-100 an ounce
DANGER RATING: 1.40/3

12: Solvents (Legal)
ORIGIN: Organic compounds found in glues, paints, lighter fluid
MEDICAL: Includes glue, gas lighters, some aerosols and paint thinners. Produces euphoria and loss of inhibitions but can cause blackouts and death
NO. OF UK USERS: 37,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 53
STREET VALUE: �9.99 a tin of paint
DANGER RATING: 1.35/3

13: 4-MTA (Class A)
ORIGIN: Amphetamine derivative; similar effects to ecstasy
MEDICAL: Amphetamine derivative, similar to ecstasy, and also known as 'flatliners'. Popular dance drug, producing feelings of euphoria
NO. OF UK USERS: Unknown
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: Unknown
DANGER RATING: 1.30/3

14: LSD (Class A)
ORIGIN: Hallucinogenic, synthetic drug more popular in 1960s
MEDICAL: Man-made drug that has a strong effect on perception. Effects include hallucinations and loss of sense of time. A 'bad trip' can cause anxiety
NO. OF UK USERS: 70,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: �1-5 a tab
DANGER RATING: 1.25/3

15: Methylphenidate (Class B)
ORIGIN: Medicine, similar to amphetamines
MEDICAL: The chemical name for Ritalin, the stimulant drug used to treat children with attention deficit hyperactive disorder which helps them concentrate
NO. OF UK USERS: Unknown
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: Unknown
DANGER RATING: 1.20/3

16: Anabolic Steroids (Class C)
ORIGIN: Hormones used by bodybuilders and sportsmen
MEDICAL: Synthetic drugs that have a similar effect to hormones such as testosterone. Used by body builders to increase muscle bulk
NO. OF UK USERS: 38,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: �7.99 a tablet
DANGER RATING: 1.15/3

17: GHB (Class C)
ORIGIN: Synthetic drug, sold as 'liquid ecstasy'
MEDICAL: The date rape drug, Gammahydroxybutyrate, is a sedative that has a relaxing effect, reducing inhibitions, but can lead to stiff muscles and fits
NO. OF UK USERS: Not many
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 3
STREET VALUE: �15 a bottle
DANGER RATING: 1.10/3

18: Ecstasy (Class A)
ORIGIN: Synthetic drug in tablets; popular in dance scene
MEDICAL: MDMA or similar man-made chemicals. Causes adrenaline rushes and feelings of wellbeing but also anxiety and high body temperature
NO. OF UK USERS: 800,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 33
STREET VALUE: �1-5 a pill
DANGER RATING: 1.05/3

19: Alkyl Nitrites (Legal)
ORIGIN: Liquid, better known as 'poppers'; inhaled
MEDICAL: Gives a strong, joyous rush and a burst of energy for a few minutes which quickly fades and can leave a powerful headache
NO. OF UK USERS: 550,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: �2-6 for 10ml
DANGER RATING: 0.95/3

20: Khat (Legal)
ORIGIN: Green-leaf shrub grown in region of Southern Africa
MEDICAL: Natural stimulant, its leaves are chewed to produce a feeling of wellbeing and happiness. Popular with the Somali community
NO. OF UK USERS: 40,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: Not many
STREET VALUE: �4 a bunch
DANGER RATING: 0.80/

^^^
would be more interesting to see the overdose rates

but you also have to take into consideration if someone is drunk and crashes their car resulting in death, its always added to the road toll

quote:

Originally posted by narcism ^^^ but you also have to take into consideration if someone is drunk and crashes their car resulting in death, its always added to the road toll

Don't quite know what you mean here, this is a study done in the UK {hence UK results listed]. This was the criterion for the rankings .

"In seeking to compile a league table of harm, the parliamentary committee took evidence from a previous report by the ACMD. As David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Bristol, UK, who helped to compile that report, explains, a drug's potential for harm was divided into three factors: physical harm to the individual drug-taker, the tendency of the drug to create dependence, and the social impact of the drug's use. "

It has nothing to do with the road toll

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI It has nothing to do with the road toll

(but this thread does)

I think I get what she was meaning. The rate of drunk-driving deaths is probably more than any single drug driving deaths. So if you took out the number of road deaths from that list you'd probably find that drugs are up the top and alcohol nearer the bottom. So the direct effects is different to the total effects of each substance

drugs are bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter (but this thread does) I think I get what she was meaning. The rate of drunk-driving deaths in more than any single drug driving deaths. So if you took out the number of road deaths from that list you'd probably find that drugs are up the top and alcohol nearer the bottom. So the direct effects is different to the total effects of each substance

Whoops!! sorry I'm not totally on topic. . I was responding to the reference to the ecstasy article and driving. Drugs are on top!! Have you both read the whole post.? It's funny! I didn't post the whole article that went with it because I didn't anyone cbf reading the whole thing
Guess I was right. It is rating harm and if a drunk kills himself because he's drunk , he's still dead and I sorta consider that harmed

i dont see how pot comes in higher than ecstasy or ghb tho.

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI Whoops!! sorry I'm not totally on topic. . I was responding to the reference to the ecstasy article and driving. Drugs are on top!! Have you both read the whole post.? It's funny! I didn't post the whole article that went with it because I didn't anyone cbf reading the whole thing Guess I was right. It is rating harm and if a drunk kills himself because he's drunk , he's still dead and I sorta consider that harmed

yeah k I'm absolutely farked so maybe I'm not thinking the same lines you are, but.....................

I thought you posting that list was to show that alcohol was number 5, above a lot of illegal drugs. Hence suggesting that many drugs are safer than alcohol

And what narcism was getting at (I think) is that direct harm, that is directly caused by the drug, not by actions affected by said drug is less in alcohol if you took out road deaths (which are not caused by alcohol directly, but rather by actions affectd by alcohol). If you can follow that you're doing well cos i can't.

So...................
Yes, dead by road accident is still harm, but if you took out road deaths in every category there the results would probably be very different, reflecting direct harm caused by the drug.

Doesn't mean harm doesn't equal harm, and not suggesting that those results are skewed or deliberatly misinterpreted, but they also shouldn't be used as conclusive proof that drugs aren't harmful.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont see how pot comes in higher than ecstasy or ghb tho.

It was a fully scientific study comissioned by the uk government. I must admit the ghb thing suprised me but not the pot . Even when I took it years ago, before the hydro stuff, it affected me far more than anything else I may have taken. Still, all things in moderation. As I said, interesting.!!

^^ yeah, but ive also never heard of anyone dying from pot. ever. getting stoned and rolling off a cliff maybe, but not just from getting stoned. 16 in one country in one year? i dont buy it.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter yeah k I'm absolutely farked so maybe I'm not thinking the same lines you are, but..................... I thought you posting that list was to show that alcohol was number 5, above a lot of illegal drugs. Hence suggesting that many drugs are safer than alcohol And what narcism was getting at (I think) is that direct harm, that is directly caused by the drug, not by actions affected by said drug is less in alcohol if you took out road deaths (which are not caused by alcohol directly, but rather by actions affectd by alcohol). If you can follow that you're doing well cos i can't. So................... Yes, dead by road accident is still harm, but if you took out road deaths in every category there the results would probably be very different, reflecting direct harm caused by the drug.

The problem with some of this is that, if we are saying that ecstasy is bad for driving, and it probably is! Then road accidents would be occurring at the same percentage as they are for alchohol, therefore taking them out of the study wouldn't change it.

I put it up out of interest only I didn't actually state any opinions. I don't think any drugs are safe.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.