|
Drug Testing Drivers
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Teflon_Teapot |
| 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? |
|
|
| eRRaTiK |
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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
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. |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
| 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.
|
:haha: :haha:
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. |
|
|
| Chris Pana |
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!:toocool:
oh, I love how the testing regime is 'fail-safe'...yeah like our speed cameras. lol comedy if you ask me. |
|
|
| queen_vee |
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... |
|
|
| Aesthetic |
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. |
|
|
| Paulie |
| I got past the cops on the weekend, by shafting 2 pills!!!!! :o :D:wtf: |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
| Renegade |
| 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. |
|
|
| Light The Fuse |
| 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. |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
| 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." |
|
|
|
|
