More dren for the people of Australia


PDA






Sindawe
December 2, 2004, 08:46 PM
Victorian motorists will become the first in the world to undergo random roadside saliva testing for illegal drugs later this month - and police have warned that those found with any trace of the drugs will be prosecuted. But a drug expert said it was important that the tests were for impairment and not just use. The tests, beginning on December 13, will detect cannabis and methamphetamines, which include speed and potentially ecstasy, under a 12-month pilot project. Motorists pulled over for a drug test will undergo an alcohol breath test first. The drug test will involve placing a small absorbent pad on the driver's tongue for a few seconds and waiting five minutes for the test to be completed.

Full article: http://www.fade.org.nz/asp/showitem.mv?ITEMNO=645

I did a search for the device/testing method mentioned in the article (Drugwipe). From my reading of the literature, it looks for the presense of drugs in sweat and saliva and is NOT a test of actual impairment. This same testing technology has been used by German Customs to detect particles on the surface of suitcases, shipping containers and the like, which do not have the ability to become intoxicated.

Anyone wanna place wagers on when this sort of stuff is gonna come to us here in the "Land of the Free"? :cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about "More dren for the people of Australia" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
December 2, 2004, 09:09 PM
What a despicable country!

Owners always distrust slaves.

fallingblock
December 3, 2004, 07:48 AM
Not another infringement of our rapidly disappearing freedoms. :what:

Next will be the "proctology stop". :rolleyes:

"Good evening Sir/Madam...... B.O.H.I.C.A. :eek:

It's for your and society's own good! :scrutiny:

RevDisk
December 3, 2004, 07:51 AM
We have similiar situations here in the US. Mainly just checkpoints for "drunk driving". Only reason they don't do drug testing at such checkpoints here in the US is because of cost, not because they care about your rights.

TimRB
December 3, 2004, 11:23 AM
"Only reason they don't do drug testing at such checkpoints here in the US is because of cost, not because they care about your rights."

"Sobriety checkpoints" here in the US (or at least in PRK) are fundamentally different from this one. Here, the police are specifically forbidden to perform "random" checks. They must stop every car; to do otherwise has been ruled discriminatory by the courts.

Which is not to say that your point about the cost is incorrect. It's just that if the police wanted to do this drug test, they would have to test everyone. I'm not convinced that it would fly here, though. Even a saliva test is much more invasive than "check the eyes, check the speech". If nothing else, the traffic jams that would result from causing every single car to stop and wait 5 minutes for the drug test to complete would cause enough of an uproar that the process would soon be halted.

Tim

Atticus
December 3, 2004, 09:35 PM
I think they'd get far more saliva then they bargained for here. Probably some skoal or Redman as well....being that we're a Red State now.

beerslurpy
December 3, 2004, 09:46 PM
Correction. The reason they dont do drug testing is because there is no drug test that will effectively test for inebriation for a wide range of drugs. This is mostly because alcohol only produces inebriation in fairly high concentrations and immediately leaves the body when the inebriation has worn off.

Someone could be completely tripping on acid and you would have to perform a very sensitive test on their blood to find any trace of it. Similarly, many drugs like THC stay in the body for weeks after the inebriating effects have worn off. Thus alcohol is one of the few drugs in which a positive chemical test correlates to a likely state of inebriation.

It could also be argued that few drugs produce the same severity of negative side effects that alcohol does. Stoned drivers have been proven to be far safer than drunk drivers. They tend to be overly aware of their impairement and drive in a far more cautious manner than normal. Many drugs such as heroin and lsd produce mental and physical states that are not conducive to picking up the keys and going for a drive. Many stimulants (like meth and coke) weaken judgement but actually improve alertness and reflexes.

A convincing case could probably be made for banning alcohol and legalizing most of the currently banned drugs, at least on the basis of the effect on driving skill.

Mr. Kook
December 3, 2004, 10:14 PM
Stopping us for drugs wouldn't fly. Innocent unti proven guilty, and the fourth ammendment protection from unreasonable search and seizures.

Even drunk driver tests like we have in Kansas are not invasive. They consist of simply looking the officer in the eye and inquiring if he is having a nice night. Granted, I don't like it, but I don't see how this is terribly draconian.

Honestly, I believe a cop shouldn't stop someone unless that someone is exhibiting evidence of illegal activity or is implicated in the commision of a crime, or needs to be warned that his tail light is out etc. In my mind stopping everyone and checking for suspicious behaviour means we are guilty until proven innocent. It's just the presently the stops are easy enough that it isn't worth making a fuss over.

Linux&Gun Guy
December 3, 2004, 11:07 PM
Correction. The reason they dont do drug testing is because there is no drug test that will effectively test for inebriation for a wide range of drugs. This is mostly because alcohol only produces inebriation in fairly high concentrations and immediately leaves the body when the inebriation has worn off.

Someone could be completely tripping on acid and you would have to perform a very sensitive test on their blood to find any trace of it. Similarly, many drugs like THC stay in the body for weeks after the inebriating effects have worn off. Thus alcohol is one of the few drugs in which a positive chemical test correlates to a likely state of inebriation.

It could also be argued that few drugs produce the same severity of negative side effects that alcohol does. Stoned drivers have been proven to be far safer than drunk drivers. They tend to be overly aware of their impairement and drive in a far more cautious manner than normal. Many drugs such as heroin and lsd produce mental and physical states that are not conducive to picking up the keys and going for a drive. Many stimulants (like meth and coke) weaken judgement but actually improve alertness and reflexes.

A convincing case could probably be made for banning alcohol and legalizing most of the currently banned drugs, at least on the basis of the effect on driving skill.

Listen to this guy! Hes compleatly right

LSD and other drugs like mushrooms are hardly ever tested for

DRZinn
December 3, 2004, 11:43 PM
"Saliva for a test? Sure thing, officer, just wipe it off of your badge."

If you enjoyed reading about "More dren for the people of Australia" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!