Drug driving tests' by end of year'

Message

D-Rider · #16 Post by **D-Rider** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:02 am

My concern with a device that can detect a wide variety of drugs is whether it will ONLY detect illegal drugs or will give a lot of false positives for prescription drugs (that are OK to drive with) or other substances that are OK.
If it is sufficiently accurate and reliable, then great.

Aladinsaneuk · #17 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:50 am

I do not think it will be a problem. Prescription drugs tend to have chemical markers in that makes them present in a different manner. And the one drug that could be problematic - cannaboids etc - is available on licence so that will stop errors

slickliner6 · #18 Post by **slickliner6** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:29 am

fatboy wrote:Slickliner6, you missed the point.
That point being if its in your system it does not mean you are under the influence.
A good mate at work is narcoleptic so takes prescribed amphetamine for his condition,that does not make him scum
A good mate outside of work takes prescibed morphine for hydrokefalis ( fluid on the brain,horrific bike smash 20 yrs ago),he is not scum.
Both take strong legal drugs daily, both are on the National User Register, both ride and drive safely,legally but with strong legal drugs in thier system
Whats more evil, speed, opiates, red bull, dehydration, fatigue?????

I did say MOST people not ALL.
and i think that prescribed drugs have "markers" in them,so there wouldnt be a problem as far as your friends are concenrned.
And yes i do have sympathy with people like your friends,i too have a mate who's on prescribed morphine,and i dont label him as scum.
There was no intent to label ALL drug users with the same brush(certainly not medical conditions) if that is way it came across then i apologise.

fatboy · #19 Post by **fatboy** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:48 pm

Oops.. Ive stepped of my soapbox now Slickerline6

No doubt its a very grey area, no doubt at all that there are folk out there that are knowingly driving when they shouldnt be
If this comes into force then there will be some unfortunates getting caught out after smokin weed cos it helps with the after affects of chemo/radio therapy, MS ect
Some wrongs are totally wrong,some not so wrong
An issue that needs addressing, but a very difficult issue

slickliner6 · #20 Post by **slickliner6** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:28 pm

fatboy wrote:Oops.. Ive stepped of my soapbox now Slickerline6
No doubt its a very grey area, no doubt at all that there are folk out there that are knowingly driving when they shouldnt be
If this comes into force then there will be some unfortunates getting caught out after smokin weed cos it helps with the after affects of chemo/radio therapy, MS ect
Some wrongs are totally wrong,some not so wrong
An issue that needs addressing, but a very difficult issue

yeah agreed.

Falcorob · #21 Post by **Falcorob** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:48 pm

fatboy wrote:Oops.. Ive stepped of my soapbox now Slickerline6
No doubt its a very grey area, no doubt at all that there are folk out there that are knowingly driving when they shouldnt be
If this comes into force then there will be some unfortunates getting caught out after smokin weed cos it helps with the after affects of chemo/radio therapy, MS ect
Some wrongs are totally wrong,some not so wrong
An issue that needs addressing, but a very difficult issue

Sorry but if you've been smoking weed then you shouldn't be driving. Period.

Using something as detrimental to your ability to drive as drugs, in whatever form they take and I inclue alcohol in this, should preclude you from driving. And if you risk it and get caught then you should face the consequences. Otherwise someone else may have to face them.

flatlander · #22 Post by **flatlander** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:20 pm

He only real issues I see is if someone has been in an environment where say cannabis was being smoked and unwittingly ingests and may fail a test.
The other being the policing of it. I presume It will only apply when say an accident has occurred or after someone has been pulled for another offence or suspicion of.
I would prefer to see a human however much of a to55er most of them ate. If for no other reason than more contact with the public they serve may take some of the arrogance out of the prats and enable them to prevent issues happening in the first place.

D-Rider · #23 Post by **D-Rider** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:31 pm

The other question is what limits will be set?
I don't know for sure with other drugs but with alcohol, people have this naturally occurring in their systems (even if they don't drink) and the amount varies. This is one reason why proposals of "zero limits" are meaningless.

If the same is true for other drugs (or some other drugs), then limits will need to be set.

I've never felt a need or interest in taking an illegal drug and feel we would be far better off without those under the influence on the roads .... but it seems a potential minefield to me.

...... then are we going to start having a tiredness test or an I'm feeling very distracted as I just had a major row with my spouse/boss/kids detector or just received worrying news .....

Willopotomas · #24 Post by **Willopotomas** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:40 pm

Again, it's all about keeping some highly paid, important sounding job title civil servant in a job. Nothing more, nothing less.

Viking · #25 Post by **Viking** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 am

Welcome to Victoria, the Police State of Australia.

We've had "random" breath tests for decades, and "random" drug tests for a few years now.

Falcopops · #26 Post by **Falcopops** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:23 am

There are substances here that are synthetically manufactured are legally available and are undetectable. They have had me on my arse for prolonged periods yet technically I could legally ride (if I could find the bike).

Just sayin'

BikerGran · #27 Post by **BikerGran** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:05 pm

Of course with prescribed, legal drugs there is the question of personal judgment as to whether one is fit to drive. I've had to take stuff in the past where I felt ok to drive as far as work ( miles or so) but would not have undertaken any longer trip. You know, the ones that say "if affected, do not drive or use machinery"

Seems to me it's just as irresponsible to ignore that problem as it may or may not be to drive after, say, using a little cannabis as a painkiller to help you sleep the night before. I would drive after that, but no any distance after taking Tramadol, for instance.

Chabby · #28 Post by **Chabby** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:39 pm

I assume that if such a roadside test detected an illegal substance the person would be arrested and taken to the station to provide a more definitive sample and be assessed by a doctor as to whether he is fit to drive.

If he was deemed unfit and the definitive test confirmed illegal substances present then he would be charged.