Australia’s drug driving laws are grossly unfair

Australia’s drug driving laws criminalise individuals who represent no risk to other drivers, making a mockery of the law as a tool for reasonably managing risk in a community, writes Greg Barns.

Every Australian jurisdiction has, over the past decade, passed laws that make it an offence to have any trace of an illicit drug in your blood when you are driving. It does not matter that your driving is exemplary or that the trace of drugs in your blood is from a couple of puffs of a cannabis joint a few days earlier.

more…

CrazyNeutrino said:

Australia’s drug driving laws are grossly unfair

Australia’s drug driving laws criminalise individuals who represent no risk to other drivers, making a mockery of the law as a tool for reasonably managing risk in a community, writes Greg Barns.

Every Australian jurisdiction has, over the past decade, passed laws that make it an offence to have any trace of an illicit drug in your blood when you are driving. It does not matter that your driving is exemplary or that the trace of drugs in your blood is from a couple of puffs of a cannabis joint a few days earlier.

more…

yeh, lets all get bent, on illegal drugs & hit the road

Boo fricking hoo…

the point the article makes is that it’s possible to have traces of a drug in your system for days after the fact and given that the drug drive testing is done on a simple pass/fail basis it is possible to be fail a test but still be completely unimpaired.

diddly-squat said:

the point the article makes is that it’s possible to have traces of a drug in your system for days after the fact and given that the drug drive testing is done on a simple pass/fail basis it is possible to be fail a test but still be completely unimpaired.

Yes it’s clearly a nonsensical law in its current form.

diddly-squat said:

the point the article makes is that it’s possible to have traces of a drug in your system for days after the fact and given that the drug drive testing is done on a simple pass/fail basis it is possible to be fail a test but still be completely unimpaired.

Plus false positives as well

My employment conditions stipulate zero tolerance to drug and alcohol subject to random testing…

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

the point the article makes is that it’s possible to have traces of a drug in your system for days after the fact and given that the drug drive testing is done on a simple pass/fail basis it is possible to be fail a test but still be completely unimpaired.

Plus false positives as well

false positives are easy to deal with through a secondary blood test system

furious said:

My employment conditions stipulate zero tolerance to drug and alcohol subject to random testing…

sure… as do many employment contacts

I’m not sure, however, what point you are trying to make

• I’m not sure, however, what point you are trying to make

You can have drugs in your system days after taking them, you can have alcohol in your system the day after and if it is under 0.05 you can drive but if you turn up to work you can get the sack. So my point is, from my original post is, boo frigging hoo to Mr Recreational Drug user OP…

furious said:

• I’m not sure, however, what point you are trying to make

You can have drugs in your system days after taking them, you can have alcohol in your system the day after and if it is under 0.05 you can drive but if you turn up to work you can get the sack. So my point is, from my original post is, boo frigging hoo to Mr Recreational Drug user OP…

But surely you can see the silliness of prosecuting people who are perfectly safe to drive.

• But surely you can see the silliness of prosecuting people who are perfectly safe to drive.

But its okay to sack people perfectly okay to work?

furious said:

• But surely you can see the silliness of prosecuting people who are perfectly safe to drive.

But its okay to sack people perfectly okay to work?

That’s foolish too, but I would have expected it to inspire sympathy rather than “boo hoo”.

• That’s foolish too, but I would have expected it to inspire sympathy rather than “boo hoo”.

Sympathy for a recreational drug user with delusions of persecution?

furious said:

• I’m not sure, however, what point you are trying to make

You can have drugs in your system days after taking them, you can have alcohol in your system the day after and if it is under 0.05 you can drive but if you turn up to work you can get the sack. So my point is, from my original post is, boo frigging hoo to Mr Recreational Drug user OP…

the juxtaposition is that there is good evidence to suggest that 0.05% BAC is a safe limit for driving but there is little evidence to suggest that 0% is the reading for any illicit drug.

I think a bigger issue here is how pharmaceutical drugs are tested for.

furious said:

• That’s foolish too, but I would have expected it to inspire sympathy rather than “boo hoo”.

Sympathy for a recreational drug user with delusions of persecution?

If alcohol and tobacco were banned who would stop usng them or would you think it unfair and continue using them.

• the juxtaposition is that there is good evidence to suggest that 0.05% BAC is a safe limit for driving but there is little evidence to suggest that 0% is the reading for any illicit drug.

illicit drugs are also illegal, so there is that…

• If alcohol and tobacco were banned who would stop usng them or would you think it unfair and continue using them.

Well, I don’t smoke so…

Don’t want to nit pick, but you don’t drive drugs, you peddle them.

furious said:

• the juxtaposition is that there is good evidence to suggest that 0.05% BAC is a safe limit for driving but there is little evidence to suggest that 0% is the reading for any illicit drug.

illicit drugs are also illegal, so there is that…

OK… so we should take away the licence of all people that have broken the law and then driven days after the fact?

bob(from black rock) said:

Don’t want to nit pick, but you don’t drive drugs, you peddle them.

Good point.

• OK… so we should take away the licence of all people that have broken the law and then driven days after the fact?

You can lose your licence for not paying a fine…

If we want to be honest anyone who wasnt a member of SSSF or here just shouldnt be allowed to drive.

furious said:

• OK… so we should take away the licence of all people that have broken the law and then driven days after the fact?

You can lose your licence for not paying a fine…

sure… but it’s not like we take away people’s licence if they have been convicted of shop lifting (for instance)

the whole idea of testing drivers for alcohol and drugs is to ensure that their ability to safely drive is not compromised. Having a pass/fail drug test regime obviously does not achieve this goal.

bob(from black rock) said:

Don’t want to nit pick, but you don’t drive drugs, you peddle them.

Hahahahahaha!

• sure… but it’s not like we take away people’s licence if they have been convicted of shop lifting (for instance)

What’s the going rate for a shoplifting offence? Is it a fine? Maybe they should lose their licences. As punishments go, losing your licence is on the minor side of the scale. Better than filling prisons with petty drug users…

diddly-squat said:

furious said:

• OK… so we should take away the licence of all people that have broken the law and then driven days after the fact?

You can lose your licence for not paying a fine…

sure… but it’s not like we take away people’s licence if they have been convicted of shop lifting (for instance)

the whole idea of testing drivers for alcohol and drugs is to ensure that their ability to safely drive is not compromised. Having a pass/fail drug test regime obviously does not achieve this goal.

Ideally you’d need roadside GCMS testing to give levels of drugs but that not really possible

furious said:

• sure… but it’s not like we take away people’s licence if they have been convicted of shop lifting (for instance)

What’s the going rate for a shoplifting offence? Is it a fine? Maybe they should lose their licences. As punishments go, losing your licence is on the minor side of the scale. Better than filling prisons with petty drug users…

There may, or may not, be merit in taking away the licences of people convicted of crimes, but the fact is, we don’t do it.

furious said:

• sure… but it’s not like we take away people’s licence if they have been convicted of shop lifting (for instance)

What’s the going rate for a shoplifting offence? Is it a fine? Maybe they should lose their licences. As punishments go, losing your licence is on the minor side of the scale. Better than filling prisons with petty drug users…

A fine or a community order

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

furious said:

• OK… so we should take away the licence of all people that have broken the law and then driven days after the fact?

You can lose your licence for not paying a fine…

sure… but it’s not like we take away people’s licence if they have been convicted of shop lifting (for instance)

the whole idea of testing drivers for alcohol and drugs is to ensure that their ability to safely drive is not compromised. Having a pass/fail drug test regime obviously does not achieve this goal.

Ideally you’d need roadside GCMS testing to give levels of drugs but that not really possible

Just make it zero as they do with alcohol in many countries.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

furious said:

• OK… so we should take away the licence of all people that have broken the law and then driven days after the fact?

You can lose your licence for not paying a fine…

sure… but it’s not like we take away people’s licence if they have been convicted of shop lifting (for instance)

the whole idea of testing drivers for alcohol and drugs is to ensure that their ability to safely drive is not compromised. Having a pass/fail drug test regime obviously does not achieve this goal.

Ideally you’d need roadside GCMS testing to give levels of drugs but that not really possible

well no… you would just need to engineer a test that gave a series of specific values for different drugs, then have a max limit for each of those drugs.

it ain’t rocket surgery

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

sure… but it’s not like we take away people’s licence if they have been convicted of shop lifting (for instance)

the whole idea of testing drivers for alcohol and drugs is to ensure that their ability to safely drive is not compromised. Having a pass/fail drug test regime obviously does not achieve this goal.

Ideally you’d need roadside GCMS testing to give levels of drugs but that not really possible

Just make it zero as they do with alcohol in many countries.

what countries have a 0%BAC limit

Well from hearsay I believe that the drug most likely to stay in your system for days is pot, for most of the others, if it is detectable, it is still affecting you. And so, the majority of people being put out by these laws are stoners and I’d rather err on the side of caution than have some stoner plough down a family because he got the munchies and decided to drive to his favourite fast food joint…

diddly-squat said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

Ideally you’d need roadside GCMS testing to give levels of drugs but that not really possible

Just make it zero as they do with alcohol in many countries.

what countries have a 0%BAC limit

Czech Republic, Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Slovenia, Hungary

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Just make it zero as they do with alcohol in many countries.

what countries have a 0%BAC limit

Czech Republic, Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Slovenia, Hungary

I’m surprised by the Czech Republic being on that list…

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

what countries have a 0%BAC limit

Czech Republic, Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Slovenia, Hungary

I’m surprised by the Czech Republic being on that list…

I’m surprised by Hungary…

Without wanting to wade through all this I certainly support an evidence-based set of restrictions.

furious said:

Well from hearsay I believe that the drug most likely to stay in your system for days is pot, for most of the others, if it is detectable, it is still affecting you. And so, the majority of people being put out by these laws are stoners and I’d rather err on the side of caution than have some stoner plough down a family because he got the munchies and decided to drive to his favourite fast food joint…

Pot stays in your system at least 30 days after last use, most others 3 to 4 days a week at most, prescription drugs vary. Impairment though from a speed bender could compromise you for days afterwards

Cymek said:

furious said:

Well from hearsay I believe that the drug most likely to stay in your system for days is pot, for most of the others, if it is detectable, it is still affecting you. And so, the majority of people being put out by these laws are stoners and I’d rather err on the side of caution than have some stoner plough down a family because he got the munchies and decided to drive to his favourite fast food joint…

Pot stays in your system at least 30 days after last use, most others 3 to 4 days a week at most, prescription drugs vary. Impairment though from a speed bender could compromise you for days afterwards

I would call my son a moderate pot smoker, he has passed drug tests within 48 hours of using.

I think it’s something to do with being stored in body fat. He would be lucky to carry 1 gram.

• I think it’s something to do with being stored in body fat. He would be lucky to carry 1 gram.

I remember a presentation where they said that is was stored by body fat and then after a period of time, even if the user doesn’t have any for a while, the levels in the blood increase again as it is released…

jjjust moi said:

Cymek said:

furious said:

Well from hearsay I believe that the drug most likely to stay in your system for days is pot, for most of the others, if it is detectable, it is still affecting you. And so, the majority of people being put out by these laws are stoners and I’d rather err on the side of caution than have some stoner plough down a family because he got the munchies and decided to drive to his favourite fast food joint…

Pot stays in your system at least 30 days after last use, most others 3 to 4 days a week at most, prescription drugs vary. Impairment though from a speed bender could compromise you for days afterwards

I would call my son a moderate pot smoker, he has passed drug tests within 48 hours of using.

I think it’s something to do with being stored in body fat. He would be lucky to carry 1 gram.

Yes

Cymek said:

jjjust moi said:

Cymek said:

Pot stays in your system at least 30 days after last use, most others 3 to 4 days a week at most, prescription drugs vary. Impairment though from a speed bender could compromise you for days afterwards

I would call my son a moderate pot smoker, he has passed drug tests within 48 hours of using.

I think it’s something to do with being stored in body fat. He would be lucky to carry 1 gram.

Yes

Ah well at least this will get fat people off the road.

furious said:

• I think it’s something to do with being stored in body fat. He would be lucky to carry 1 gram.

I remember a presentation where they said that is was stored by body fat and then after a period of time, even if the user doesn’t have any for a while, the levels in the blood increase again as it is released…

Drug Court in Perth gives you six weeks and if its still returned by tests you are considered to have reused

i’ve tried using LSD before but it just made me sleepy

• i’ve tried using LSD

Mystery solved!

dv said:

Without wanting to wade through all this I certainly support an evidence-based set of restrictions.

Which we do have in the case of all drugs bar traces of cannabis in the system.

There will be a new drug test for cannabis similar to the BAC roadside unit, due out before next year. This will test more accurately.

>Pot stays in your system at least 30 days after last use, most others 3 to 4 days a week at most, prescription drugs vary. Impairment though from a speed bender could compromise you for days afterwards

According to this pot is detectable in urine for 1 to 2 months or longer, amphetamines – Up to 2 days. (Chronic usage). This I am led to believe is one of the reasons for the relative increase in ice usage.

For saliva another site gives THC – 1 hour after use, Amphetamine 5 – 10 min after use.

Wodak – “One of the problems with ‘zero tolerance’ drug driving laws is that they punish some drivers who are not impaired as a way of deterring other drivers who might be impaired or might become impaired from driving. This is what we call ‘vicarious punishment’ and it offends basic notions of fairness.”

IME driving after moderate intake of cannabis (used to) affect my ability not a bit. Greater impairment is often down to distraction or tiredness.

It’s a fraught issue.

Cannabis does not effect my driving

If I’m tired, cannabis can add to that tiredness

in that case I would rest and not drive

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cannabis does not effect my driving

If I’m tired, cannabis can add to that tiredness

in that case I would rest and not drive

I have been a passenger in cars where the drivers were smoking grass. They became quite mellow but also very relaxed in basic driving skills like staying on their own side of the road. Cool, calm, relaxed and dangerous.

Cannabis does not effect my driving

so you’re a crap driver when straight as well?

ChrispenEvan said:

Cannabis does not effect my driving

so you’re a crap driver when straight as well?

People who live in grass castles shouldn’t light matches.

Tamb said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cannabis does not effect my driving

If I’m tired, cannabis can add to that tiredness

in that case I would rest and not drive

I have been a passenger in cars where the drivers were smoking grass. They became quite mellow but also very relaxed in basic driving skills like staying on their own side of the road. Cool, calm, relaxed and dangerous.

Im been a passenger with a driver who is a regular cannabis smoker (not while driving)

No problems at all, and I felt safe as a passenger

If been a passenger and witnessed a non smoker being distracted by a mobile phone and serving into the next lane

mobile phones and driving is dangerous

I wouldn’t smoke while driving

and most times I feel safe to drive

cannabis can increase tiredness leading to greater risk of micro sleeps if I’m tired

If I get any feelings of micro sleeps Ill pull over and rest

young drivers smoking weed for the first time and then driving would be dangerous

ChrispenEvan said:

Cannabis does not effect my driving

so you’re a crap driver when straight as well?

You can dispense with the pretentious observation

Im a good driver

Ive been driving for 35 years with no accidents

Ive done a defensive diving course

an exception being I hit a kangaroo just out of Gundaroo in bushland
on a bend with an oncoming truck in the other lane
no where to go in a 100KM zone I was doing 80 around the bend
squeezed the brakes, but still hit it, it died instantly, car still fully drivable

Cannabis does not effect my sensory perception like alcohol does

in fact my hearing and vision gets better, I also don’t get angry at other drivers if they fail to give way

It was 7.15 am in the morning

I wasn’t on Cannabis

IMO that road needs 50km speed signs around some of those bends

its the road that goes from Gundaroo to Murrumbateman

Murrumbateman RD

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cannabis does not effect my driving

so you’re a crap driver when straight as well?

You can dispense with the pretentious observation

Im a good driver

Ive been driving for 35 years with no accidents

Ive done a defensive diving course

an exception being I hit a kangaroo just out of Gundaroo in bushland

You’re Australian? I thought you were American, based on the way you write; I’ve never seen you use an Aussie term when there’s a roughly equivalent US one.

CrazyNeutrino said:

IMO that road needs 50km speed signs around some of those bends

its the road that goes from Gundaroo to Murrumbateman

Murrumbateman RD

I wonder how driver less vehicles could avoid hitting kangaroos on bends

im thinking radar or lasers to work out safe distance speed where roads are non visible around bends

Spiny Norman said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cannabis does not effect my driving

so you’re a crap driver when straight as well?

You can dispense with the pretentious observation

Im a good driver

Ive been driving for 35 years with no accidents

Ive done a defensive diving course

an exception being I hit a kangaroo just out of Gundaroo in bushland

You’re Australian? I thought you were American, based on the way you write; I’ve never seen you use an Aussie term when there’s a roughly equivalent US one.

I’m in Creswick, Victoria, Australia Mate.

I pop in to the local shops and get called love or darling, by women working there

CrazyNeutrino said:

I pop in to the local shops and get called love or darling, by women working there

That’s reassuring news.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Spiny Norman said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

You can dispense with the pretentious observation

Im a good driver

Ive been driving for 35 years with no accidents

Ive done a defensive diving course

an exception being I hit a kangaroo just out of Gundaroo in bushland

You’re Australian? I thought you were American, based on the way you write; I’ve never seen you use an Aussie term when there’s a roughly equivalent US one.

I’m in Creswick, Victoria, Australia Mate.

Well call me surprised.

Apparently some pandanas palms are edible.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I pop in to the local shops and get called love or darling, by women working there

What is your secret?

I’m a visual Artist working across different media, and a poet

Living in Creswick on the same block were the Lindsay’s used to live

Ian said:

Apparently some pandanas palms are edible.

Don’t think I would eat that. At least not until the bomb squad had checked it out.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m a visual Artist working across different media, and a poet

Living in Creswick on the same block were the Lindsay’s used to live

Lohan?

dv said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m a visual Artist working across different media, and a poet

Living in Creswick on the same block were the Lindsay’s used to live

Lohan?

Norman Lindsay’s Mum and Norman I guess when he was younger

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m a visual Artist working across different media, and a poet

Living in Creswick on the same block were the Lindsay’s used to live

Lohan?

Norman Lindsay’s Mum and Norman I guess when he was younger

They have a Commemorative plaque out on the Nature strip

CrazyNeutrino said:

They have a Commemorative plaque out on the Nature strip

So does Lohan

dv said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

They have a Commemorative plaque out on the Nature strip

So does Lohan

ok

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m a visual Artist working across different media, and a poet

So you’re unemployed & living off the dole

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m a visual Artist working across different media, and a poet

So you’re unemployed & living off the dole

Rofl

CN, do you do any erotic poetry?

dv said:

CN, do you do any erotic poetry?

He sells those at the ‘back alley’ markets

There once was a girl from Azores

who had a cat’s tail and paws,

ChrispenEvan said:

who had a cat’s tail and paws,

Stop picking on the cats.

that cat look mad.

dv said:

CN, do you do any erotic poetry?

Yes, Ill gig one up

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

CN, do you do any erotic poetry?

Yes, Ill gig one up

I don’t suppose roses are red and violets blue is erotic poetry then?

monkey skipper said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

CN, do you do any erotic poetry?

Yes, Ill gig one up

I don’t suppose roses are red and violets blue is erotic poetry then?

It is if your name is Violet…

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

CN, do you do any erotic poetry?

Yes, Ill gig one up

There was a young man from St. Paul’s

Who read “Harper’s Bazaar” and “McCall’s”

Till he grew such a passion For feminine fashion

That he knitted a snood for his balls.

Ian said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

CN, do you do any erotic poetry?

Yes, Ill gig one up

There was a young man from St. Paul’s

Who read “Harper’s Bazaar” and “McCall’s”

Till he grew such a passion For feminine fashion

That he knitted a snood for his balls.

There was a young man from Mont Heath,
Who pulled fore skins back with his teeth,
It was not for the spunk
that he did this great stunt,
But for the cheese underneath.