About these new drug tests

Just heard on the news, the first bloke who got done by a roadside drug bus reckons he was innocent.
I was wondering how long it would take.

The problem is they are supposed to be checking for recent (3 hours) drug use but this guy claimed to have smoked a month before and is still showing up positive. Either that or he is lying, who knows.

Now don't get me wrong, I support RBT and reluctantly support this new drug testing too but it's the thin of the wedge no matter how accurate or otherwise the proceedure may be.

Let's put aside the actual issue of taking drugs (or booze) and getting behind the wheel, I believe some drivers stoned off their brain are still heaps safer and more competent than a totally sober person who simply can't drive for shit. A factoid my friends and one which will never be stated on the evening news.

I see it every day as I spend a good 10-12 hours behind the wheel in some of the worst traffic imaginable. They just can't control a car or they have no confidence in themselves or their vehicles. Ever wonder why they take corners in a modern car at walking speed in case it tips over on them?

Bloody frustrating but hey, at least they won't get a ' speeding' fine and we all know that is the only thing that saves lives. But I digress.

Since we now live in a police state, it's easy to imagine what can come next from these newfound powers of stop and spittle.

If you get done for DUI (booze) it's a crim record, big deal. So many people of all walks of life have been done for drink drive it's now acceptable and life moves on. Nobody stopped employing B... N..... because he got caught. Nobody cares.

" DRINK DRIVING, ITS NOT BAD LUCK ITS A CRIME"

yes but it doesn't do much except stuff up your insurance.

Now, getting caught for DUI (drugz) will also incur a fine, some points and a mark on your driving record.
What happens when a person is required to produce their licence record for a driving job?
Having heaps of traffic offences is bad enough (my driving record is only available on CD, too many pages) but if a drug driving offence shows up it will instantly flag you as a drug user to the prospective employer.

" NEXT APPLICANT PLEEZE"

Now if employers can ask for this document on the pretext of maybe letting you drive a company car once in a while, it all starts to turn ugly.
We are then in the same situation as the USSA with drug testing for a job.

They look at your driving record, see a DUI offence and if it's the socially unacceptable DUI (drugs) then they have the perfect reason to pass you over on the basis that you are a drug user.

All because you enjoy a puff and got detected with it on your tongue during an undignified roadside medical proceedure.

Same for speed users, sure it's illegal but if it keeps a truckie awake and on the road (instead of running off and causing carnage) than so be it.

I haven't even touched on the DNA implications of all this, scary times ahead I feel.

For the record I have driven in various states of sobriety and have been a professional driver all my working life so I think I may be close to understanding the subject.

All too depressing, I'm off to pack the teapot with some Tetleys.....

i must be getting old, cant fart without a permit and a catalitic converter now. police state was passed years ago. just waiting for the id tatoo/implant, it cant be too far away.

yep. it concerns me that their mullometer aint up to scratch and may mistake my 20 year body fat reserves as a scoob in the past 3 hours.

i concur in there is bigger safe driving issue argument too. overall drink/drug driving dont worry me too much now as i've moved closer to town and i can ride my motorbike home on the cycleway without touching the road.

oh yea, and when i'm in the beetle, everyone already thinks i'm stoned and drives around me on that basis.

He had a blood test at the hospital apparently and was clear of drugs. The police recognize that the test is not perfect and not reliable...and would also not stand up in court. The media are to blame for blowing it all out of proportion. It is only a TRIAL.

It's true, media love a beatup.

It might be a trial for now, but will soon be permanent.
RBT started as a trial.
So did speed cameras.
And double points

and.......

Sorry Sax,

if its against the law it wrong. I work with guys who have had three DUIs.
I don't think its acceptable to keep them employed where I work, the system I work in may, but I don't.
Stoned off their brains and driving??? thats two times they broke the law. Drinking and driving, thats once too much.
Both times, once too many.

I have drug and alcohol testing at work, why because we do. I have no problems with it, if you turn up drunk, I don't want you anywhere near my kit, turn up stoned, get out as well.

I agree, a lot of folk who have licences shouldn't be let near either a road, or a motor vehicle of any type.

I guess I can see where you are looking at it from, and I guess you know a few people who aren't here anymore as well. A mate was three weeks in ICu because some person decided top talk on the way home, while driving, and was 0.17. She had the nerve to complain a few days later to the media that 'what was a bicycle doing on the road at 630am????'. A mat elost his wife to someone who claimed to have a preexisting condition wher they coughed so much they lost control... what were they doing with a licence in the first place if they had a condition like that???

I agree that the testing should be proper, and I don't think they have it right, yet!.
But regardless, you shouldn't be near a vehicle if you have smoked or drunk. And I do think that it should follow people for at least a while. How else do you make ppl accountable for their actions??


I'll step off my soap box now (and yes, its the only way ppl would see me anyways :P)

...and sax'x avatar..... haha

Sax, as a company owner I have been burnt by a drug user whom I supplied with OVER $1000.oo worth of work a week, he gave an assurance (when first employed) that he was "clean", but the truth came out after a month, when he was unable to find $150.oo per week to pay lease on the vehicle, he was unable to maintain it or pay for his fuel either...
He was quite happy to take his Thousand + per week, but that was all for his arm/nose, whatvever..
During his time of employment he blew up a truck motor and an 8 thousand pound whinch motor...
The lesson, "If I had know he was using, before I employed him, I wouldn't have done so" and would have Saved myself several thousand dollars into the bargain...

If truckies can't stay awake for the run, Stop & Sleep..!!!
I drive 7 days a week Without Chemicals..
Perhaps this drug testing will bring about MUCH needed changes in the industry... They did after all, Target a Major Truck route for their first attempt...

Many people are Totally Hopeless "Sober" drivers, if they weren't I'd be out of a job, however, My job has seen me spend Many Hours standing by the roadside waiting for the Fire Brigade to cut the Lifeless corpse out of the reminants of a car being driven by someone that thought they were good at driving drunk, stoned or otherwise... Before driving a tow truck, I worked for the Coroners Office and I had to scoop up the bits and take them to the Morgue... I can Guarantee you, it's not safe to drive while pissed, stoned, wasted or bent... If it were, they wouldn't try to stop people doing it...

Here's One that thought it Was...( I have many more), and see At LEAST one a week....



[Edited on 15-12-2004 by WABaja]

I second Penguin's opinion.

One of our boys got done last week for DUI (alcohol), and he had the nerve to get on his soap box 8hrs prior to his offence about how much he loves his kid and would kill anyone that hurt them while under the influence.

If your going to drink/smoke/inject/snort then walk or save some money and catch a cab.

We don't need to see more of the site like WABaja showed us.
Lee.

I agree with everyone on this, including Sax. I don't think Sax is condoning inebriated driving, but merely pointing out that a bad driver is often worse than a good marginally pissed driver... I think that a person shouldn't be left to their own devices to decide whether they are to drunk/stoned to drive as they wouldn't have any idea, so there has to be a limitand law of some sort, but the limit is too much for some and not enough for others. I often feel too drunk to drive after 2 beers if I'm tired, so I wait till I feel better. Sometimes I feel pissed and I'm just tired and drive home anyway. i was falling asleep driving home from Valla this year and almost went off the road (no alcohol) so I pulled over and slept for 4 hours. I've never left the road with alcohol in my system before, only when I'm tired. Lots of things kill in accidents. Speeding doesn't kill, it's the sudden stop that usually does it. Read this great post: http://www.aussieveedubbers.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17259#pid125903
Driving safely was all covered here.

Yeah

sorry Sax, didn't mean my reply as a disagreement with your post.

As I said, I think a lot of people shouldn't be allowed near a car. I like some of the things that they reckon they may introduce for younger drivers, but then I hear QLD is lowering the age to 16 to get a licence?? :duh......

Too may people think that driving is a right (along with a bunch of other things as well). Its not! Its a privilege, one that many people abuse.
Yes I don't like it when the police target me for anything (fortunately that hasn't happened for a long time), but I see it as a way of making sure I know what I am doing and that I am doing it safely.

The issue here is whether a person has full control of their actions.Any substance that interferes with the normal function of the brain to transmit or decypher messages has to be an impediment to driving,or anyother action that we require of our body.Most of us like a drink or a smoke or whatever and thats great It makes us feel good,but we need more than just feelin good or confidence or driving slower to make it safe.To introduce an impaired driver to a traffic environment allready full of idiots is just stupid.
That said the powers that be must make sure that this is a road safety issue and not a witchhunt for people who use substances outside what is acceptable to the law.Whether or not a certain illegal drug is anyworse for a person than a legal one is an old debate and , I think , has been shown to be more a political or moral issue than a health issue.The fact that something is illegal does not nessecarily make it "bad", just wrong in the eyes of some people.
Don't drive while impared by anything:piss ,dope ,sleep ,the missus . the kids ,anything ! Its not fair to anybody.
"Every Australian lives in a different Australia"- we all have different opinions- this is mine.
cheers
:party

Agree Muz,
btw, I am not saying in my post that 16yr olds are dangerous. Just that I find it interesting that they preach about the dangers to young people, then make the age lower.


last post from me on this anyways.
MERRY CHRISTMAS ALL 🙂:tree

[Edited on 15-12-2004 by penguin]

not all people are effected the same way and hense can still operate ok, or cant operate so well and stack it. I have driven while in a right whacky state and will never do so again (i hope!) coz i lack concentration over a distance and my reaction time was terrible, another time i only had a few beers, too many yes, but could still drive fine but shouldnt have.

this is gonna be another never ending argument like the 500Hp 1916 engine post !

different tokes for different folks, we aint all the same and all..............blah blah 1916 is much superior...........blah blah ..............500Hp on the wheels.................pills make driving fun ...........blah blah..............

great, i can just see all the cops lining up outside any rave or doof and busting anyone they can. arent they going to have a very profitable saturday night/sunday morning from now on...

sure; my friends my self and even my neighbours dog had pills or whatever...6 hours ago, i daresay its going to show up. if i think someone is too fucked to drive, or too tired to drive, then i dont let them drive. simple as that. people get the hint when their friends refuse to get in the car with them.
ampehtamines and such party favours stay in trace amounts in your bloodstream for about 3 days... imagine getting accused of being high as a kite 3 days after the fact?

and how about this... you get home after a long days work, have a toke, eat some dinner and go to sleep. the next morning a cop pulls you over and tests you and all of a sudden you have a big problem on your hands just because you prefer a particular method of relaxation over another when you finish work of an evening.

I know that its a measure that police are using to keep the idiots that are too high to drive off the roads, and trumps to them because alot (not all) people cant drive well when they are straight let alone when they are high, but this test is flawed. personally i have never been stoned or buzzing 3 days after the fact, and im sure most of you havent either, but according to this new test you are, and that is what makes it VERY flawed.

i think this is more an invasion of privacy, and could no doubt turn out to be a witch hunt depending on *where, when and to whom* police choose to enforce these tests

also... about sax's point that if you are caught dui (drugs) and you get it on your driving record... well thats just discriminatory isnt it? if you get caught dui 10 years beforehand and you go looking for a new job, they are instantly going to think you still use drugs, even if you have become a straightlaced, god fearing new age evangelist who goes to church to atone for their sins every morning.

people change, but their records dont, and so i think its going to turn out to be a witch hunt.

Sorry, but I can't help remembering the unregistered, uninsured, doped up truckie that ploughed through the traffic on Mooney Mooney Bridge last month......

Squiz....

It's about bloody time. I'm all for it. I can still rember the stupid shit I did as a kid in a car off my head.

A change for the better I recon.

all my extended family is fucked on drugs. i've never once touched anything illicit out of fear and promises. whilst im not a user i dont preach anti drug messages to all i meet, but i do prefer people who dont use... as far as the law is concerned, these drugs they are testing for are every bit illegal, even though you may only think it is because they cant control the supply, tax the sale etc, its mainly because people get fucked up.

as far as im concerned, if you get caught with drugs in your system then tough shit. if you want to run the gauntlet and do something illegal then be prepared to play ball with the law when they suit up and pull out the big guns. sure raves wont be as fun without the drugs but how many lives does it save? maybe you may thank the law for stoppin you from becoming a brain dead vegetable some time down the track?

mmmmmmm well iam in two minds about this.

I think it is on the rite track, yes it is a drug and if it effects ur driving, they should test for it, but mabye the way about this is all wrong.

I mean different ppl react differently, take grog for instance, one person may be able to drink, and then drive safely while another can drink the same amount and not be safe at all. Teh saem could said of drugs and other substances including legal drugs. In terms of starbuggies responce about getting caught the next day, after really big nights on the piss, i know iam probably still over the limit, so therefore put driving off until the arvo (i once got the cops to RBT me at 10am after a news year eve, when i was a passenger and would have been done big time if i was driving). its the same for drugs, if your going to use the night before, and don't want to risk of being caught, dont use it, or don't drive.

another way to look at is through simple reaction tests or similar. eg, instead of having booze buses and drug buses, mabye a simple 30sec test of reaction, awareness, and sense would be advisable, eg a persons ability to perform the basic of driving either inhibited or not is tested?

[Edited on 16-12-2004 by BiX]

man they gotta apply the rules to the masses so they use the minimum criteria. ie- no drugs, less then 0.05 alcohol in your breath... its easier, cheaper and faster that way then setting individual tests for every dude they pull over... it wont change...

jsut feel for us splitty drivers.... it is already assumed that we are smoking hippies, as the car suggests, even though its b4 my time... bet now im gonna get pulled over even more than b4.😠 if it aint for a look, its to qiz, blow, and now prob.:o

It's very simple........

Dope, Speed, ecstasy etc are all illegal drugs.

So if you're Stupid enough to use them and get Caught, SUCK SHIT.


:cry


I cant wait until all these Low Life's get BUSTED.

bone collecter said it as i would have said it.

In my opinion it is easy. I drink now and don't drive when I have been drinking = I am not committing DUI and cannot be caught.

If you use drugs do not drive = cannot get caught DUI

Yes there are shit drivers and they can be worse than some people just over the limit .05 alcohol, but when a shit driver gets alcohol or drug affected then you intensify the danger. Yeah?

record straight... i have never driven on drugs, or even coming down from them, and i havent been in a car with anyone who has, thats my personal choice. i do have friends that do, but i trust their judgement and driving and they usually have a sober person in with them for any trip longer than across town.

anyone who calls a person that uses/dabbles in the use of illegal drugs a low life, needs to get their thinking straight and stop being so reactionary. just because a drug is legal doesnt mean it makes the user of it any less of a low life than someone who occasionally pops a pill or has a toke. irresponsible use of ANY substance, be it government endorsed or not, is what makes a person a complete idiot... so choose your words carefully.

and a question... would anyone get in the car with a driver who has been up for a few days on caffeine? (dont forget, caffiene is a mind altering substance, a VERY mind altering substance...) would you get behind the wheel if you had been awake for more than a day on caffeine? i sure as hell would not... how dangerous is that???!!!

i support what bix has said, a simple reaction/sense test would take just as little time and would make more sense. But of course, this topic has such a huge grey area that no one method is more right than the other. first step, make a license harder to get and you will weed out the good drivers from the crap ones... it should all start from there, the beginning.

thats my $0.05. its up to you to make what you will of it.

twoguns wrote:jsut feel for us splitty drivers.... it is already assumed that we are smoking hippies, as the car suggests, even though its b4 my time... bet now im gonna get pulled over even more than b4.😠 if it aint for a look, its to qiz, blow, and now prob.:o

ROFL...!!!!!!

Just make sure you never pick up a bunch of Hitch Hiking Rastafarians or we'll have to pass around the hat to bail you out of the lock up...!!! LOL...😀

Why don't they test for Zyrtec or other over the counter medication that people regularly drive after taking?

Some of these medications make people so drowsy they fall asleep at the wheel of become as slow reacting and dumb arse potheads.

These tests have nothing to do with safety or reducing the number of people driving under the influence but once again are all about raising revenue in the easiest ways possible.

The best way to reduce stupidity on the roads is lots of regular marked cops driving around. Do you see dumb shit happening when you see a cop car every couple of minutes? Do you see pissheads or stoners driving around when there are coppers driving around the neighbourhood regularly?

NO YOU DONT!

What reduces speeding better - coppers cruising or slow for 50 meters to avoid the camera?

Testing, cameras etc make money but don't reduce the amount of people being dickheads. Coppers driving costs money but reduces the number of people being dickheads.

Now where are the priorities?

Starbuggy wrote:anyone who calls a person that uses/dabbles in the use of illegal drugs a low life, needs to get their thinking straight and stop being so reactionary. just because a drug is legal doesnt mean it makes the user of it any less of a low life than someone who occasionally pops a pill or has a toke. irresponsible use of ANY substance, be it government endorsed or not, is what makes a person a complete idiot... so choose your words carefully.

If someone is driving a Car around under the influence of Drugs and putting peoples life in peril, then in my book they are LOW LIFE'S... once more in case you can't understand it.
LOW LIFE'S

Kombidog, you would see a lot of that sort of carnage up your way. Let's see what the bodycount is this holiday season after all the 'safety measures' and other bandaid road management solutions.

I guess they are just substituting common sense and education with lucrative and inefective legislation in order to be seen to be doing something.

What is really disturbing to me is not the random testing of drivers for drugs, itself a good idea obviously. No, what is sad is that it started in Australia. The free country is not so free anymore and we are once again leading the world in loss of personal freedoms, privacy and dignity.

The term Un-Australian gets bandied around a bit but I think it applies here. I mean, if other advanced countries can tackle their road problems without endless legislation and nanny state type policing, then why can't we?

To the employers among us here who love the idea of exposing somebody who takes drugs, I ask you, what if you have users in your employ who work well and you don't know they have a few recreationals?

What you don't know won't hurt you huh?

I mean, it's possible that some of the best people in your business are pot smokers....terrible thought, it's illegal that stuff (apparently). But do you sack them if you find out or do nothing if their work is good and it really makes no difference?
Sure, some drivers can't handle a car or truck after a toke or stay cool and rational after a line or 4 but what about the driver who is actually a better, more corteous, more careful or paranoid driver after a smoke? If it slows the vehicle down (possibly at the expense of reaction times) then that is a factor. If you run a fleet of trucks, do you want stressed out or tired operators destroying vehicles and pushing hard or a more gentle approach?

There are many variables and side issues involved in this discussion and as usual much of the common sense will be buried by bullshit and misinformation.

Me, I'm just glad to have started a decent sized thread!

Flyingvw... im not disagreeing with you that ANYONE driving under the influence of anything is an idiot, but i took your first statement as anyone in general, not specifically behind the wheel. sorry if i misconstrued your post.

if i didnt, then thats another thing that isnt for the forums.

hotrodmatt, a friend of mine drove his sandman van after taking a demazin, he wrote it off after falling asleep at the wheel. he thought that because he didnt feel sleepy an hour after he took it that he was ok to drive.
drugs like these should technically also be tested for, but of course they wont be as they are prescription drugs. I get hayfever and alergies alot, but i put up with them because i dont want to compromise my driving.
others obviously dont care as much and fall asleep at the wheel.

sax! what a discussion you have started... topics like this arent so black and white 🙂

Mmmm , basically it's just the same as driving drunk. If it's your thing to have a chuff at a party or barby get someone else to drive home OR ask to stay over and get totally toasted!

Dan:P

Would you drive with a Blood alcohol level of 0.04???? Does the limit (0.05) therefore make it OK to drive with a blood alcohol reading of 0.04 when you feel pissed off your skull because you haven't eaten all day, or had 2 hrs sleep the night before, or just can't drink much? Well the law is irrelevant, and you can show me as many pictures as you like of cars wrapped around trees. What matters is whether YOU are intoxicated, and often some people at 0.03 feel very pissed, and some other people at 0.05 don't feel anything. I don't think the testing is all bad as there has to be some limit set for convenience, but perhaps the limit should be 0.00, or .08 like it used to be. Who knows?? It's still up to you to decide if you can drive safely especially when you're below the limit.
In case you're wondering, I hardly drink, and never drive intoxicated, and I've never even tried any drugs once, but most of the time I'm smart enough to not drive if I'm tired, or if I've had one beer and feel a bit reckless.

Oasis, well said.

It's the same as speed limits, the lowest common denominator principle applies. Lets govern everyone to buggery because of the stupid few.

Just because a sign on the side of the road with a number is the final word and anybody going faster than that will be booked.

No ifs buts or maybes, you were ' breaking the law' and must be punished.

I mean, we all know we will instantly die if we do 140 on a empty freeway posted at 110.

so what is the answer,
get every one together give them a drug of choice ,lets say one beer let them drive around in a controlled environment if they are ok give them another then another untill they start to get alittle dangerous then minus one or 2 beers of there limit ,there you go mate you passed at 7 beers here is your license.

No that's too hard, just go around the block at walking speed, do a reverse park and answer a few questions.
There ya go, you passed.

After all, it's in the gumbiment's best interests to have people on the road at any cost, best cash cow ever.

Well NOW you've opened a can of worms KombiDog... The way I see it is all of these laws are a way of taking our own personal responsibility away, i.e. the responsibility we accept for ourselves and those in the society we live in. The law tells us that we can go 60kph so we do, regardless of whether we should go that fast or not. The only thing that will slow us down is our own fear of hitting something, or a fine, or the fear of the police. I decided to drive responsibly when I was driving home drunk from my after school piss up in my Toyota corolla with bald tyres and 5 people in the car, and I swerved across the road into the path of a Porsche 911. I missed him by 1cm, and then realised the consequences of what I was doing. I was stupid, but I haven't done it since, and still remember all the details vividly, and learnt a lesson. We have to live with the laws we have, but more importantly we have to live with our sense of responsibility and the consequences of our actions when we are irresponsible. Living by the one law, "Act Responsibly" makes all the other laws irrelevant. If you drive at 140kph on a freeway when there are no other cars and the BMW or Merc you are driving safely does 250kph in Germany on an autobahn, then you may just be driving responsibly. If you do 110 on the same freeway in peak hour 2 metres from the car in front in your swing axle beetle in a cross wind, then you are an irresponsible idiot. Unfortunately it's the only rule that will save lives, and the planet, and society as a whole.
Have you noticed that our world legislates everything? That is because people have absconded their responsibility for their actions. I have public liability insurance because if someone trips over my equipment they will sue ME. WHAT!!? Shouldn't I sue them for damaging my gear? It's easier for them to sue me and win because the law doesn't assume that people take responsibility for their actions. Life is getting too hard because we can't go 10 metres down the road without seeing five signs that tell us to do, or not do something. Imagine a street with NO signs, Just trees. Think about it next time you drive. It's disgusting and wreaks of big brother constantly pointing a finger at us, or a camera constantly watching and waiting for us to fall so the govt can mail us a bill. This place has become a disgusting place to be in too many ways.

I think it is very simple.... don't complicate a simple matter.. kombidog goes and picks up these messes every day and sees first hand what this does to familys.

All i can gather from people here is that there shouldn't be any law about drink/drug driving???? keep it simple fellas.

Driving home pissed is irresponsible and I have done it before but now if I am going to have a big one, I get a friend to drive (It is called growing up and becoming responsible). The speed limits on our roads are usually ignored unless there is a Camera or a Copper in the vicinity. As for drug tests, they are here whether we want them or not, it is clothed in spin about keeping our raods safe but does it really do anything? I think not, it gets maybe one or two drug Fu**ed individuals but the rest keep on going.

Driving around now is all about being paranoid about speed limits, watching the speedo instead of the road, avoiding the twit in front of you who has stopped in the middle of the main road for no reason at all, waiting for soem nong to pull out of a side street or servo in front of a line of speeding traffic. The worst place to drive is around schools, the kids who run out onto the roads, the mums who park across intersections, block a line of traffic to let their kid out of the car all because they are too lazy to park the car and walk the kid into school. Even better is to watch these same drivers in a parking lot of any Mall, they drive with tunnel vision, narrowly miss the parked vehicles around them, take 5 goes to park their big 4wd in two parking spots.

These drivers aren't drug affected, they aren't drunk......they are just drivers who cant control the vehicle they are in. I wont go on about the Asian drivers in fancy Mercedes, Jap sports cars, BMW's etc.. who can drive in 3 lanes similtaneously.......dont believe me.....drive around Eastwood or Chatswood.........it is truly a terrifying place to drive....

It wont be long before the Government forces us to have a tracking unit mounted in each of our cars, so as to Govern our speed, how long we have driven without a break and monitor on the steering wheel to test if we are drug or alcohol affected before we drive. This is big brother, welcome to Australia, a land of freedoms............no free thought anymore, we are told how and what to think by the Government... Sprouting off about getting drunks and drug affected drivers off our road is in theory a good idea, but to do this the current way would involve immense loss of personal freedoms. Nobody likes being told what to do, yet we take it lying down from the Government.......Time to wake up and do somethign about it whilst we still can!!!!

No More of NSW, the Police State....were you pay for the privilege of being told what to do!

All i can gather from people here is that there shouldn't be any law about drink/drug driving???? keep it simple fellas.

Just hit account type and put in your pin thanks sir.

it would be hard to a job like the job that kombidog does i really dont know how you do it,
i work with people that go straight from work to the pub stay there a few hours fill them selfs up drive home and think its ok because another guy was more pissed when he drove home , they all panic when the cops come around ????????? so why not find a local closer to home and walk or get a cab i say , the answer is they dont have titty girls at those places, so for a selfish drunken pervert with no mates unless its his shout which a few have allready been done dui they wont stop untill it gets ugly in there family or closer to home because it always hurts the innocent

If only we could test all our politicians, and fine them too....

Its called the 'high end' of town for a reason.


Make all the drugs legal.


Improve public transport.


Improve education on responsible use of all drugs.


Take everyone for a cruise in a kombi.


kkk

And put some Neil Young on the 8 track as you head north with a honey by your side and a well running 2 litre:kiss

Its a shame the poeple that make these rules (politicians) get pissed every lunch time while in parliment but thats ok cause we live in a alcohol society.

Its ok to go to the pub every night and get pissed then go home and beat up the misses, but don't go having a toke on a joint or you will be made a criminal.

They first payed the early settlers with Brandy, I guess we have not moved on too far from ther.

they don't charge people for taking a toke..... . you might get a slap on the wrist if your unlucky..... this is about people driving when high.

They also should test for stress levels.. i know i have been driving when i was really pissed off then woke up in the car really dizzy.... work that out!!

dude!

dude

neil young! now we are talkin momma... yeeeeaahhhh... i do however disagree with koolkarmakombi's 'make all the drugs legal' line though....
its like giving someone a gun and telling them never to use it! "oh here are some hard core drugs to go get fucked on but dont drive... and being responible and educated as you are 'supposed' to be im sure you wont get behind the wheel and run over momma dirt crossin the road cos the cops will know, you know....???"

So let me get this straight. Not trying to take the pi** out of anyones arguement but from what I read there seems to be almost two camps on this.
First is one side who feel that driving either drunk or stoned is either okay or should be condoned because they have either done it themselves or that the legal limit is to low because they have drunk over the limit and know what they are capable of. That the laws that are in place are either irrelevant or overlegislated to govern the few not all of society.

Then the others say that driving drunk or stoned is wrong, and should never be done.

For the first group, why do you think that there are laws? could it be because society wants or needs them to function? otherwise how would things operate, such as schools, road repairs etc? user pays? but why pay if there are no laws.
Lowest common denominator? why not because it has to be assumed that we are all equal, otherwise there is truely a case for discriminatory action.
For those who think that they can drive when either over .05 or stoned etc. How do you know this? is it because you made it home without killing/injuring anyone? or have you subjected yourself to medical testing where your reflexes, vision and cognitive functions have been analysed and determined to be unique in society and unimpaired by any influence?
I seriously doubt it is the second as your name and face would be in scientific journals and you would be capable of earning massive dollars in medical research. So I am guessing it is the second, and you know what. I bet you were affected by whatever it was, far more than you realise and it was pure luck that you are still alive, unharmed and that no-one else was hurt in the process.
For anyone who thinks that we are over legislated, yes I agree we may be, but until society decides that it is wrong and things all the way from fraudulant unemployment and other pension claims to reckelss endangerment, murders, muggings, theft etc are eliminated from the human psyche, I am glad we have the laws we do. Ever seen what happens when the laws get removed? particulalry if guns are available (and sometimes just knives or bare hands?). Makes me exceptionally glad that I live in Australia.
For anyone who thinks that there are too many laws, or that big brother is here. Crap, try going somewhere that doesn't have them and I bet you are screaming for help the first time someone points a gun at you, drives past and hits you or steals your wallet/purse.
As I said before, the drug tests are here, they may not work properly, but unless you (the Victorians, not anyone in Sydney,brisbane or elsewhere) vote to get rid of them, they are here to stay.
Do you really think that the cost of the testing versus the number of people that will be caught is evenue raising?
if you do can I have a job, of course, I'll just turn up to work drunk and drive your car about. You have no problems with that do you??

Yes people break laws all the time. I probably drove at 105kmph this morning. yes I know that was wrong, but even the police would probably not book me for doing that. If I serioulsy broke the limit, then I deserve whatever comes my way. Get real people!
Unless you can bet your life (and I mean really your life) and those of everyone on the road with you, their families and the people who have to scrape your bloody intestines off the roadway afterwards (reckon they don't have memories? bet they do and that they have better nightmares than the rest of us).
Don't do it!
Its illegal to do drugs. Fullstop, end of discussion, if not please point out the law that says you can?
Illegal to drive drunk, yes I know alcohol can be interpreted to be a drug of choice, but its legal at the moment just as cigarettes are. (another 'free' choice that is inflicted on everyone regardless of inhaling or not)


[Edited on 20-12-2004 by penguin]

[Edited on 20-12-2004 by penguin]

The Law is an Ass!!

I am tired of being over governed, told how to behave or I'll be fined, lose my privleges and get sent to my room and not given dinner! Yes there are laws there, people will always break the laws, no matter how stringently they are policed. Everything we do can be viewed two ways, It is you who is responsible for your own actions, not the Government. It is we who have to grow up and take responsibility for our behaviour, realise that what we do is visible to many young impressionable minds. Watch what your kids say and do if you need a reminder....

I dont do drugs, I will have a drink, I smoke and I have been known to exceed the speed limit by large amounts. Whose is the one responsible for my driving like one "whoosh car boys....no one else's other than my own..

wish i could only see in black & white...

things would be much simpler then...

Tunnel Vision, Black and white would make nice and simple...

where's the accountability?? this is so wrong.

Police won't apologise to innocent drug test driver
December 22, 2004 - 12:10PM

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
A driver picked up under ground-breaking roadside drug testing in Melbourne last week is demanding an apology after police tests today confirmed his innocence.

John De Jong, of Ballarat, was said to have tested positive to amphetamines and cannabis when he was pulled over in his work van last week.

Mr De Jong maintained his innocence and said he had last smoked cannabis four weeks before he was tested.

He had his blood sample tested at an independent laboratory, with the results showing no traces of drugs.

Today, Victoria Police told Mr De Jong their own tests had confirmed he was innocent.

Victoria Police vowed to continue the program and are not offering Mr De Jong an apology for the stress his family has endured.

Mr De Jong today said he was shocked the police were refusing to say sorry.

"They put me in front of the media from the word go, and said I had tested positive to amphetamines and cannabis," he said.

"Their tests and my tests show that not to be true and they are not even willing to apologise - I just think that is wrong."

Advertisement
AdvertisementMr De Jong's wife Kay said the family had been aware of people in Ballarat talking about them, and said her husband deserved an apology.

Their 13-year-old daughter Belinda broke down as she told of the pressure on the family.

"We are very relieved that all this has come out now, that everyone should know now that my dad is an innocent person," Belinda said.

"It has been very hard on us all."

Mr De Jong said he was considering legal action against police.

AAP



[Edited on 22-12-2004 by helterskelter400]

i just think that there needs to be some type of closure on the actual time after smoking that you are able to legally drive (ie: test negative). i know it is an illegal drug and therefore there should be no reason to provide such information, but some choose to use it, and some do use it legally (eg: prescribed for cancer sufferers).
what if you go into a room full of smoke and breathe some in, thats not you're fault but you could test positive when driving later...

To test positive you have to be in the room for a bloody long time, and the smoke has to be damn thick.
Yes its black and white to me on this.

Want to come to my work and see what would happens if someone does drugs? Bet you wouldn't even try it.

For both Freddie and helter, you don't like it, Stiff. Where I work has a no tolerance policy, and thats fine.

I don't care if you think its cool or crap like that.

Guess he's lucky that THC only stays in the bodies fat for a few days if you use it a bit. It 'fades' after a few days depending on intensity of either the product or the usage. But as it is a narcotic, if you have it on prescription, you shouldn't be driving.

I agree that the Vic Police shouldn't apologise, they didn't say he was definitely positive, the press did.They merely stated that he had returned a result and that tests wrere being carried out.

Typical Victorian pleece, shoot first then ask questions.

It's not black and white, never is.

But it's easier to dumb down the populace and treat them as sheeple that way.

I'd never work anywhere that demands silly and invasive personal tests like that. No need to put up with that shit just yet.

How is it not black and white.

Are drugs legal? I mean marijuana and such, not perscription dealt medicals.

yes or no?

Can you drive or operate a car/machinery when you have taken drugs? Yes or no? (I mean legally, not physically)

where is the grey?

There is none.

Quit trying to say that the Govt coming down on all of us, or that we are over governed. Go somewhere overseas where there is no where near the 'civil rights' you have here. Bet the first thing you do is scream that the Govt didn't so enough to help you.
F off. take acount of your own actions.

[Edited on 22-12-2004 by penguin]

I am with penguin on this one, I have been reading this from the start and only bothered to reply now.

Fact, In a previous job I saw the effects drink and drugs (legal and illegal) have on drivers.
When you have attended an accident and you see children dead in a vehicle that was hit by a person so stoned out of their brains they didnt even know they had been involved in a motor vehicle accident, then comment on the acceptability of drugs or drink.

Fact, We vote for politicians, they make the laws(I know I am simplifying it), these laws are there for a purpose, if we chose to break the law we should accept the penalty.

I cant belive the amount of times I have heard "I didnt think I would get caught" or " I thought I was O.K. to drive", or " I have been drinking the same amount every Friday and never had an accident before".

Fact It is against the law, so dont do it.

In my opinion, the more people that get caught and fined or lose their driving privalage the better, that way others will see that it is not acceptable.

My opinion and if you dont agree I dont care.

Cheers
Dave

Excellent thread. Unfortunately, we still choose to live here, so we must abide by the rules, or face the consequenses.

I think most people would think twice if it came down to imbibing a drug vs crashing and injuring/killing someone else/themselves. Unfortunately there are no crystal balls.

Prevention better than cure?

Only a trial in Vic, coming to NSW and QLD in the next few months.

Why would you want to drive your VW while influenced by drugs? Its great enough as it is, no?!

Mr De Jong said he was considering legal action against police.

I hope he sues the pigs....

Its replies like this that show how STUPID some people are.
Fact, he admited taking the drugs but 4 weeks before he got tested.
Fact, he still broke the law.

So they messed up with the test.

FACT, he still broke the law.
How many times do you want me to type it???

Grow up.

And we wonder why some vw people give the others a bad name.

Cheers
Dave

I deleted what I had written. obviously there are some who believe one thing, and some who believe somethign else. there is little I can say to convince people of my side of the arguement, and nothing that others could do to change my opinion on this.
Good luck with your lifestyles.

[Edited on 22-12-2004 by penguin]

my 2 cents.

I have no trouble checking the speed limit. It takes half a second to read the sings. big deal.

Fact is that alot of people arent responsible enough to drive safley. All the graphic TAC comercials in the world wont get through to them. The only thing that will stop them is the threat of them getting a fine. I lost one of my best mates at the end of year 12, speeding. My best mates little brother just lost two of his best mates this week, speeding and drink diving. Three of my mates should be dead, one of them fell asleep after a big night and rolled his hi lux 5 times, the other drove home from the pub and wrapped his car around a pole, the others car got totaled when he got colected by a speeding firetruck which was going too fast through a red light (they are allowed to go through but not at 80 ks)

none of this would have happend if people slowed down, got a taxi, or had a nap. Common sense. I take the occasional drug, but when I do its at my own risk (I know what im doing). As soon as you hop in the car, your putting everyone else at risk.

The roads are a public place, when I drive on them, I should have a right to know that the bloke heading towards me on the other side of the road is sober, not tired, and will be able to react quick enough if something goes wrong.

They puit a speed camera up our street (not a busy one) and everyone kicked up a huge stink. Fact is, at least my mum was safe for that week. Our driveway is just after a steep crest and its hard enough to know when its safe to pull out when people are doing 50 let alone the irrisponsible, immature clowns that fly down at 100. I've got mates that fly down here and I hate it. Me saying "if my mums pulling out of the driveway you will most certainly kill her" is not enough to get through, the only time they eve slow down is if they know the pigs are out collecting revenue. Its the sad truth. And yes occasionaly blokes are getting fined for being 5 ks over when they are usualy good drivers but what else you gonna do? small price to pay when ives are at steak. You've got to draw the line somewhere.