Roadside Drug Testing to be Introduced

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Roadside Drug Testing to be Introduced

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2378987 20-Dec-2019 08:55

richms:

tdgeek:

Given the time it takes to pass laws, the various readings etc, you would expect that the reliability etc will get refined

Given the kneejerk poorly thought out laws this govt passes, I expect that it will be rushed and a bad law.

Lets accept that drug driving is ok then. Or they might pass a law so that police can chase after cyclists to fine them, thats a good law

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2378993 20-Dec-2019 09:04

tdgeek:

If we disagree with this law, we need to roll back that drink driving is not acceptable.

That's ridiculous. There's a strong correlation between blood alcohol levels and impairment, there's a strong correlation between breath alcohol levels and blood alcohol levels, and there's a margin in place so that false positives shouldn't happen from simple roadside screening.

The saliva tests for drugs don't even come close, and apart from inaccuracy and gaping holes, all the correlations are much weaker, yet what's proposed is more draconian than for alcohol screening. You're at risk of being seriously penalised by a quick-screening method that isn't accurate, and that's being put in place to "solve an assumed problem" where correlations with actual risk are relatively weak (compared with alcohol). An impairment test of some kind as primary screening method should be used IMO.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2378996 20-Dec-2019 09:05

tdgeek:

Lets accept that drug driving is ok then.

That's a very stupid comment.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2379000 20-Dec-2019 09:07

Fred99:

tdgeek:

If we disagree with this law, we need to roll back that drink driving is not acceptable.

That's ridiculous. There's a strong correlation between blood alcohol levels and impairment, there's a strong correlation between breath alcohol levels and blood alcohol levels, and there's a margin in place so that false positives shouldn't happen from simple roadside screening.

The saliva tests for drugs don't even come close, and apart from inaccuracy and gaping holes, all the correlations are much weaker, yet what's proposed is more draconian than for alcohol screening. You're at risk of being seriously penalised by a quick-screening method that isn't accurate, and that's being put in place to "solve an assumed problem" where correlations with actual risk are relatively weak (compared with alcohol). An impairment test of some kind as primary screening method should be used IMO.

Has the law passed? the opportunity to raise these points is why the bills have readings and meetings etc. As usual for these OT threads its starts as cynical by default and stays there.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2379002 20-Dec-2019 09:08

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Lets accept that drug driving is ok then.

That's a very stupid comment.

Its very stupid to pick out some of what I said to avoid the context

rb99

3423 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2379010 20-Dec-2019 09:15

I really don't see much of a difference between testing people at random while they're in a car for drugs and just walking into a cafe and saying you, you and you, drug testing, now.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2379012 20-Dec-2019 09:16

tdgeek:

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Lets accept that drug driving is ok then.

That's a very stupid comment.

Its very stupid to pick out some of what I said to avoid the context

In context you're arguing a logical fallacy - and doing it in an attempt to make a disingenuous point about those who do not agree with you.

ie : if you don't agree with the proposed policy - then you think drug driving is okay.

I'm calling your comment stupid for good reason.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2379016 20-Dec-2019 09:21

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Lets accept that drug driving is ok then.

That's a very stupid comment.

Its very stupid to pick out some of what I said to avoid the context

In context you're arguing a logical fallacy - and doing it in an attempt to make a disingenuous point about those who do not agree with you.

ie : if you don't agree with the proposed policy - then you think drug driving is okay.

I'm calling your comment stupid for good reason.

Im calling your comment petty. There are plenty here who dont want testing, dont want to be bothered by being pulled over. My point was based on that. As it seems some here think that pulling over for booze is ok, drugs not.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2379021 20-Dec-2019 09:27

tdgeek:

Im calling your comment petty. There are plenty here who dont want testing, dont want to be bothered by being pulled over. My point was based on that. As it seems some here think that pulling over for booze is ok, drugs not.

I don't think what you wrote, denotes clearly enough what you meant.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2379033 20-Dec-2019 09:35

networkn:

tdgeek:

Im calling your comment petty. There are plenty here who dont want testing, dont want to be bothered by being pulled over. My point was based on that. As it seems some here think that pulling over for booze is ok, drugs not.

I don't think what you wrote, denotes clearly enough what you meant.

Perhaps.

Here is what I wrote

Mike gave up driving. This law would be in place to ensure others give up driving for the period of drug use. If we disagree with this law, we need to roll back that drink driving is not acceptable. Booze is a drug. I can buy that drug, then walk a few paces and buy baby food. Booze and drugs are the same, one is illegal , but they are the same

My point was, to those that don't want this law, is that booze and drugs are the same. We test for one, we now want to do the same for the other, makes perfect sense to me. To those that disagree, and as mentioned, cant be bothered with being pulled up, or Id rather make my own choices, I made my point, as to me, booze is a drug, its not booze vs drugs

Doesnt matter, if someone can be adult enough to suggest to me that it wasnt that clear, thats great, if another chooses to be snide, not my problem.

FineWine

2981 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Nurse (R)

Lifetime subscriber

#2379070 20-Dec-2019 11:02

Fred99:

The saliva tests for drugs don't even come close, and apart from inaccuracy and gaping holes, all the correlations are much weaker, yet what's proposed is more draconian than for alcohol screening. You're at risk of being seriously penalised by a quick-screening method that isn't accurate, and that's being put in place to "solve an assumed problem" where correlations with actual risk are relatively weak (compared with alcohol). An impairment test of some kind as primary screening method should be used IMO.

Agree - see my post here # 2378330

Whilst the difficult we can do immediately, the impossible takes a bit longer. However, miracles you will have to wait for.

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2379286 20-Dec-2019 18:23

How often do any of you get pulled over? I've been pulled over once in the last 10 years, and gone through several checkpoints. Not too worried about having my time wasted on any tests.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2379301 20-Dec-2019 19:23

raytaylor: One may also consider that a large chunk of the police budget is currently fines - and driver-less cars will solve that problem for us, but create an income issue for the police.

One may also consider that you're talking complete BS with this claim.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2379303 20-Dec-2019 19:29

Driving and having a drivers licence is a privilege not a right. If you choose to drive then you elect to abide by common rules designed to protect people and ensure the roading network is as efficient as it can be. Given that drugs feature now just as much if not more than alcohol in fatal crash stats (at least the last time I looked) then I am all for testing. I still deal with drivers in a fashion, and teh amount of drug use would shock the common person. Driving on the road you accept you may be stopped and subject to a test, be it for alcohol, vehicle road-worthiness, or drugs is neither here nor there. It's part of keeping us all safe.

Some of the comments here are just scaremongering based on a headline. Read and submit on the bill if you feel that strongly that this is somehow a personal attack on you. Years overdue in my book. Bring it on.

..although it will be interesting how they will quantify legal use if cannabis is decriminalized.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2379834 22-Dec-2019 11:04

scuwp:

.. it will be interesting how they will quantify legal use if cannabis is decriminalized.

First of all if you're going to be a Cannabis user, you need to know how the amounts various products will affect you - in the same way you have an idea of what 'a few drinks' will do. Legalisation wil help with that.

That information will become particularly important if the government introduces new impairment laws.

In NZ the blood alcohol limit for adult drivers reduced from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg back in 2014.
These aren't arbitrary impairment levels, they're similar to a bunch of other countries as testing has shown that driving skills deteriorate fast over this level for the 'average' person.

Here in Alberta, the Blood Alcohol Content for an adult driver remains at .08
If I get caught driving over that limit, or with over 5 ng/ml of THC or a combination of .05 BAC + 2.5 ng/ml of THC, or if I refuse to provide a breath or fluid sample, and it's my first offence – My car can be impounded, my license suspended and I can be sent to a compulsary education programme.

These THC levels aren't arbitrary, testing has shown a marked deterioration in driving skills over this level, particularly when in combination with alcohol – which is why the combination is lower.

So what does 2.5 or 5 nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood —the legal limit— mean in practical terms; ie. how much cannabis would you have to smoke/ how high would you have to be - to reach that level.

One of the positives of legalisation is you'll generally have an idea of the strength (THC wise) of the cannabis you're inhaling.

A disadvantage of buying 'street drugs' is you have no real idea of the strength of whatever it is you're buying (which is why I believe ALL drugs should be decriminalised and regulated – but that's O/T).

Let's say you're buying cannabis and your 'dude' says “oh man this sh** is the bomb”.. what does that mean? Is it 5%, 15% or 25%.. Is his quantification of that strength affected by terpenes in the cannabis (such as Mercene – which makes the apparent effects of THC appear stronger, or Caryophyllene/Pinene which mellow the effect of high THC levels)? Will how you smoke it make a difference?
More importantly – what level of impairment is it going to leave you with – and how long will you have to wait before you drive?

The science behind testing for THC impairment isn't as clear-cut as for alcohol (due to various factors, THC affects each person differently), and impairment doesn't increase in a similar linear fashion with testable levels of THC, but I think the levels chosen in Canada are fair.

What is really important is that there's a 'buffer' built in at the roadside testing stage.

THC levels in your body (saliva for inhaled products) are at their highest around 15 minutes after smoking and dissipate over the next 6 hours, the issue is that the euphoric effects (and a level of impairment) can last up to 8 hours, depending on the person.

Traces of THC can stay in your system for quite some time after consumption - a detectable background level of THC (via urine test) may persist (for up to a month) after heavy use, so - importantly - roadside oral fluid screening devices here are set to a 25 nanogram threshold, which is significantly higher than the legal driving limits.

A reading of 25 nanograms per millilitre of THC in your saliva is indicative of very recent use or a high level of impairment, and being set this far above the legal limit reduces the risk of false positives, helping ensure that only those drivers who have recently smoked (strong cannabis) or are grossly impaired fail the test.

My wife works in the Cannabis industry, and is what I would call a 'regular' user. I'm what I would call an 'occasional user.

We had the opportunity to test our perceived levels of impairment against our saliva THC levels as shown on the ADSE (Approved Drug Screening Equipment) - used by the police - which in these parts is a 'Draeger DrugTest 5000'

We smoked a couple of joints of fairly strong (23% THC) cannabis, waited until we felt the effects and tried a test (about half an hour after smoking - for some reason it took us that long to get it all organised).
My wife - who I'll call a 'hardened' user - and I agreed we would not have been safe to drive for that first half an hour or so after smoking.
After an hour had passed she figured she'd be good to go, I was still unsure. Maybe another half hour and I figured I'd be safe (although had effects of dry-mouth and - according to my kids - red eyes). Turns out we were well under the roadside fail for the test.

I personally wouldn't want to be on the road with people over 25ng - seasoned stoners or not.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5