Safe Speed Forums

As from today, Police have the authority to conduct roadside drugs test's.


The police took blood samples of 23 road death's, it revealed that 50% proved positive for cannabis, cocaine or ectasy.

Just how big a drug problem do we really have on our roads

how many of fatal accidents are just put down to the old favorite of speed

_________________
Steve

From what goes through the labs here .... would say drug problem is more widespread than we know.

But they will not just tbe testing for illegals... prescription drugs can affect you as well.


Said it before :

Please read the labels

Hell.....cough medison can do the same....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I heard that the cannabis blood test reads positive for a month after consumption.

If that's true it's daft to use it as evidence of impaired driving.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Yup .. it does ... their argument would be that the effects continue to have an effect of course.....

I can safely say that if every driver in my area was tested about 65% would be under some form of illegal drug-oh the joys of living in the West of Scotland

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

Yeah, and the West of the Midlands as well

Over the last 18 months I have been taking part in a clinical trial using cannabis based medicine. I am now taking this as an unlicenced drug as approved by the Home Office. I have been told not to drive within 2 hours of taking a dose, or if I feel impaired. That seems sensible to me and I would not drive if impaired. If the Home Office think these guidelines are ok, what would happen to me if I was subjected to a random test which came back positive? (I know 'random' testing doesn't happen, but you know what i mean! )

Random roadside drug testing for cannabis & amphetamines started in Victoria 3 weeks ago. On the first day a truckie tested positive to amphetamines. Before the drug testing started the truckie was all for it but after the test he claimed innocence. The roadside test is followed up with a blood test and when the blood was analysed he did not have any illegal substances in it at all. He has received a lot of publicity and his family have been under enormous stress and all he has asked for is an apology.

The police and the government do not think that an apology is warranted, assholes! This poor guy has been subjected to intense media attention as the first person to be caught. His name has been sullied and his family placed under a huge stress, but no-one needs to apologise!

2 out of the first 3 that tested positive have since been cleared by the blood test.

Random drug tests are NOWHERE NEAR ready to be implemented until they can get a better hit than 33%.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

My instinctive feeling is that illegal drugs are a significant factor in a lot of accidents, but are there the rigorous academic studies along the lines of the Borkenstein one on alcohol to establish the link?

If it's down to the subjective opinion of a police officer I can see relatively few prosecutions and a lot of arguments in court.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

MM is the guy to ask on this ... and if he does not know .. that daft wife of his does .. she researches and designs them ....when not having kittens.

I think if you provided us with a note explaining the situation and doseage .. it would be OK. This would be placed with your sample. Think that should be OK ...they know there will be lingering traces of certain substances .... as I understand from a chat with Mad Doc and Wildy - who tell me the traces of any precribed drug will be in your system for some time after ceasing treatment .. but duration depends on what it is, what it does, body weight, body mass etc....

But that guy is man to know properly ...we just implement the process and rely on what the boffins tell us really....

Probably .. will run along similar lines to drink drive ... as far as the wadge of notes dumped on my desk from on high appears to say.

The tests will be a screening process to "arrest on suspicion" and then we go for blood and urine samples to establish amount taken, how far impaired and so on...

But can see we will have a lot of fun with the CPS and the courts over it. Clever lawyer will be able to argue the toss, no doubt....

But would say driving whilst impaired by drugs is going on very frequently .. and problem is how to spot, pull and implement a fair screeening process.

Course .. need BiB not scams to do this properly

Have you had any guidance on using positive cannabis blood tests as supporting evidence in drug driving cases? It seems very dodgy to me...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Not if the lingering cannabis detection is also detected by the receptors in the brain too and slows it up.

Ths is a little like alcohol - in those that are not accustomed to drink, and for the first few hours after a skinful, blood-alcohol levels are by-and-large related proportional (give or take) to driving impairment. However, hours later, blood levels may well still be high, but the brain/autonomic system has learned how to deal with it - the liver is doing its job and the endocrins (or whatever they are) are working overtime to speed things up in the reaction stakes. Probably got a hangover too


I really think there are a large number of benefits that cannabis can bring in the theraputic uses. Probably more than the present trials. It's such a pity that the abuse it has been tainted with have likely set back its adoption by many years.

Is your condition improving? One other person I know of (a friend of mine knows her very well and I get unexaggerated reports) went in for these trials - a double-blind. She was fortunate and got the real thing - and it has made a tremendous improvement - although I doubt she'll ever drive again.

I was on a double blind trial and got the placebo. I know this because I then went on to the open study and got the real thing and it was amazingly effective. If I get the dosage right I am pain free.

As far as I know, the drug is going through the final stages of approval and should be available on prescription soon. In the meantime, I get it for free!

As the likes of cannabis is an illegal substance, they are right to be prosecuted for being under its influence, as they should not have it in their system in the 1st place.

Even if they are taking it on prescription, they certainley should not be driving, put other road users at risk.

Killing someone due to a health issue is no excuse

_________________
Steve

I am truly pleased for you - and truly sorry that, thanks to the gratuitous abuse by so many, that you (and others) were not able legally to benefit that much sooner. These theraputic effects have been known of for a decade or more, but all the big guns have run scared of taking it up.

I am involved in the drug testing of drivers and workers in Australia using the oral saliva swab tests that search for cannabinoids, opiates, amphetamines, cocaine and benzodiazepines. A system developed in the UK and endorsed by the Home Office.

If used absolutely correctly, unlike the VIC police who recently stuffed the first public use of the tests, there is no problem with incorrect results.

A feature of the tests is that the swab sample is the same sample that is sent to a lab for further analysis, if necessary. There is no need for blood or urine tests which can detect illegal substances days and even months after use.

The questions asked of the driver/worker when tested are designed to screen for over the counter medications however it bears remembering that ANY driver that is under the influence of alcohol or drug is a danger to all those around him/her.

For all the concerned drugs users the tests will only indicate a positive result when the drug is in its phyco-active state. For example a cannabis user can get stoned at a weekend party and as long as he has no smoked within 3 hours of the test he will should return a negative result. Of course the 'harder' drugs have a longer active life so will be detected over a longer period of time.

The police in Victoria are only testing for cannabis and amphetamines which is a joke given the prevalance of other drugs being used in that State.

As a point of interest the work place/driver drug testing has become necessary due to the legal requirements on the employer to provide a safe work environment for ALL workers and to ensure that their employees are not a danger to the public (100 tonne B-trains will destroy anything in their way). If it is known or suspected that there is a drug problem with staff then the employer is legally bound to do something about it. Failure to do so can result in huge liability issues.

The unions are not oppossed to the testing as it is their members that are being protected and the tests are only looking for active drug use, not historic.

Driver drug testing is here to stay and it will become more common place and more effective with future advances in technology. The mistakes that get reported are usually caused by the operator, not the machines.

_________________
The more abstract the truth is that you would teach, the more you have to seduce the senses to it. (Nietzche)

Positive or negative effects?!?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Hang on, surely that should only be treated as a driving offence if it can be shown that the presence of cannabis resulted in impairment. The mere fact that something is illegal is irrelevant. If someone is driving with an unlicensed shotgun in his car, he is committing a firearms offence, not a driving offence.

In my view it would be a very disturbing extension of the powers of the state if they started prosecuting people purely for the presence of illegal drugs in their system without any need to demonstrate possession - particularly if the authorities had the right to carry out random tests.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed