1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP

Legislative Assembly passes roadside drug testing laws

Rating:
3/5,
  1. buseman
    Canberra motorists will be subject to roadside drug tests after the Legislative Assembly passed new laws today.

    The Opposition's drug testing bill has passed this morning with the support of the Greens.

    Under the new laws Canberra motorists will face random tests for drugs including ecstasy, cannabis and methamphetamine.

    Opposition police spokesman Jeremy Hanson says the legislation is long overdue.

    Although this has been a difficult process it didn't need to be and we're here today finally, he said.

    Chief Minister Jon Stanhope tried to adjourn the debate.

    Mr Stanhope told the Assembly the Human Rights Commissioner is worried about the bill's impact.

    A piece of legislation that interacts with human rights raises human rights concerns, he said.

    It could take some time for the laws to come into effect.

    Wed Jun 30, 2010
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/30/2941353.htm?site=news

Comments

  1. buckcamp
    This bill raises many questions...

    What method of testing is going to be administered? If it were an urinalysis, I assume the suspect would be hauled in to the local station to donate his portion; but can it be proven this way, that the individual is currently under the influence of an unlawful substance at the time of his/her detainment?

    Or, What if the individual were required to submit a blood sample to run through a spectrophotometer; even a hair follicle sample? Although I don't believe the latter would be much more conclusive to current intoxication as a urinalysis would be. These last two, seem to me to be far too expensive and time consuming for the state to truly consider as fiscally responsible. Although I am not too familiar with Australian politics.

    Either way, where is the proof that individual is under the influence if there are no reasonable outward signs of intoxication or impairment? I for one am aware of an individual named SWIM and he has a pet rock that often partakes in the consumption of marijuana; but other than a smoother roll for this pet rock, and possibly slight eye irritation; there are no outward indicators that he is ever under the influence. I have even seen him driving his truck around going to meet up with other rocks so they can roll around a bit.

    This is unfortunate for Australia, almost gestapo-ish...
  2. Simplepowa
    Australia is becoming more and more controlling on his population...

    Each week something new appears here that make the citizens more and more imprisoned.

    Sad...

    Hope Canada won't follow, but with Harper, who knows...
  3. buseman
    Swim could not agree more. Australia keeps passing new laws one after another restricting us even more in what we do, some being for the best but even more are just plain ridiculous. Australia has law for everything just about.
    Swim knows of this road side drug testing first hand as swims friends license has been suspended for three months. The sample of oral fluid taken had both methylamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine present and was charged with Drive with illicit drug present.
  4. Simplepowa
    So the law won't work.

    Because you have it in your blood doesn't mean you are under the influence.

    They probably just want to put even more fear upon everyone so that nobody takes drugs IN CASE they got arrested, drug tested and lose their license.
  5. slayering666
    I suggest you ignore everything written between the *'s because its not relevant.

    *
    The law will work, it will stop users from driving sending them into a more desperate life than before. In fact the government has successfully lowered the quality of life for drugs users. I think we should put our hands together for these ingenious ploy to put teenagers off drugs, teenagers love cars and i guess they just put them both together and voila teenage use is decreased. Plus they don't waste time testing for drugs like heroin (junkies don't have cars).

    In all seriousness though, this is a ridiculous as methamphetamine improves driving ability so surely it should be encouraged because most people can't drive for shit.

    In actual all seriousness though.
    Of course our government is restrictive, his a fucking catholic.
    *

    I think saliva is the only test they can administer roadside effectively so this is where i ask for input on how effective that would be, which drugs are caught by that test and for what duration after use? Plus would drinking or eating effect results? How effective is a roadside saliva test? Is what I'm asking.
  6. buseman
    Commissioner warns drug tests risk breaching law

    The ACT Human Rights Commissioner Helen Watchirs has raised concerns that drug-driving tests risk contravening human rights.

    The Greens decided to back the Opposition's drug driving bill and will pass it today, but the Government says it is a flawed law because it did not go through proper consultation.

    Ms Watchirs says the bill would fail a legal challenge in the Supreme Court.

    ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says this shows the proposal would be bad law.

    We're talking here about taking oral swabs and blood from people who are compulsorily stopped and tested by the roadside, he said.

    The Chief Police Officer's saying, look there's inconvenient little things you've got to deal with in legislation like this called the rules of evidence, and the Human Rights Commissioner is saying we, the jurisdiction, have determined that we will not knowingly breach people's human rights.

    The Government sought the ACT Chief Police Officer and the Human Rights Commission's advice after claiming the Opposition failed to consult with either authority before proposing the bill.

    But Opposition police spokesman Jeremy Hanson says the bill has undergone rigorous scrutiny.

    Normally in a Westminster system it would be inappropriate for a shadow minister to engage in consultation with a government official, he said.

    It's not the way it's done. Normally I deal with associations and in this case I've dealt with the Australian Federal Police Association.

    Wed Jun 30, 2010
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/30/2940906.htm?site=news
  7. godztear
    What's next for Australia? Mandatory GPS micro-chipping at birth?

    Big Brother is watching.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!