Drug Bus (Melb)

Kombat Bass · Post by **Kombat Bass** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:10 am

Well i just heard Inspector Bob someone launch this new Drug Bus as they call it.

Just a booze bus for drug testing...They only have one of em and its a 12 month program, they test for Speed and Weed, and said they would target Rave Partys and Truck Routes...WTF?

Anyone know how long Weed or Wizz stays in ur system for?

Also looks like u can be sideways on mdma or smack (hate that word~!)and get away with it as long as it dont contain speed...

Gonna take 5 mins for the test too, and if caught it's $300 fine and 3 demerit points for first offence but if it goes to court its $600 and 3 months suspension and 2nd offence is $600 and 6months suspension..

Discuss?

valuetime · Post by **valuetime** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:59 am

the penalties are interesting, because alcohol isn't illegal, it's only illegal to drive under its influence. but it's illegal to possess amphetamines, cocaine, marijuana, etc, or significant amounts of them, anyway. so i always wondered if they'd just charge you with being under the influence of a controlled substance or something as soon as they detected it. i guess the least they'd do is search your body/car/lower colon/whatever.

this from speedmonkey.net: "Depending on the kind of testing they require and the toxin levels they are looking for, conceivably you can pass a pee test 24 hours after you smoke a joint... Most opiates and cocaine are free within 36 hours... Amphetamines (such as crystal meth) are typically undetectable at 36 hours."

so i guess that rules out driving the next day. i'd also imagine that if you regularly smoked it might take longer, but i don't really know.

also, consider the levels of psuedoephedrine in medicine (like sudafed). there's around 30-60mg in each capsule (yes, i know it's not the same thing), so they'd have to detect a fair amount of it (say, a 1/10th of a gram) to not pull up everyone who'd had a couple codral that night or whatever. so if you had a whole point and then drove, you should prolly be nervous driving home that night or the next morning.

but then i get nervous whenever a cop pulls me over.

DBoy · Post by **DBoy** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:08 am

You would assume if they have got it to an operational stage they have completed a large amount of tests on many of the case examples valuetime.

I do find your first point interesting, you would assume if you test positive they would then complete a full search on the car, person possibly even friends.

Reminds me of the story I read yesterday about the clubber who got his case thrown out of court... he was trying to sue the police department for harrassement because the sniffer dog whcih they were using in a club spent an unusually long amount of time and attention on his groin, with out any results. loser. but I didn't know they were already using the dogs in Vic too?

Post by **Friday** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:12 am

hey guys.

you should read this: http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugs_test.html

answers a few of the questions

Kombat Bass · Post by **Kombat Bass** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:16 am

Nope the Inspector said u would just get charged with Traffic offense's nothing else cause the legislation is for road safety not drug trafficking or usuage...Altho he did then say obvisouly if there is a high reading they would consider taking other action..

Post by **Friday** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:17 am

Yep....

Note:

19. How long after consuming drugs do I need to wait before driving?

The consumption of THC (the active component in cannabis) will be detected for several hours after use. The actual time after consumption that THC will be detected depends on the THC strength of the cannabis used and on the driver's metabolism and smoking technique. Drivers who may have inactive THC residue in their bodies from use in previous days/weeks will not be detected.

Methamphetamines (speed) may be detected for approximately 24 hours after use. These drugs can affect the ability of a driver to safely control his or her car for at least this period of time. Extremely large doses, other drugs taken at the same time, and differences in individual metabolism may affect the duration of the effects of these drugs.

21. Can drivers charged for drug driving also be charged for offences relating to drug possession and use?

The drug driving campaign is about increasing road safety - not drug detection. Legislation prevents the evidence of saliva tests being used in court proceedings for non-road safety offences.

22. Does this mean that drivers who test positive to roadside drug tests will not be searched, or have their vehicles or property searched?

Police will carry out further investigations for drug offences, which may include searches, only when there is sufficient information to suggest that a serious drug offence is being committed.

24. What will drivers who return positive saliva test results for illicit drugs be charged with?

Driving whilst exceeding the prescribed concentration of a prescribed illicit drug.

charlie · Post by **charlie** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:01 am

Good thing i have no car then huh... guess spliffs while driving are out the window too now.....

Will · Post by **Will** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:43 am

Here's an article on the subject I wrote last year for Beat:

For some time now dedicated drinkers have had a serious gripe with Victoriaâ€™s driving laws. While boozers have been restricted to only a few drinks carefully spaced over a night if they wanted to avoid a taxi ride home, their pill-popping mates have felt free to get as off-chops as they like before jumping in their cars for the drive home. Sure, you have to be coherent enough to find and start your car, but unless you drool on a traffic cop, or tell them you love them, youâ€™re unlikely to get busted for taking drugs and driving.

While breath testing for alcohol has become a simple, effective and ubiquitous procedure to detect drink-drivers, measures to reveal whether people are under the influence of illicit drugs have proven to be less effective. This is all about to change with the State Government last week tabling new legislation allowing roadside testing for drugs other than alcohol.

From July next year drivers suspected of being on marijuana or speed will be given a 7cm swab encased in plastic â€“known as a collector â€“ to suck or chew on. Within one to three minutes the test will detect the presence of methamphetamine or THC. The tests are supposed to be able to detect pot for about three hours after consumption and speed for about eight hours. There will be no minimum level of concentration; if they find any chemicals in your spit, you will be done.

The proposed penalties for â€˜drug-drivingâ€™ are a fine of up to $600 and up to three monthsâ€™ cancellation of a licence if the conviction is recorded and up to a $1200 fine and six monthsâ€™ cancellation for each subsequent offence. Also, offenders who lose their licence will have to attend a drug education course before being eligible for a new one.

The laws are specifically targeted at reducing the number of drug-affected drivers on Victoriaâ€™s roads, and so people will not face other drugs charges purely because of the test result. A sunset clause has been included in the legislation, which means the law can only be continued after being assessed by parliament in the light of practical experience.

The Government says the tests are needed because people driving on drugs are a serious problem.

"It's an important initiative to keep dangerous and irresponsible drivers off our roads, and reduce road deaths and injuries," the State Minister for Transport Peter Batchelor said. "People who drive under the influence of drugs are putting their own lives, and others, at risk.

â€œThese substances seriously impair driving ability. In fact, research into driver fatalities in Victoria shows drug driving is as much of a factor in road deaths as drink driving.â€

The Government says that 27 per cent of drivers who were killed in car accidents last year had illicit drugs in their system. Mr Batchelor said research into driving fatalities indicated driving under the influence of drugs had increased substantially over the past decade.

No other Australian state or territory has put road-side drug testing into practice, with only two other places in the world â€“ the UK and Germany â€“ trialing the laws. Both Queensland and Western Australia have rejected the concept of roadside drug testing for the time being because of the cost. The one-year trial is expected to cost the Victorian Government $1.3 million.

Few will argue that amphetamines donâ€™t affect peopleâ€™s ability to drive and the consensus seems to be that the new laws are positive step.

â€œIt can only be a good thing,â€ says one of the administrators of the Blue Light drug harm minimisation website. â€œPeople driving on drugs is as dangerous as alcohol and there has been plenty of fatalities in the rave community and outside it because of such things.â€

Civil Liberties Victoria President Greg Connellan last week expressed concern that the tests could be used to circumvent laws stopping police taking DNA samples against peopleâ€™s will for use in cases unrelated to drug-driving charges or for some kind of DNA database. However, the Government has put specific measures in place to ensure that the samples cannot be used for any other purpose than to detect the presence of drugs.

â€œThe notion that there is some mechanism for testing whether someone is under the influence of drugs is of far less concern because already within the legislation there is the ability of coppers to pull you over and make you do walk along the white line tests and so on in relation to drugs. So if theyâ€™ve addressed those concerns that weâ€™ve got, then weâ€™re not necessarily opposed per se to legislation dealing with people under the influence of drugs because itâ€™s no different on one level from people driving under the influence of alcohol.â€

John Bennet, president of the Australian Civil Liberties Union, also agrees that as long as the appropriate protections are in place, there is nothing much to be concerned about.

â€œWeâ€™re not opposed to all reasonable steps to keep the road toll down,â€ Mr Bennet said. â€œOn balance itâ€™s just one of many of those intrusive things that people in society, and motorists in particular, have to put up with. But on balance we support it.

â€œIt obviously infringes civil liberties and peopleâ€™s freedom of movement but youâ€™ve also got to consider the civil liberties of other road users.â€

Focusing on recreational drug users, the police will specifically be targeting ravers and clubbers. So from July next year you can expect well-prepared police to be waiting for you at the crack of dawn, and this time itâ€™ll be the cops telling you to suck it.

Will · Post by **Will** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:46 am

EDIT: One of the judges examining that case about the dog sniffing the dude's crotch reckoned it was assault, but the other two judges disagreed and he's getting done for possession.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Fer ... click=true

quiet roar · Post by **quiet roar** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:02 pm

Since the test is a swab taken from your mouth, does anyone know whether rinsing with something like vinegar will work as a cover up?

Polecat · Post by **Polecat** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:12 pm

Will wrote:EDIT: One of the judges examining that case about the dog sniffing the dude's crotch reckoned it was assault, but the other two judges disagreed and he's getting done for possession.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Fer ... click=true

ummm, not quite. read the article again...

"In a Court of Appeal judgement, Justice Roger Giles held that encouraging Rocky the labrador to search for cannabis by nudging around a student's genitals was "a battery by the police".

But he was overruled by justices David Ipp and Ruth McColl, who found 21-year-old Glen Darby had not been unlawfully busted with speed (amphetamines) and cannabis outside an Oxford Street nightclub.

The majority decision upheld a Supreme Court order that Darby should again face two charges of possessing methylamphetamine and cannabis that were dismissed in Downing Centre Local Court....."

Will · Post by **Will** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:28 pm

Polecat · Post by **Polecat** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:39 pm

that legal jargon stuff is all double talk, so dont sweat it dude

DBoy · Post by **DBoy** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:15 pm

sure it is double talk, but that is so when they say...

Friday wrote: Police will carry out further investigations for drug offences, which may include searches, only when there is sufficient information to suggest that a serious drug offence is being committed.

and it goes to court, they wil say being under the influence is enough reason to suggest a serious drug offense. easy enough.

prescribed illicit drug.

???? who the hell is prescribing this stuff ???? i've got to get me a new doctor.

waggers · Post by **waggers** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:10 pm

Friday wrote: 24. What will drivers who return positive saliva test results for illicit drugs be charged with?
Driving whilst exceeding the prescribed concentration of a prescribed illicit drug.

DBoy wrote: prescribed illicit drug.
???? who the hell is prescribing this stuff ???? i've got to get me a new doctor.

I suspect that at least one of those mentions of prescribed is supposed to be proscribed.

Oh, and my HTML/whatever is shite, so just suffer my clumsy stylee!

LÃ³s Kasinoâ€” · Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:58 pm

quiet roar wrote:Since the test is a swab taken from your mouth, does anyone know whether rinsing with something like vinegar will work as a cover up?

doubt it mate...
the 'deadly' swab will be collecting blood cells i assume, and theres no way of killing them off ur tongue!

The only way i could imagin cheatin the system is too put sum sort of 'invisivble' cover over your tongue.. ie. gladwrap as a bad example...!

Maybe if u stuck 10 of those Listerine paper-mints on your tongue that might work!!!!

Ag3nT[]0raNg3 · Post by **Ag3nT[]0raNg3** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:30 am

or wax!

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:58 am

hehe i like the listerine one, that shit would kill anything in your mouth.

Post by **breaksRbest** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:15 pm

I put a whole pack of those Listerine things in my mouth for a dare

I wouldn't reccomend it

Post by **Friday** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:24 pm

wasn't it like 5 packs brb??

we had an overdose at a party back in 1998 or something - a guy really relly sick coz he drank four bottles of listerine mouthwash

Post by **breaksRbest** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:27 pm

nah, one pack was bad enough

I had fresh breath for months though!!

Amick · Post by **Amick** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:25 pm

hahaha that was smart brb

4 bottles of Listerine? Did he get a free keyring or plastic cup as a prize?

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:50 pm

a whole pack!?!?! man that would smart. But do you reckon you could get a swab and be in the clear?

quick · Post by **quick** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:56 pm

mmm... swab

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:17 pm

you sick little squirrel *pokes tongue out (lacking emoticon to express feelings)*

Kombat Bass · Post by **Kombat Bass** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:46 am

First mans CAUGHT...

If u havnt seen it its here -

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common ... 62,00.html

I have discussed this with mates and i reckon cause hes the first one to get done hes gonna lie and say he didnt do it...I would...

But if he isnt lie'ing this shit is fucked...hadnt smoked for 4 weeks...

I'm gonna get done me thinks..

whats everuyones thoughts?

quiet roar · Post by **quiet roar** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:00 am

Lizkins wrote:hehe i like the listerine one, that shit would kill anything in your mouth.

I reckon that's true if you rinsed reasonably soon before the test.

I hope the guy that got caught is telling the truth when he says he hasn't had any drugs apart from a couple of anti-inflams the night before, and some pot 4 weeks ago. The more people that fight this and win the quicker it will go away.

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:01 am

man that is messed up bad. so many people are going to get caught. what is the world coming too....

valuetime · Post by **valuetime** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:13 am

yeah, they're gonna do so many people. it's hard not to be cynical with the victoria police... if there wasn't any revenue in it, i'd doubt they'd be doing it.

as for four weeks... smells like horse shit to me:

"
The tests are supposed to be able to detect pot for about three hours after consumption and speed for about eight hours.
"

if they're detecting pot in this guy from four weeks ago... what a joke. it'd be like testing whether you'd been over .05 BAC four weeks prior and then charging you with drink driving.

horse shit, i say.

stovequeen · Post by **stovequeen** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:15 am

might have to put the knives away at this rate

LÃ³s Kasinoâ€” · Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:22 am

I wanna get me some of those anti-inflammatory tablets!!! hehehe...

stovequeen · Post by **stovequeen** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:33 am

actually just had a thought... i have to take perscription sudo eff. before flying.

Could i be pulled up on this driving to and out of the airport?

fark i hope not cause this means i would have to change jobs??

valuetime · Post by **valuetime** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:46 am

apparently (although this new article doesn't fill me with much confidence) the swab (*chuckle*) only detects methamphetamine, not psuedoephedrine or anything like it.

stovequeen · Post by **stovequeen** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:50 am

valuetime wrote:apparently (although this new article doesn't fill me with much confidence) the swab (*chuckle*) only detects methamphetamine, not psuedoephedrine or anything like it.

excellent!

Well i guess the good news it that it will only be a matter of time before a masking agent will be on the net. just like for performance enhancers... hold tight peeps.

Post by **system** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:53 am

stovequeen wrote:hand tight peeps.

wow, now that's a fetish I've never encountered!

stovequeen · Post by **stovequeen** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:00 am

system wrote:
stovequeen wrote:hand tight peeps.
wow, now that's a fetish I've never encountered!

really...? I'm surprised.

Post by **system** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:04 am

stovequeen wrote:
system wrote:
stovequeen wrote:hand tight peeps.
wow, now that's a fetish I've never encountered!
really...? I'm surprised.

*shuts it sharpish*

Post by **lynt** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:28 am

what about Dex??

quick · Post by **quick** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:02 pm

lynt wrote:what about Dex??

Dexies? hmmm interesting???

bunny-foo-foo · Post by **bunny-foo-foo** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:26 am

yay - thank fuck i lost my licence yesterday (wow this is the first positive thing i've found about being outlawed from driving for the next 12 months) but to all those who are still permited to drive i agree, everyone needs to invest some bucks in lawyers if they get caught so that we can fight this thing until the cops realise there is no way to regulate this madness and make it go away. (then hopefully when i get my licence back i'll be able to revert to old ways

)

Kombat Bass · Post by **Kombat Bass** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:29 am

u lost ur licence yeterday? what for? drug driving?

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:01 pm

http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/sto ... 62,00.html

hey stevey it appears that Fitzroy is now off the top 5 list.

Fents · Post by **Fents** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:15 pm

Well looks like if this John guy wins his case against the cops this whole drug testing thing is out the window, which would be dope....pun..

On the other hand if the cops prove this guy wrong and he did actually smoke it proves this system does work and were all fucked...

valuetime · Post by **valuetime** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:32 pm

the abc are saying that he was filmed by tv crews while being tested. the police commissioner blamed the unscrupulous media, who probably just happened to be passing by.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1266181.htm

quiet roar · Post by **quiet roar** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:09 pm

lynt wrote:what about Dex??

Dexies are safe, as is pseudo....

Bottle of vinegar or listerine become standard car items nowadays methinks.

stovequeen · Post by **stovequeen** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:21 pm

Passive dope smokers 'positive'
December 16, 2004

PASSIVE inhalation of cannabis smoke could lead to positive results from roadside drug tests, a test supplier said today.

d:tec Australia, which provides drug and alcohol tests to workplaces, said people who tested positive for cannabis in the roadside tests may not have taken the drug.

World-first random roadside drug tests of motorists were staged in Victoria last week in the start of a year-long trial.

The test detects THC, which is the active component in marijuana, and methamphetamines, or speed, in saliva.

Drivers provide a sample by touching their tongue on an absorbent collector and results develop in five minutes.

"Research has shown that a person who has passively inhaled cannabis smoke can show a positive result in a saliva test for up to 30 minutes post-exposure," d:tec Australia national account manager Andrew Leibie said today.

"As a result, people who test positive for cannabis use in a roadside saliva test may not have been actively smoking the drug themselves."

He said the research was presented to an International Association of Forensic Toxicology conference in Washington earlier this year.

AAP

sneak · Post by **sneak** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:48 pm

well FUCK. how can they dish out a test if it produces incorrect results. good luck for your vce next year ya cunts

Amick · Post by **Amick** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:52 pm

well if passively inhaling cannabis means you get busted if drug tested, i guess im never going to a hip hop or DnB gig ever again...

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:56 pm

heh, soon weâ€™ll be getting ads saying â€œit was just a couple of bongs officerâ€ â€œI only had half a point I swear officerâ€ â€œa couple of pills and Iâ€™m busted, what the?...officerâ€

stovequeen · Post by **stovequeen** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:02 pm