Drugs test for motorists comes closer
02 September 2009
Transport minister Camiel Eurlings is to press ahead with plans to introduce random drugs testing for motorists, news agency ANP reports on Wednesday.
The spot checks can be made using saliva, with follow-up blood and urine tests if necessary. A three-month trial using a small machine which can measure most drugs was completed last year.
Eurlings is also trying to establish 'maximum levels' of drugs which could be permitted in drivers' systems. But if no safe maximum level can be established, he will go for zero tolerance, ANP said.
Police chiefs have already called for a total ban on driving under the influence of drugs. Some 10% of car accidents are thought to involve drugs, mainly cannabis.
Eurlings plans to submit draft legislation on the ban to parliament by the middle of next year.
Source
Drugs test for motorists comes closer
Here you go this is the ad that kingdoc is on about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMOm6cERZWw
Being pedantic and knobbish since 1972
-
Ingwey Gooblebogger
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Sat 27th Sep 2008 10:04 pm
They passed a law in Canada last year giving cops sweeping powers in this regard.
However, to my knowledge, they have not implemented it, because, if
ever used, it will fail miserably in the courts.
The problem is especially pronounced for lipophillic substances like cannabinoids, however the legislation will also prove difficult for other drugs.
Consider the following:
1) If the zero-tolerance approach is taken, a person who consumed cannabis one week ago, (and, hence, if so, is not under the influence in any way) could be charged with impaired driving. These cases would be easily defeated in the courts.
2) Trying to determine some appropriate drug concentration levels would also prove extremely diffiicult. These level would not take into account such things as whether the user was a heavy user or a neophyte nor would it take into account the various ways individuals differ in their reactions/intoxications to various drugs.
I have much experience with toxicology. Every one of the toxicologists I worked have said that they could NOT determine, with certitude, whether someone was impaired, even if they were given blood/urine/vitreous/bile/liver concentrations of cannabinoids.
(Note: the vitreous/bile/liver concentrations would only be used in post mortem situations.)
Other drugs could also prove similarly difficult.
Imagine a cancer patient, who has grown used to their morphine levels, and are thus NOT impaired. (They have built up a tolerance) Would they then be accused of impaired driving?
NOTE: The levels for alcohol impiarment are, likewise, somewhat arbitrary. However, according to the toxicologists I work with, alcohol metabolism is much simpler and very well understood, so impairment concentration levels can more easily be dervied and defended.
Okay, that destroys the levels arguments, now for other critical issues:
3) False positives. There will be cases where the machines will give a positve reation to some substance when, in fact, none is present. This is huge because thickie copper won't have a fucking clue! (Neither will most of the judges nor jury members. You had better hope you have a good lawyer!)
4) If blood has to be taken will there be qualified medical personel who will do this or will it be Seargeant Sadist with a grade four education? Will this fucking numbnuts know what to do if complications arise?
5) Endogenous drug creation. Believe it or not, our bodies manufacture some drugs. (i.e. GHB, for one). Normally, the levels for endogenously produced GHB will be very low, but if a "zero-tolerance" policy is adopted, then an impairment charge could arise, if GHB is present.
6) The huge infringement on our civil liberties. Why would we be willing to give up such hard fought liberties?
7) The police can still chage someone with impaired/dangerous driving without determining the impairment substance. Imagine a person, fucked out of their skull on LSD. The cops could charge them with impaired driving, without determining the substance. They would use other observational evidence such as weaving across lanes, inability to stand up or walk, and so on.
If the cops had to wait until they could determine a substance, then,in the above case, they might not be able to charge the individual. Think about it!
A 200 microgram hit of acid (or two), taken 3 hours before the police checked the driver, would have been pissed out of the system by then, so that detecting the LSD could be very difficult. And yet buddy is seriously hooped and will be for the next 6 to 12 hours.
So, these laws are doomed to fail. Otherwise a lot of innocent people will be going to jail.
However, to my knowledge, they have not implemented it, because, if
ever used, it will fail miserably in the courts.
The problem is especially pronounced for lipophillic substances like cannabinoids, however the legislation will also prove difficult for other drugs.
Consider the following:
1) If the zero-tolerance approach is taken, a person who consumed cannabis one week ago, (and, hence, if so, is not under the influence in any way) could be charged with impaired driving. These cases would be easily defeated in the courts.
2) Trying to determine some appropriate drug concentration levels would also prove extremely diffiicult. These level would not take into account such things as whether the user was a heavy user or a neophyte nor would it take into account the various ways individuals differ in their reactions/intoxications to various drugs.
I have much experience with toxicology. Every one of the toxicologists I worked have said that they could NOT determine, with certitude, whether someone was impaired, even if they were given blood/urine/vitreous/bile/liver concentrations of cannabinoids.
(Note: the vitreous/bile/liver concentrations would only be used in post mortem situations.)
Other drugs could also prove similarly difficult.
Imagine a cancer patient, who has grown used to their morphine levels, and are thus NOT impaired. (They have built up a tolerance) Would they then be accused of impaired driving?
NOTE: The levels for alcohol impiarment are, likewise, somewhat arbitrary. However, according to the toxicologists I work with, alcohol metabolism is much simpler and very well understood, so impairment concentration levels can more easily be dervied and defended.
Okay, that destroys the levels arguments, now for other critical issues:
3) False positives. There will be cases where the machines will give a positve reation to some substance when, in fact, none is present. This is huge because thickie copper won't have a fucking clue! (Neither will most of the judges nor jury members. You had better hope you have a good lawyer!)
4) If blood has to be taken will there be qualified medical personel who will do this or will it be Seargeant Sadist with a grade four education? Will this fucking numbnuts know what to do if complications arise?
5) Endogenous drug creation. Believe it or not, our bodies manufacture some drugs. (i.e. GHB, for one). Normally, the levels for endogenously produced GHB will be very low, but if a "zero-tolerance" policy is adopted, then an impairment charge could arise, if GHB is present.
6) The huge infringement on our civil liberties. Why would we be willing to give up such hard fought liberties?
7) The police can still chage someone with impaired/dangerous driving without determining the impairment substance. Imagine a person, fucked out of their skull on LSD. The cops could charge them with impaired driving, without determining the substance. They would use other observational evidence such as weaving across lanes, inability to stand up or walk, and so on.
If the cops had to wait until they could determine a substance, then,in the above case, they might not be able to charge the individual. Think about it!
A 200 microgram hit of acid (or two), taken 3 hours before the police checked the driver, would have been pissed out of the system by then, so that detecting the LSD could be very difficult. And yet buddy is seriously hooped and will be for the next 6 to 12 hours.
So, these laws are doomed to fail. Otherwise a lot of innocent people will be going to jail.
-
Kingdoc
- Posts: 3678
- Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009 09:52 am
- Location: Edinburgh/Scotland - Trips to amsterdam : 15
Boner wrote:Here you go this is the ad that kingdoc is on about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMOm6cERZWw
There adverts are laughable,Pitty they didnt stop giving out FREE meth & valium to junkies who then sell it on to kids! pure scum,Ps boner they look like they have just climbed out a space shit or something.
-
cantona7
- Posts: 4131
- Joined: Sat 8th Jul 2006 10:01 pm
- Location: Seattle- trips to the 'dam, 7 by the time i caught up with freedom i was out of breathe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0YtPi2QZSYKingdoc wrote:Boner wrote:Here you go this is the ad that kingdoc is on about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMOm6cERZWw
There adverts are laughable,Pitty they didnt stop giving out FREE meth & valium to junkies who then sell it on to kids! pure scum,Ps boner they look like they have just climbed out a space shit or something.
made me think of that
educating myself and waiting for the next trip.
instagram @shooter_mcdabbin
instagram @shooter_mcdabbin
-
Ingwey Gooblebogger
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Sat 27th Sep 2008 10:04 pm
First, the 10% figure is bullshit, in terms of absolute numbers.So if 10% of car accidents are involving people on cannabis, that means a staggering 90% of all car accidents are caused by people NOT on cannabis
Second, those counted as "being on cannabis", merely had cannabinoids in their system. That does NOT mean they were intoxicated.
Cannabinoids are lipophilic (i.e. they are absorbed by the fatty tissues) and, hence, they can linger in the body for weeks.
Furthermore, as I mentioned in my prior post, above: No toxicologist in the world can determine, with certitude, whether someone is impaired by looking at the levels of cannabinoids in their system! NONE!!!
If they choose some arbitrary level to determine "intoxication" for the new laws, then these laws will fail in the courts because the police will not be able to find a credible toxicologist who back up their "intoxication" levels.
A half-decent defence lawyer will destrroy them in the cross examination!
-
cantona7
- Posts: 4131
- Joined: Sat 8th Jul 2006 10:01 pm
- Location: Seattle- trips to the 'dam, 7 by the time i caught up with freedom i was out of breathe
Ingwey Gooblebogger wrote:First, the 10% figure is bullshit, in terms of absolute numbers.So if 10% of car accidents are involving people on cannabis, that means a staggering 90% of all car accidents are caused by people NOT on cannabis
Second, those counted as "being on cannabis", merely had cannabinoids in their system. That does NOT mean they were intoxicated.
Cannabinoids are lipophilic (i.e. they are absorbed by the fatty tissues) and, hence, they can linger in the body for weeks.
Furthermore, as I mentioned in my prior post, above: No toxicologist in the world can determine, with certitude, whether someone is impaired by looking at the levels of cannabinoids in their system! NONE!!!
If they choose some arbitrary level to determine "intoxication" for the new laws, then these laws will fail in the courts because the police will not be able to find a credible toxicologist who back up their "intoxication" levels.
A half-decent defence lawyer will destrroy them in the cross examination!
took me like 2 months..give or take a few weeks to get it out of my system.
educating myself and waiting for the next trip.
instagram @shooter_mcdabbin
instagram @shooter_mcdabbin
-
Kingdoc
- Posts: 3678
- Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009 09:52 am
- Location: Edinburgh/Scotland - Trips to amsterdam : 15
cantona7 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0YtPi2QZSYKingdoc wrote:Boner wrote:Here you go this is the ad that kingdoc is on about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMOm6cERZWw
There adverts are laughable,Pitty they didnt stop giving out FREE meth & valium to junkies who then sell it on to kids! pure scum,Ps boner they look like they have just climbed out a space shit or something.
made me think of that
Remember "reefer madness" lmfao.