April 15, 2005

• Why does random drug testing make it a police state? Thats an honest curiosity question not a snark. Meth and Weed stay detectable in your system for a long time - is that the objection? Or is it the randomness? I'd say that if they'd tested 4600 people and none of them were positive there might be some argument against infringement of civil liberty an all that - but it's like a 1.4% hit rate... If they are measuring levels that impair driving ability (rather than yeah, he smoked a fat one last month) then whats the deal? (In the spirit of full discosure: I have been known to be partial to a bit of 'erb. And am currently suspended from driving for having too little blood in my alchohol stream - not that I advocate either etc., etc.,)
• "Police state"?? This is the kind of overstatement that makes people call "extremist!" (Not to mention that it's pretty insulting to those who live in real police states.)
• When kangaroos got guns.
• When this was introduced, one of the first people who tested positive protested his innocence. The swab had shown up positive for marijuana or speed or something. Anyway, they ended up doing a blood test and he was, in fact, drug free. So my only issue with this would be the accuracy of the test results. Personally I have no problem with this. I see no difference between someone driving while drunk as opposed to being stoned to the bejeezus or high as a kite on pills. If you're going to stop people from driving when they're drunk then same goes for when they're on drugs.
• They always did look shifty. Who knows what they've got in those pouches. Drugs, concealed weapons, Ayn Rand novels - could be anything! Pretending to be disarmingly cute with their little hops. A herd of kangaroos tried to follow me down a dark street once, but I hid in a tree and pretended to be a koala. Gave 'em the slip.
• Kangarude? Wot has it got in its pocketses?
• Wot has it got in its pocketses? The precious!
• The minute the Brits started using it as a giant open air prison.. [sorry] 1 in every 75?! Go Australia! That's what I say...
• Not all drugs are equally (or even) dangerous to drive on. They give meth as 'go pills' to F-16 pilots. Alcohol alone, or in combination, benzodiazepines, and high doses of cannabis are real risk factors. There was a year-long controlled study in Holland: Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents(PDF). Table: Risk for personal injury in road accidents associated with current use of psychoactive substances in real moving traffic Substance Odds Alcohol BAC 0.5> 1.00 (baseline) BAC 0.5-0.79 5.46 BAC >0.8 15.50 Amphetamines 2.10 Benzodiazepines 5.05 Cannabis 1.22 Cocaine 2.04 Opiates 2.35 Alcohol-Drug vs. No Drugs 112.22 Multiple Drugs vs. No Drugs 6.05 All these numbers have error-margins. Just read the paper for the scoop.
• Klepton, they're treating 99 innocents as criminals just to catch 1. That's a police state.
• The roadside tests here in Aust use a saliva swab from the inside of your mouth. A positive swab is verified by a blood-test before any action is taken, but you are still walking home that evening. The swab tests for the existance of drugs within a relatively narrow timeframe, measured in the hours, rather than days or weeks. So that spliff you lit up a few days ago is unlikely to cause problems. The whole thing is in trial... There is only one drug testing van on the roads at this time in Victoria, making your odds of even getting tested pretty minimal. I have serious reservations about how it all operates (especially about false swab positives, getting exonerated on a blood test a week or so later is cold comfort for needing to walk home on the night) however driving on substances is damn irresponsible. Take yer drugs, but don't go piloting heavy machinery at high speeds afterward m'kay?
• On preview, knickerbocker... Your example is identical to roadside blood alchohol testing. I don't believe that is the product of a police state.
• Oz is a lot better viz the cops than it used to be. Back in the 70s the pigs were like stormtroopers down there, particularly traffic cops strutting around in their jodhpurs and jackboots, moving you along just for talking to a group of mates at the end of the road. And don't get me started on country cops. Luckily or unluckily if you like, the Oz police farce is populated mainly by morons. If they introduced this test full time, it would be very funny, because they would really find out how many Aussies smoke dope, which I can say is an awful lot. I've met some very otherwise seemingly conservative people there who think cannabis to be not worthy of concern.
• well there goes my "get high and stay high the entire time and see where i end up in my rental car" vacation to australia. have you ever seen a koala...on WEED?!?! dude...it's like they can see into your soul. seriously, this sems a bit much...and yes,i'd really like to stay high for entire week in australia. guess i'll just take my bong to the zoo and hang with the koalas...but they're all americanized and shit. it's like being high at an outback stakhouse. i know the truth, I AM NOT IN AUSTRALIA. *hmmm-bloomin' onions-i got the munchies.*
• oh, by the way...i've dubbed my tube "olivia newton bong"...that should count for something, right?
• the scary and freaky part of this, and the part that could very well be compared to a police state, is that it is TOTALLY RANDOM. Breathalyzer tests, in the US at least, are allowed after the officer has probable cause to believe the person is driving drunk, ie that a crime has been comitted. This is the equivalent of police grabbing people at random on the street and searching their pockets or bags, except it's more invasive because it's their body. And for all the talk of America becoming "fascist" (which I've funnily enough heard from Aussies on here) this would never happen in the US- the outcry would be incredible.
• Why does random drug testing make it a police state? Thats an honest curiosity question not a snark. Random suspicion of a crime with no evidence whatsoever, and police having the right to search people, their effects and bodies, again with no evidence whatsoever of a crime having been committed, is pretty much the definition of a police state.
• (also in the US the person has the right to refuse the breathalyser if he so chooses)
• Random alcohol testing is routine in Canada. They're called R.I.D.E. (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) checks, and they just set up a roadblock and check every car that goes by. Normally, they just chat with you for about ten seconds and send you on your way, but if they smell booze on your breath or notice any slurred speech, they make you blow into the breathalyzer. Most people don't seem to mind the intrusion, and there are very few "Police State" style accusations.
• While I'm in favor of legalization, I think as with alchohol if you get caught driving under the influence they should throw the book at you. I've had one friend killed, several others injured, and had my favorite car ever totalled by folks driving while influenced. I'd say that there is probable cause for searches like this. The vast amount of death, injury, emotional pain, and property loss every year speaks very loudly that there are many, many people out there driving while altered. If people would stop being dumbasses and driving when they shouldn't, this problem would go away. I wish they would make people watch a movie on just how much they really are impared every time they renewed their licenses. Perhaps having a video loop going while you're in line and waiting, or something. And as far as meth goes, something that makes for a more effective combat fighter pilot still doesn't sound like something which should be on the public roads.
• Perhaps having a video loop going while you're in line and waiting, or something. I recall reading about a Driving Ed class in a US high-school where they did an interesting experiment. They got a huge plot, circled it with stacks of packed hay, and got some beer. Then the students will navigate a circuit around the plot, get out and drink a glass of beer, then navigate another circuit. All the students were shocked at how much their coordination dropped even while they felt very "sober". The biggest problems were the feel for acceleration (both feedback on how hard they were stepping on the gas and the sense of speed of the car) and turning. Needless to say, after a couple of beers, some students were careening into the haystacks.
• fatoudust: And as far as meth goes, something that makes for a more effective combat fighter pilot still doesn't sound like something which should be on the public roads. No one's talking about whether it should be on the roads, but prima facie, rejects the case that stimulants are a "menace" on the roads, like the Man in the article claims.
• "And for all the talk of America becoming "fascist" (which I've funnily enough heard from Aussies on here) this would never happen in the US- the outcry would be incredible" ROFLOL - That's so funny. This country has two elections stolen and all they can do is wave around sock puppets at protest marches that hardly anyone attends while everyone else shops for consumer goods a little more furiously to take their minds off the living joke that democracy is in this country. Hahahahahahahahah dr. jimmy, you weren't serious, were you?
• What about all the invasive B.S. at all the airports with 'Homeland Security'? Hahahahahahaha
• Eh... I'm tired of being treated like a criminal for my own protection. While I agree that driving under the influence/terrorism/smuggling/whateverelseyougot is a big, big problem, I'm tired of my government assuming that I'm in on it -- acting like I'm guilty until I can prove myself innocent. Is this because I got searched on my way back into the US out of Canada this week, after visiting Toronto on a business trip? Probably. Or it could be because I get searched every time I fly. (One homeland security guard said it was because I "look like a drug addict." I assume this is because of the nose ring, because I was dressed in a nice suit at the time.) Or it could be because I'm routinely followed in stores as a potetial shoplifter. *sigh* I'm just tired of being treated like I'm suspicious just for existing. The purpose of government is not to treat all of its citizens like potential criminals.
• Gee, I think I've pretty much gotten rather blase about being treated as a potential criminal. Although I did feel rather indignant the first time I went to Sydney and my mom and I dropped by a supermarket (we rented a studio apartment for a week). When we paid and walked to the exit, we had to join another queue - of people getting their plastic bags checked by the security guards. It was a while back, and I was actually down with pneumonia at that point (but didn't know it yet), so I don't remember if every shopper had to go through the inspection, or just Asians, or just anyone the guard didn't like the look of. That was an eye-opener for me and I really can't say that I've been treated much worse than that since (barring being passively watched or monitored).
• drjimmy - "definition of a police state" Yeah, OK. I'm with you. I guess I just don't see a breath test as a 'search', and I dont see driving as a 'right', so for me to keep the privelidge of driving on public, I don't mind having the onus on me to prove that I'm fit to do so.
• Some of you have down played the effects of methamphetimins, but as some one who has lived in the same house with an addict for the last few years (long story, don't ask) I can tell you that someone who suffers from meth psychosis is not someone who should be driving. And, even if he just got caught up in a check point, if they'd put him in jail based on a drug test, I'd cheer.
• Anyone who suffers from acute psychosis, drug-induced or innate, should not drive.
• Gyan said about meth: No one's talking about whether it should be on the roads, but prima facie, rejects the case that stimulants are a "menace" on the roads, like the Man in the article claims. Urrr... ummm... my point was and I should have explicitly stated this, anything which makes combat fighter pilots more effective is probably not something which makes drivers in the public traffic safer. Fighter pilots need to be revved up and twitchy, but drivers who are like this tend to be those asshats who switch lanes all the time and weave in and out of traffic. Meanaces to polite society, in other words, and people I don't want to be on the road with, in specific words. Driving is not a right. It's an earned privlege. Part of earning that is respecting the safety of everyone else on the road. Since there are countless asshats endangering us nice and lawful drivers, the government has the obligation to protect us, since they're charged with providing the safety and security on the public thoroughfares. Again, this would not be an issue were there not so many fucking assholes driving intoxicated and killing people. Look up deaths by intoxicated drivers and compare it to any other non-disease related cause of death in the civilized world. Don't want to be searched while driving? Be militant to everyone you know about only driving while sober!
• The study I linked to, clearly shows that amphetamines as a category pose less than half the risk that alcohol alone at levels between 0.5-0.8 pose. And most govts. have decided that alcohol upto BAC 0.8 does not warrant a DUI charge. There's no doubt someone hopped up on a huge dose of speed ought not to be driving. But the test should be impairment, not presumption by proxy (drug detection).
• I'm if Thomas Jefferson had gone to a couple of MADD meetings too, he'd have re-thought that whole silly 4th amendment thing...
• "I'm sure"
• Being on the road is not private behavior, it's public. There has always been a legal differential between private and public behavior with regards to privacy, and this has mattered quite a lot in Amendmental legal questions. I agree that your car or your passengers should not be subject to arbirtary search but the driver's intoxication level should be. What I carry in my car matters not to the public safety unless lots of people are carrying suicide bombs which detonate on the roads. However, my intoxication level does matter because lots of people are driving intoxicated and killing people. Drunk drivers have spoiled the party for us legal drivers, and we all suffer because of these jerks. No right can exist where that right endangers too many citizens, because citizens will demand safety. I think intoxication while driving has passed the point of bothering people's outrage about privacy because so many people have been hurt by intoxicated drivers. I'm not happy about it, but I do understand it. I love being intoxicated, and it's nobody's business when I do it on my own time, but I would never do it and drive, and if I did you ALL should be pissed at me!
• Being on the road is not private behavior, it's public. Using this kind of nonsense-speak, you can just strip searches of people walking down the sidewalk, or searches of any house with windows. I love being intoxicated, and it's nobody's business when I do it on my own time, but I would never do it and drive, and if I did you ALL should be pissed at me! I love being sober, and it's my business that I'm sober whenever I choose to be sober, and when I choose to be sober and drive, you shouldn't treat me like I committed a crime, because I didn't, and none of you should be pissed at me for driving sober. When being innocent gets you harrassed, you lose incentive to be innocent. When Mr. X's driving is impaired (due to booze, drugs, whatever), cops will know and pull Mr. X over. How will they know? Because his fucking driving is impaired. If Mr. X's driving isn't impaired, then he isn't a danger, so it's bullshit to act like it's neccessary to protect people from him.
• I love being intoxicated, and it's nobody's business when I do it on my own time, but I would never do it and drive, and if I did you ALL should be pissed at me! posted by fatoudust at 09:17AM UTC on April 16, 2005 -------------------------------------------------- That's exactly my point. I'm very happily intoxicated now (two double martinis, far worse than a few bong hits.) As the previous poster said, when you're driving impaired from al-Koh_hole it's an issue. When you're driving stoned there is a thing called 'focus' that comes into play. There have been automotive journalists and professional race drivers and my personel friend who have driven stoned on pot across the country who have done exceptionally well while 'under the influence' (helps the concentration) and I have nothing against that. My problem is with those who drift off on the freeways and byways when perfectly sober. And therein lies the rub. When those who are sober cannot equal those who are stoned, who should truly be punished here? Those who are able to focus on their driving and maintaining the flow of traffic or those who are sober and timid and hold things up? That is my point here, and a damn valid one, I might add. What matters most? A sober inattentive driver or one who's had a few bong hits, is very, very attentive and doesnt miss a beat? That is the question here. For myself, I will not toke a joint until this pack of ignorant morons have been run out of D.C. by hook or by crook. Carpetbaggers all, and may they all rot in hell until the end of time.
• I will not toke a joint until this pack of ignorant morons have been run out of D.C. by hook or by crook Regular service resumes.
• "When Mr. X's driving is impaired (due to booze, drugs, whatever), cops will know and pull Mr. X over. How will they know? Because his fucking driving is impaired." Oh, bullshit. The cops will only KNOW when he t-bones a freakin' car at an intersection killing himself and its occupants. Some of alcohols worst effects for driving are delays in reaction time... Drivers under the influence can very easily keep with the traffic flow under normal conditions and evade detection. Its when a few reflexes are needed that it all falls apart. If you think the only road deaths are caused by drivers slewing their vehicles all over the place enough to catch the attention of the cops, then you are incredibly misguided.
• It's hardly an inconvenience being pulled over for 30seconds and being asked to blow into a tube or have a quick swab taken. It's not about "being treated like a criminal for my own protection." If you want to drink and drive and risk an accident I would say go ahead- provided it was only you who risked being injured in the event of an accident. But the fact is that quite often injuries aren't limited to the intoxicated driver. The concern surrounds the welfare and safety of innocent pedestrians, passengers and other drivers you may come into contact with whilst intoxicated. That's what makes one persons irresponsible action a concern for all road users.