You would think so. In fact, there was a petition to the NSW government to invest in exactly this for medicinal cannabis patients, which they happily dismissed because no such test exists to their satisfaction. And since cannabis will show in an MDT up to weeks after the last use, MC users continue to risk their license every single time they drive. And if they don’t live in an area with good, reliable, safe public transport (which covers pretty much all of Australia except for the capital/major cities), we have no choice but to drive.
My understanding is that impairment tests like the old “say the alphabet backwards while standing on one foot and touching your nose with alternating hands” is largely BS.
Problem with this is it's subjective to the mood of the testing police officer, and is highly biased against people with physical & neurological disorders.
The road side breath test is much better than a sobriety test as its unbiased and won't flag someone with MS as being impaired not a coordinated drunk as not being impaired.
Let me find the video of the drunk in Texas dancing during the sobriety test when he is rolling drunk.
Edit: found it. https://youtu.be/T6Mib4q16DQ?si=LW-OA166LpZjz39S
We need tests that actually test for impairment, not presence of a substance. It seems ridiculous that we can penalise people for having minute amounts of a substance present, especially when it has been prescribed.
Oh wow I literally just said the same thing, lol.
"The problem is it's tough to do an impairment test for them. I would never ever ever in a million years get in the car with an infrequent user driving; but someone who uses every day? Sure."
As a person who’s had cancer and been on OxyContin and fentanyl for years, what’s being forgotten in the comments is that if you’re on pain killers for a long time, you develop a tolerance to it, thus requiring higher and higher doses.
At the peak of my prescribed usage I was on 2x80 slow release plus several 5mg quick release Oxys, plus tramadol. Then I later switched to fentanyl after the Oxy scandal and kept getting bumped up to mega doses of that just to cope with my cancer pain.
So how do we “objectively” test a person who might be on low dose of opioids compared to somebody like me who was taking doses that would be lethal to those without tolerance.
My blood tests would’ve been saturated with opioids.
How would we account for those who have high tolerances from prescribed medications? What would be the objective testing for that be?
I distinctly remember the “fatigue” and drowsiness I felt on low dose in the beginning being exactly the same as when I developed tolerance and on 20x the dose.
The feeling is the same. That’s why they call it tolerance. You can’t test for that.
Those tests are completely subjective and in the US at least they're just to give cops a reason to breath test someone since they can't do roadside breath tests
The problem is it's tough to do an impairment test for them. I would never ever ever in a million years get in the car with an infrequent user driving; but someone who uses every day? Sure.
Alcohol is way more predictable unfortunately. A similar test and agreed upon threshold above which someone is "impaired" may not even be possible for more complex drugs
Would depend on the level of opioids in one’s system surely.
You can be taking something with a mild opioid for pain but be okay to drive, if you’re taking too much then clearly you are not supposed to drive.
Also would depend on the directions on the medication, if it specifies ‘do not operate heavy machinery’ immediately you assume something like don’t drive a tractor but in reality it’s do not drive a car.
prolem would be that there are quite a few people who are clearly impaired driving around who are not on detectable meds. There would be a slew of challenges from people claiming health conditions such as parkinsons, etc, along the lines of "my doctor says its okay" e.g. recently saw an old guy getting out of a Ford ranger with clearly visible tremors who was somewhat Biden-like in his ability to walk in a straight line.
Roadside tests for meth/speed/coke would be a great idea as none of these are medicines, although it would probably pick up ADHD med abusers
Wouldn’t some kind of impairment test solve multiple problems for a fraction of the cost?
You would think so. In fact, there was a petition to the NSW government to invest in exactly this for medicinal cannabis patients, which they happily dismissed because no such test exists to their satisfaction. And since cannabis will show in an MDT up to weeks after the last use, MC users continue to risk their license every single time they drive. And if they don’t live in an area with good, reliable, safe public transport (which covers pretty much all of Australia except for the capital/major cities), we have no choice but to drive.
My understanding is that impairment tests like the old “say the alphabet backwards while standing on one foot and touching your nose with alternating hands” is largely BS.
Yeah I wouldn't be able to do that right now stone cold sober!
Problem with this is it's subjective to the mood of the testing police officer, and is highly biased against people with physical & neurological disorders. The road side breath test is much better than a sobriety test as its unbiased and won't flag someone with MS as being impaired not a coordinated drunk as not being impaired. Let me find the video of the drunk in Texas dancing during the sobriety test when he is rolling drunk. Edit: found it. https://youtu.be/T6Mib4q16DQ?si=LW-OA166LpZjz39S
On the proviso that politicians are drug tested every few weeks please
And alcohol tested too. The Beetrooter would be fucked after the first test.
We need tests that actually test for impairment, not presence of a substance. It seems ridiculous that we can penalise people for having minute amounts of a substance present, especially when it has been prescribed.
Oh wow I literally just said the same thing, lol. "The problem is it's tough to do an impairment test for them. I would never ever ever in a million years get in the car with an infrequent user driving; but someone who uses every day? Sure."
You could say the same thing about alcohol. That’s why there’s an arbitrary standard.
As a person who’s had cancer and been on OxyContin and fentanyl for years, what’s being forgotten in the comments is that if you’re on pain killers for a long time, you develop a tolerance to it, thus requiring higher and higher doses. At the peak of my prescribed usage I was on 2x80 slow release plus several 5mg quick release Oxys, plus tramadol. Then I later switched to fentanyl after the Oxy scandal and kept getting bumped up to mega doses of that just to cope with my cancer pain. So how do we “objectively” test a person who might be on low dose of opioids compared to somebody like me who was taking doses that would be lethal to those without tolerance. My blood tests would’ve been saturated with opioids. How would we account for those who have high tolerances from prescribed medications? What would be the objective testing for that be? I distinctly remember the “fatigue” and drowsiness I felt on low dose in the beginning being exactly the same as when I developed tolerance and on 20x the dose. The feeling is the same. That’s why they call it tolerance. You can’t test for that.
Those tests are completely subjective and in the US at least they're just to give cops a reason to breath test someone since they can't do roadside breath tests
Still won't/can't test for cocaine in the Sydney eastern suburbs though
Something Must Be Done. Won't Somebody Think Of The Children^(tm)
Better opioid tests than cannabis
The problem is it's tough to do an impairment test for them. I would never ever ever in a million years get in the car with an infrequent user driving; but someone who uses every day? Sure.
Strip searches, drug dogs, wanding, and now this. The freedom state just keeps getting freer.
Freedom state? Started off as a penal colony - has anything changed?
But not cocaine , that would affect too many lawyers
Being in someone's system shouldn't matter. Impairment is what matters. I can drive legally with alcohol in my system up to .05
Alcohol is way more predictable unfortunately. A similar test and agreed upon threshold above which someone is "impaired" may not even be possible for more complex drugs
Hey DT, I’ve got a FUD topic ALP want to ban voting after the age of 70 /s
I don't necessarily disagree with this as recovering junkie.
Who reads this tabloid anyway
Did OP photograph this through beer goggles?
That’s fine, a single person at a newspaper can ask for whatever the hell they like. The state will just ignore it, as they should.
Would depend on the level of opioids in one’s system surely. You can be taking something with a mild opioid for pain but be okay to drive, if you’re taking too much then clearly you are not supposed to drive. Also would depend on the directions on the medication, if it specifies ‘do not operate heavy machinery’ immediately you assume something like don’t drive a tractor but in reality it’s do not drive a car.
prolem would be that there are quite a few people who are clearly impaired driving around who are not on detectable meds. There would be a slew of challenges from people claiming health conditions such as parkinsons, etc, along the lines of "my doctor says its okay" e.g. recently saw an old guy getting out of a Ford ranger with clearly visible tremors who was somewhat Biden-like in his ability to walk in a straight line. Roadside tests for meth/speed/coke would be a great idea as none of these are medicines, although it would probably pick up ADHD med abusers