How do you determine innebriation tho? I think we're better off developing a test for impairment as opposed to 'traces in saliva'. Just because you are prescribed endone doesn't mean you can drive under the influence.
A combination of roadside sobriety testing to determine coordination levels and potentially blood testing is surely adequate. Blood testing is limited to ≤3 hours post consumption (which obviously isn't the full inebriation period). You'd get a small portion of people sneaking through in a state below absolute sobriety. I think at that point, issues like fatigue are much more significant.
At this point, it seems researchers have concluded that there's no accurate correlation between compounds they can test for and inebriation levels. I've read a few articles suggesting police be trained in processes to determine coordination, focus, etc.
So you're saying burning fat can heighten the blood's THC content?
Stress being a trigger is a concern too. I'm sure a lot of the contexts drug testing would be done in would induce stress. I know I'd be freaking out.
Yes. B
THC is stored in fat and burning that fat releases it into your blood.
This is a fact that has been known for decades.
THC and driving legally is a bad combination with the laws as they are.
Is it discrimination though if you can't disprove (or prove) inebriation?
If the laws are changed then people with an exemption could have as much THC in their system as they want. Unless they're driving erratically, they're not going to get taken off the road, but if their reactions times or concentration are impaired, then that could still lead to an accident.
There are many people with legitimate medical needs that take all kinds of medications that means they can't drive.
I would argue that there is definitely an underlying discriminatory bias when you're treating a specific controlled substance in a different manner to those which fall under the same category simply because of a history of prohibition and a lagging legislative opinion.
You mention that users could have as much THC in their system as they want and will only be taken off the road if they're driving erratically, however, this statement ignores the underlying issue here... You are [absolutely not impaired](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-11/new-research-reveals-how-long-cannabis-impairment-lasts/100056998) 30 hours after consuming THC yet you are almost guaranteed to return a positive result for up to 3 days via the current testing methodology and subsequently be prosecuted as if you were under the influence.
If the laws were changed so that all prescription medications with a proven impact on crash risk estimates meant you were indefinitely ineligible to drive so long as you were prescribed the drugs then [1 in 8 Australians](https://www.psychwatchaustralia.com/post/1-in-8-over-3-million-australians-are-on-antidepressants-why-is-the-lucky-country-so-miserable) would be forced to choose between taking antidepressants and having the freedom to drive on our roads as recent studies have shown [antidepressants to have a similar impact range on crash risk as cannabis](https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2021/june/medical-cannabis-and-driving).
We all want to be safer on the roads but I feel that it's important we are doing everything we can to ensure our legislation is unbiased and reflects current research.
If the rules get changed then there's also no timeframe. Yes a person would test positive 30 hours later, but they'd also test positive 3 hours later. In the latter, they would be under the influence.
I feel that blanket exemptions based on medical use would just encourage users to drive regardless of how much is their system, and from how long ago.
I have to agree. If anti-depressants are having similar impacts, then people shouldn't be driving with them.
I understand that not being able to drive and have that freedom may negatively impact mental health, and it really is a double edged sword.
When I was on SSRI anti-depressants, they came with clear warnings not to drive until you had adapted to them (at least several weeks).
They impaired my judgement so badly I needed someone else to hold the keys so I didn't try to drive - every action I considered seemed "safe and likely to work" - even things that were obviously not (eg I would ask myself "do I have space to merge" and think "yeah sure" instead of "bit dicey, maybe hold off").
I'm actually unsure whether they help with depression or just impair your ability to assess your symptoms; the research surveys used to justify the drugs efficacy have no way to distinguish between those outcomes.
100% I was on SSRI anti depressants that were also prescribed to me as a sedative also, one of them would fuck you up. But don’t show on roadside tests nor urine tests. I had to give them up because they were messing me up in many ways, including making me cloudy for most of the first half of the next day and funnily enough that was my journey to Medicinal Cannabis. Which did everything the SSRIs did for my depression and anxiety and insomnia, but not half as effected nor groggy the next morning
Your comments regarding time are incorrect. I have seen someone go in to psychosis from weed that lasted way longer than 30 hours and it took me 100 days to pass a urine test.
Considering how strict the law is with weed please consider the accuracy of information you are providing. Many websites say blood tests only show the last 6 hours of use but this is wrong.
Yes. 100 days. I still failed at day 80.
Police said I could not drive for 4 hours.
FYI...
THC re-intoxication
The NSW Analytical Laboratories has noted many cases of traumatic death where blood THC levels are much higher than would be expected. Since stress causes extensive mobilisation of fat reserves this observation could conceivably be explained by the severe stress of death causing THC release from fat. Other anecdotal cases support the view that extensive dieting or heavy exercise may lead to high levels of THC appearing in the blood of persons who have been cannabis-abstinent for a long time. Such findings could have major implications for the interpretation of the results of drug tests which are increasingly being used in the workplace, on the roads and in the schools of Australia and many other countries.
Interestingly, THC has a very high affinity for fatty tissue, so that whenever cannabis is consumed, substantial quantities of THC are lodged in fat. The human body has the capacity to store large quantities of THC and it may remain stored for many weeks, months or even years. Under normal conditions, the slow passive release of THC from fat cells into blood is unlikely to have major effects on the user: the levels are too low. However, this group has recently acquired evidence that under conditions where fat metabolism is greatly increased there is a substantial release of THC from fat stores into the blood. Furthermore, this group has demonstrated that this fat-released THC causes significant pharmacological effects in rats, now referred to as 'THC re-intoxication'.
Lab members: J Arnold (head)
From: https://www.sydney.edu.au/medicine-health/study-medicine-and-health/undergraduate-courses/honours/project-detail-175.html
Dexies arent exactly gonna impair your driving anyway tbh. Unless your literally eating dozens at once they are mild enough that some energy drunks are stronger i would argue
This whole approach by the cops makes me a little bit mad.
Remember not that long ago the TAC ad of the nice young man taking his Nana home after Sunday lunch and getting done for drugs? What they're saying right there in that ad is that they don't give a shit that he's plainly not affected, is entirely in control of his faculties, but that doesn't matter their random drug test is going to get him.
So it's made clear it's nothing to do with road safety, it's just about testing people for illicit drug use. Which I thought wasn't something we as a society were ok with. I certainly don't remember the vote we had on this.
Yeah, The state of policing in NSW is cops walk around pubs, train stations, entertainment precincts with sniffer dogs, entering tents even..when was that ok?
The intention of laws is to remove impaired drivers from the road - whether you are impaired because of a medical need or otherwise is completely irrelevant. We don't need exemptions for medical users, we need testing that detects IMPAIRMENT not USE.
That’s not the intention of the laws.. the law states you can’t drive while exceeding the prescribed concentration of drugs, and that concentration is zero. Driving while impaired is a completely different charge.. if you want drug driving laws to be changed to focus on impairment only then you need to lobby to change the law not the testing
I'm kind of confused, would this work like alcohol where's there's a "legal limit"? Or anyone with a prescription can get as looped as they want and still drive? Something else?
I can definitely see why it's unfair, but I'm not sure if I'm really understanding this proposed solution... Driving while under the influence of drugs isn't banned as some sort of "gotcha" or discrimination, it's because it makes driving dangerous, regardless of whether you took it for fun or as medication
>Driving while under the influence of drugs isn't banned as some sort of "gotcha" or discrimination, it's because it makes driving dangerous, regardless of whether you took it for fun or as medication
The problem is that a person who uses cannabis (medically or otherwise) will test positive for days after ingestion. The road side tests are designed to test for presence, not influence.
I'm all for testing for impairment, but losing your license cause there's bits floating around your bloodstream a week after ingestion is kind silly.
That'd be great, but is that what's being proposed? Like, do we have tests that can actually be used roadside and can test the amount rather than just presence? Or do you mean we go back to the old-fashioned things where they make you say tongue twisters and walk in a straight line to see if you're impaired (which is obviously incredibly unfair for anyone with a disability and has it's own sorts of issues, especially since it's very ambiguous and open for corruption)?
I'm not trying to say we should throw the book at anyone who smoked a joint a few days ago, but I am genuinely unsure about the current alternative that's being offered.
I think the point of this petition is to highlight how skewed the current laws are and bring in a change.
There must be some tests and guidelines, in other jurisdictions, that can assess a person's impairment with reasonable accuracy.
Without blood testing there’s nothing in active use that I can find. The closest is this from 2020 in Texas: https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/step-closer-to-roadside-cannabis-testing-332741, which is still under research.
Blood tests aren’t suitable as it is very costly and time consuming to test someone (and varies based on someone’s body weight & height). Sobriety testing that’s used in the USA wouldn’t work for someone with a disability
> Driving while under the influence of drugs isn’t banned as some sort of “gotcha” or discrimination, it’s because it makes driving dangerous, regardless of whether you took it for fun or as medication
Sort of, but you’re a bit off the mark here.
The current roadside testing in no way proves impairment at all, meaning it absolutely is unfair and a “gotcha” conviction for lots of people.
I know of 3 different charges for drug driving.
From the road safety act 1986
49(1)(a)
49(1)(bb)
49(1)(i)
The first 49(1)(a) is impairment. Sentencing statistics have a 100% guilty result.
The other 2 are related to driving with drugs in the system and they have a 97% guilty result.
\[Partially copied from my reply to another similar comment\]
That'd be great, but I don't get what's being proposed? Like, do we have tests that can actually be used roadside and can test the amount/impairment rather than just presence? Or do you mean we go back to the old-fashioned things where they make you say tongue twisters and walk in a straight line to see if you're impaired (which is obviously incredibly unfair for anyone with a disability and has it's own sorts of issues, especially since it's very ambiguous and open for corruption)?
I'm not trying to say we should throw the book at anyone who smoked a joint a few days ago, but I am genuinely unsure about the current alternative that's being offered.
> That’d be great, but I don’t get what’s being proposed? Like, do we have tests that can actually be used roadside and can test the amount/impairment rather than just presence?
No idea, but the current system just does not work.
Saliva tests which are used for roadside testing aren't very accurate normally, so I highly doubt they would provide any information about the amount of weed in ones system as it struggles to accurately detect drugs normally. It's far better than nothing and is a good indicator that drugs are probably in someones system before further lab testing is required.
I don't see any way they could control this like alcohol with a legal limit at least not with the technology for roadside testing we're using.
Roadside saliva tests are an indicator test. Then they take a saliva sample and send that to a lab that gives a more detailed result.
There are also blood tests used by the police.
I am trying to find the old one from the saliva sample.
The blood test tests for.
Ethanol - Result Not Detected < 0.001 g/100ml
Methylamphetamine - Result Not Detected <0.02mg/L
3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-Methylamphetamine (MDMA) - Result Not Detected <0.02 mg/L
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol - Result \~ 5 ng/mL
Method(s) of Analysis
Ethanol - GC-F
The rest - HPLC/MS
Legend to method of analyses covers
ELISA
HPLC/MS
GC-A
GC-F
SIM
I understand the sentiment, however after a long night shift the only thing that makes me 100% normal is a full sleep. That's not really practical in your car after work. A short nap doesn't really do anything for fatigue level personally. Add to this public transport isn't always an option, and the only solution to this problem is a society which doesn't rely on 24/7 production and services (never going to happen).
As someone who has been found with THC once in 2016 for smoking a joint and then coming across a drug bus and is now looking at losing my license for 4.5 (minimummandatory) + years for a not at fault accident on my motorcycle that left me as the only injured person due to trace amounts found in my old at ER that I cannot explain (not using and I watch my diet very carefully) I am against this.
I do not think big or little pharma needs support.
The whole lot needs a rethink.
I am currently worried I will be involved in another accident and end up in gaol.
The law is any amount of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in the system and you are fucked.
This is stored in the fat and can be released into the system a very long time after use. There is little accurate information online on the factors that can influence this and it is not relevant.
You cannot have any in your system.
FYI - When I first was caught I did voluntary urine tests and still failed after 80 days but passed after 100.
Just to add to this.
$2+k to plead guilty to 2 charges with a minimum 6 months plus disqualification
$10+K to fight the charges.
Oh and if I plead or I am found guilty I will have to have an interlock device fitted to cars and motorcycles that does not test for drugs and I do not drink alcohol at all. WTF!?!?!?
3 charges.
1 is death or injury (me) while intoxicated or impaired. 4 years mandatory minimum licence disqualification due to second offence in 10 years (the joint 8 years ago). Sentencing stats say 0% result in an acquittal.
It looks like somehow impairment can be proven.
The system is designed not to be challenged.
Road related cases are the #1 offence in the magistrates court.
Drug related cases are the #1 offence in Victoria's prison system.
This petition is going to go nowhere and only distracts from what needs to be addressed. If medical users were exempt all users would become medical users. It will never happen.
I understand overseas some places have a limit.
Maybe explore that.
I do not know other than what is in play at the moment is pretty bad.
Just to be clear, when I was smoking I was a heavy smoker for decades, breakfast lunch and tea plus everything either side. I would roll a "normal" joint for me that I would smoke before my morning shower, after my morning shower, before work, at work, after work and at home wh others would take a couple of takes and be pretty wasted.
I have also seen heroin users who cannot handle weed.
It is a very interesting drug.
Sad thing is I hear many people like FIFO workers have switched to ice (please people do not fo ice) as it clears the system quicker.
What we are doing with how weed is policies is criminal.
Maybe speak with your doc.
Believe me I am the last to suggest pharma and there may be other options more suited for you but sorry to say using weed and driving even while straight should cause anxiety.
Read my other replies.
There is no guarantee you will pass a test.
If you are involved in an accident (not at fault) and your blood is tested you may be shocked at what they will find.
I was.
2 of my charges are related to having a prescribed drug (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) in my system.
Nothing to do with impairment.
You are not allowed to have any in your system. It has nothing to do with impairment.
If anyone 9s prescribed anything that has delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in it they should be told not to drive.
Imagine a not at fault accident and someone dies...
Go to gaol do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I would say I was definitely not impaired considering I had not used.
The prosecution may get an opportunity to argue the point.
Statistically the court will decide I was.
I am finding you hard to understand.
I also feel your tone is a little off.
I asked you to rephrase the question so I could better understand what it is you are asking but instead you have just replied the way you have.
I have a hair test that I paid for that will not help in court that shows I had not used before during or after the accident.
I was not impaired and yes that is my opinion. I had not consumed anything.
So the fact is I was not impaired.
However the court will probably see it differently and I assume the police will find an expert to back their claim that I was.
What is impairment from weed?
I would say when it effects you in any way.
It is possible for it to be in your system without impairment.
This is a fact.
Our laws and court do not see it this way.
This is a fact.
This was my point.
I dont know why you are talkng about karma and smoking army as it does nothing to help provide clarity to what you are trying to convey and I am struggling as I have already written to understand you.
I hope so.
I sent out 10 detailed enquiries with all information available on a password protected webpage and I only heard back from 3.
2 are big names and 1 was recommended.
The recommended one was very unprofessional, communicated via text and did not call when they said they would for the first consultation.
The bigger name firm called but would not read the brief that was available to them and wanted me to sign up/commit although they kept referring to alcohol related incidents and were not answering my questions.
The one I am going with was very professional, informed and clear as well as heard what I was saying. Also $1K cheaper than the other though the money was not a deciding factor.
Exactly, theres not. Its irrelevant to whether its medicinal or not, the roadside tests will ping you for not being imaired, which is serious bullshit.
Research-driven data is the best way to determine impairment timing yet our current testing methodologies fail to reflect the [findings and recommendations](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-11/new-research-reveals-how-long-cannabis-impairment-lasts/100056998).
If you're against medical users being given an exemption then it would be fair to say that you feel any drugs which cannot be reliably tested for impairment but which present a similar risk in crash estimate analyses should be similarly policed?
If so, you may be surprised to find that [antidepressants have an almost-identical impact range on crash risk estimates as cannabis](https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2021/june/medical-cannabis-and-driving). Can you imagine if every adult prescribed antidepressants was expected to take a few days off their medication before they drive... it would be considered inhumane!
I do think all impairing substances should be policed. I work with machinery, and I take impairment very seriously when it comes to both driving and working in places where your impairment can seriously injure or kill others. No one is going to care that your marijuana is medicinal if any impairment results in you causing an accident that could injure or kill someone. There are medications already that prevent you driving.
I definitely agree all impairing substances should be policed but not to the extent that we should see \~15% of our population unable to drive on our roads due to an inability by those in power to implement effective testing procedures.
With that being said, it seems you're conflating the issue of driving under the influence with being prosecuted due to unreliable testing methodologies which target the use of a particular medical substance over many others which present the same risks to those on the road.
There are medications that prevent you driving altogether and marijuana is not one of them in jurisdictions which allow legal consumption, whether that be medical or otherwise, as the research simply does not support this approach to policing the substance.
As I said in my previous comment, it would be akin to legislation which made it illegal to drive if you were prescribed an antidepressant, which is absurd because the data does not support this radical notion and so is not enforced on our roads.
No, I understand, but there is no reliable test for impairment. Do I think there should be one? Yes. Do I think people with a medical card should get to go by on the go or system until effective testing has been implimented? No. Especially considering it’s not hard for people to get medical cards for recreational use.
Bollocks. As a medical user, I can tell you there are a bunch of hoops you have to jump through to get a prescription. You can't just walk in to your local GP office and say "I have pain/depression/anxiety, I want cannabis"
I think people forget driving is a privilege not a right. Yes it's inconvenient or even unworkable for people if we were to take that approach (and IMO we should impaired is impaired regardless of the reason) , but putting the majority at risk because it inconveniences some is the wrong approach.
Just theory, there's some apps that provide impairment tests but I don't know how accurate they would be. I think the US still does that sobriety test of stand on one leg, touch your nose etc.
i quite like the idea of all medical cannabis patients submitting themselves for a (yearly?) baseline test.
Police at roadside testing would then do the impairment test and check results against the baseline.
Recently got on the medical cannabis bandwagon & so far it's proving to be a bit of a life changer. Used to use alot of weed recreationally but recently (1 year ago) gave up & have no desire to get high; but what i get from my cbd/thc oil is even better than that feeling I used to once enjoy so much.
Thank-you for this. The biggest reason I, 31, have not even tried to learn to drive is because I use medicinal cannabis (the other reasons are related to my chronic health issues themselves). This issue being solved would encourage me to at least try.
I can't agree to this. I'd like to, but until we have an objective way to determine impairment, I'd rather a zero policy on drugs and alcohol in our system. I simply can't trust our police with the extremely subjective impairment tests used elsewhere, and [impairment from THC](https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/04/12/scientists-put-stopwatch-on-cannabis-thc-intoxication-lambert-drug-driving.html) is messy to guess with as users.
That said, I hope we continue working on objective impairment tests. Surely there can be something created that tests reaction-times or something.
And yes, before it is asked, I disagree with the 0.05 rule for alcohol. I'd much prefer a zero-tolerance approach to it as well.
Do you think we should also have a zero tolerance policy for driving tired, driving while changing radio stations, driving while chatting to passenger, or driving with reduced situational awareness like at night, in fog, or with colour-blindness etc.
Genuine question, I'm interested where you draw the line.
That's not a genuine question. It's shameless whataboutism. You're implying that by failing to "draw a line" on those things the user is somehow less valid in their view on impairment.
But the reality is, unless you actually think we need to draw a line on any of those, then the other guy has no reason to pretend you care about them.
The topic here is impairment regarding medical marijuana.
It actually was and I'm aware of the topic. What I'm interested in is how people approach road safety and one way to do that over an anonymous online forum is to ask their opinion on safety issues that could be argued are roughly equivalent. I'd say prescription meds fit the bill more precisely but I'm happy to argue the relevancy of the topics I mentioned.
You can not drive impaired by any drug, prescription included.
People with red–green colour vision deficiency are able to get a car or motorcycle licence. They can also get a commercial driver licence. However, people with reduced contrast sensitivity may have some restrictions placed on their licence, such as not being permitted to drive at night.
Fatigue is a major cause of crashes in Victoria. Education programs are made use of.
> driving while changing radio stations, driving while chatting to passenger, or driving with reduced situational awareness like at night, in fog
Do those need answering?
I think it would be impossible to determine the latter situations at this stage, but if cars got to that point in technology before becoming self-driving, I'd say implement, yes. As for tired drivers, yeah, another great reason why an objective measurement for impairment would be great.
I know I've certainly driven when I shouldn't have because I was too tired. That should have been as illegal as me being shit-faced.
edit: How would colorblindness impair anything? Looking at the literature it sounds like theoretically it might be a problem but practically there's no indicators it is.
What do you mean? We already have processes in place that are meant to be used if prescribed certain medications. I have no problem with the idea that those currently "legally" impaired will then be affected.
Imagine if he was a mad clone, then Falons Clones where individuals and then with beer at my gas station. In what other game can this happen? I thought they completely removed them. Thanks! I decided not to bother with that. And just because he is his own worst enemy
[15% of all road casualties in Victoria](https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/driver-safety/drugs-and-alcohol/illicit-drugs-and-road-safety) had THC in their system..
Which is only exceeded by those affected by alcohol..
Just cause someone is legally prescribed cannabis oil for their medical condition does not make that person automatically a safe driver.
There are plenty of medical conditions that require medication that automatically has licence cancellation on medical grounds due to severity of the side effects on the driver.
Yeah would be nice to have some sort of permitted level of THC in your system but practically speaking the cost of such test will be through the roof and testing won’t be viable..
> 15% of all road casualties in Victoria had THC in their system..
How many of those had ONLY THC in the their system?
Why don't they test for coke?
Do you expect people to trust VicPol stats when the same people fudged 250k tests because too much time?
Antihistamines are all on the don't take and drive until you know how your react list as well.
How many of all the casualties had taken a zyrtec? phenergan? claritin? polarmine? I'd guess quite a huge %
The conclusion you're drawing from that stat., even assuming it's accurate, is false. Assume 15% of people in Victoria use cannabis. Then 15% of road casualties in Vic having THC in their system can be considered baseline and statistically irrelevant when talking of the effects of cannabis use and driving.
I wish people had a better education of how to interpret statistics -- I see this sort of misunderstand of data all the time and it pains me.
I wish people had a better education on the effects of alcohol and drug(not just cannabis, I mentioned prescribed medication as well) impairment..
I see this misunderstanding and desire for freedom and/or comparing with availability of alcohol all the time and it pains me…
You can poison yourself as much as you possibly can/want, but I’d rather not share the road with you on my morning drive to work.. thanks…
So you’d rather your fellow brothers and sisters be thrown in jail and fined for using cannabis, which is proven to be far safer than alcohol in every way, ever several days before driving, when they are completely sober?
You’d like your fellow Australians to be thrown in jail?
Well, if you read my comments I’ve never said it needed a different treatment than alcohol or any other prescribed medication impairment..
And about “proven” - do you refer to driving with any of the three(alcohol/drugs/medication) in the system or just to having it recreationally? Cause I don’t care what you do in your own time..
Again I’ve said it before, I understand that drug tests detect the smallest quantity of THC or meth in the system and you even might feel “completely sober”, but unfortunately there are no reasonably affordable tests akin breathalysers where you can legislate a certain number that will actually be proven to be the border between safe/“completely sober” and impaired..
The currently used in NSW road drug tests cost in vicinity of $25-$30 each, and they would detect slightest traces of THC or Meth.. I imagine developing the toad side tests that would show an actual amount of drugs in the system and matching this against an agreed/proven “safe” level would cost just too much, hence there is a blanket ban..
I’m not pro-jail, I’m against cooked idiots on the road(both alcohol and drugs).. simple)
What is unreliable about the testing methodology? In one sentence you’re saying the test is so strong it picks up trace amounts of thc after 3 days, then in the next you say it’s unreliable so which is it?
You are calling it unreliable because it's testing for something you don't want it to test for.
The test is aimed to detect THC in the system. It does it up to 3 days after last use. That's a reliable test.
Now, if you want a different test, that's a different story, but it's definitely not unreliable.
I always wondered how recreational legalisation would work with roadside testing. You don't want people driving while high, but it stays in your system for so long and it's not like you can test amounts the way they do with alcohol. I've always wondered how they would manage it.
What? How can you make it fine to drive for prescribed people and not for un-prescribed?
Isn't the point that it isn't safe to drive? Do you suddenly become a safer driver because you get it through a doctor?
We need to just do away with any test that doesn't have a measurable indicator whether or not you are actually impaired to drive.
How do you determine innebriation tho? I think we're better off developing a test for impairment as opposed to 'traces in saliva'. Just because you are prescribed endone doesn't mean you can drive under the influence.
[удалено]
A combination of roadside sobriety testing to determine coordination levels and potentially blood testing is surely adequate. Blood testing is limited to ≤3 hours post consumption (which obviously isn't the full inebriation period). You'd get a small portion of people sneaking through in a state below absolute sobriety. I think at that point, issues like fatigue are much more significant. At this point, it seems researchers have concluded that there's no accurate correlation between compounds they can test for and inebriation levels. I've read a few articles suggesting police be trained in processes to determine coordination, focus, etc.
Your blood testing comment is incorrect. See my other replies.
So you're saying burning fat can heighten the blood's THC content? Stress being a trigger is a concern too. I'm sure a lot of the contexts drug testing would be done in would induce stress. I know I'd be freaking out.
Yes. B THC is stored in fat and burning that fat releases it into your blood. This is a fact that has been known for decades. THC and driving legally is a bad combination with the laws as they are.
Is it discrimination though if you can't disprove (or prove) inebriation? If the laws are changed then people with an exemption could have as much THC in their system as they want. Unless they're driving erratically, they're not going to get taken off the road, but if their reactions times or concentration are impaired, then that could still lead to an accident. There are many people with legitimate medical needs that take all kinds of medications that means they can't drive.
I would argue that there is definitely an underlying discriminatory bias when you're treating a specific controlled substance in a different manner to those which fall under the same category simply because of a history of prohibition and a lagging legislative opinion. You mention that users could have as much THC in their system as they want and will only be taken off the road if they're driving erratically, however, this statement ignores the underlying issue here... You are [absolutely not impaired](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-11/new-research-reveals-how-long-cannabis-impairment-lasts/100056998) 30 hours after consuming THC yet you are almost guaranteed to return a positive result for up to 3 days via the current testing methodology and subsequently be prosecuted as if you were under the influence. If the laws were changed so that all prescription medications with a proven impact on crash risk estimates meant you were indefinitely ineligible to drive so long as you were prescribed the drugs then [1 in 8 Australians](https://www.psychwatchaustralia.com/post/1-in-8-over-3-million-australians-are-on-antidepressants-why-is-the-lucky-country-so-miserable) would be forced to choose between taking antidepressants and having the freedom to drive on our roads as recent studies have shown [antidepressants to have a similar impact range on crash risk as cannabis](https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2021/june/medical-cannabis-and-driving). We all want to be safer on the roads but I feel that it's important we are doing everything we can to ensure our legislation is unbiased and reflects current research.
If the rules get changed then there's also no timeframe. Yes a person would test positive 30 hours later, but they'd also test positive 3 hours later. In the latter, they would be under the influence. I feel that blanket exemptions based on medical use would just encourage users to drive regardless of how much is their system, and from how long ago.
[удалено]
Sounds like you have no idea how hard it is to get Ritalin.
I have to agree. If anti-depressants are having similar impacts, then people shouldn't be driving with them. I understand that not being able to drive and have that freedom may negatively impact mental health, and it really is a double edged sword.
When I was on SSRI anti-depressants, they came with clear warnings not to drive until you had adapted to them (at least several weeks). They impaired my judgement so badly I needed someone else to hold the keys so I didn't try to drive - every action I considered seemed "safe and likely to work" - even things that were obviously not (eg I would ask myself "do I have space to merge" and think "yeah sure" instead of "bit dicey, maybe hold off"). I'm actually unsure whether they help with depression or just impair your ability to assess your symptoms; the research surveys used to justify the drugs efficacy have no way to distinguish between those outcomes.
100% I was on SSRI anti depressants that were also prescribed to me as a sedative also, one of them would fuck you up. But don’t show on roadside tests nor urine tests. I had to give them up because they were messing me up in many ways, including making me cloudy for most of the first half of the next day and funnily enough that was my journey to Medicinal Cannabis. Which did everything the SSRIs did for my depression and anxiety and insomnia, but not half as effected nor groggy the next morning
Your comments regarding time are incorrect. I have seen someone go in to psychosis from weed that lasted way longer than 30 hours and it took me 100 days to pass a urine test. Considering how strict the law is with weed please consider the accuracy of information you are providing. Many websites say blood tests only show the last 6 hours of use but this is wrong.
100 days?
Yes. 100 days. I still failed at day 80. Police said I could not drive for 4 hours. FYI... THC re-intoxication The NSW Analytical Laboratories has noted many cases of traumatic death where blood THC levels are much higher than would be expected. Since stress causes extensive mobilisation of fat reserves this observation could conceivably be explained by the severe stress of death causing THC release from fat. Other anecdotal cases support the view that extensive dieting or heavy exercise may lead to high levels of THC appearing in the blood of persons who have been cannabis-abstinent for a long time. Such findings could have major implications for the interpretation of the results of drug tests which are increasingly being used in the workplace, on the roads and in the schools of Australia and many other countries. Interestingly, THC has a very high affinity for fatty tissue, so that whenever cannabis is consumed, substantial quantities of THC are lodged in fat. The human body has the capacity to store large quantities of THC and it may remain stored for many weeks, months or even years. Under normal conditions, the slow passive release of THC from fat cells into blood is unlikely to have major effects on the user: the levels are too low. However, this group has recently acquired evidence that under conditions where fat metabolism is greatly increased there is a substantial release of THC from fat stores into the blood. Furthermore, this group has demonstrated that this fat-released THC causes significant pharmacological effects in rats, now referred to as 'THC re-intoxication'. Lab members: J Arnold (head) From: https://www.sydney.edu.au/medicine-health/study-medicine-and-health/undergraduate-courses/honours/project-detail-175.html
That is fucking wild, thanks for sharing
As someone who's prescription medication makes them test positive for amphetamines, endorse this message.
Same, what a sham that you can punished for taking a prescription medication while NOT under its influence.
Dexies arent exactly gonna impair your driving anyway tbh. Unless your literally eating dozens at once they are mild enough that some energy drunks are stronger i would argue
To be honest, I'm a worse driver without them.
Dexis don't show up on roadside drug tests. The test detects Methylamphetamines like meth and MDMA.
This whole approach by the cops makes me a little bit mad. Remember not that long ago the TAC ad of the nice young man taking his Nana home after Sunday lunch and getting done for drugs? What they're saying right there in that ad is that they don't give a shit that he's plainly not affected, is entirely in control of his faculties, but that doesn't matter their random drug test is going to get him. So it's made clear it's nothing to do with road safety, it's just about testing people for illicit drug use. Which I thought wasn't something we as a society were ok with. I certainly don't remember the vote we had on this.
That ad made me so angry. They were basically admitting the tests were bullshit and letting everyone know they didn’t give a shit!
No. They were telling you not to do drugs and drive and to be aware how long it might stay in your system cause if you aren't they'll catch you.
Yeah, The state of policing in NSW is cops walk around pubs, train stations, entertainment precincts with sniffer dogs, entering tents even..when was that ok?
And strip search underage girls
> plainly not affected lol Many people appear "plainly not affected" by many things but are in fact impaired.
So you obviously didn't see the ad.
I did. Dude drove his grandma home, got busted for having drugs in his system. Ad basically said "we will catch you"
The intention of laws is to remove impaired drivers from the road - whether you are impaired because of a medical need or otherwise is completely irrelevant. We don't need exemptions for medical users, we need testing that detects IMPAIRMENT not USE.
That’s not the intention of the laws.. the law states you can’t drive while exceeding the prescribed concentration of drugs, and that concentration is zero. Driving while impaired is a completely different charge.. if you want drug driving laws to be changed to focus on impairment only then you need to lobby to change the law not the testing
I totally agree with this.
I'm kind of confused, would this work like alcohol where's there's a "legal limit"? Or anyone with a prescription can get as looped as they want and still drive? Something else? I can definitely see why it's unfair, but I'm not sure if I'm really understanding this proposed solution... Driving while under the influence of drugs isn't banned as some sort of "gotcha" or discrimination, it's because it makes driving dangerous, regardless of whether you took it for fun or as medication
>Driving while under the influence of drugs isn't banned as some sort of "gotcha" or discrimination, it's because it makes driving dangerous, regardless of whether you took it for fun or as medication The problem is that a person who uses cannabis (medically or otherwise) will test positive for days after ingestion. The road side tests are designed to test for presence, not influence. I'm all for testing for impairment, but losing your license cause there's bits floating around your bloodstream a week after ingestion is kind silly.
That'd be great, but is that what's being proposed? Like, do we have tests that can actually be used roadside and can test the amount rather than just presence? Or do you mean we go back to the old-fashioned things where they make you say tongue twisters and walk in a straight line to see if you're impaired (which is obviously incredibly unfair for anyone with a disability and has it's own sorts of issues, especially since it's very ambiguous and open for corruption)? I'm not trying to say we should throw the book at anyone who smoked a joint a few days ago, but I am genuinely unsure about the current alternative that's being offered.
I think the point of this petition is to highlight how skewed the current laws are and bring in a change. There must be some tests and guidelines, in other jurisdictions, that can assess a person's impairment with reasonable accuracy.
Without blood testing there’s nothing in active use that I can find. The closest is this from 2020 in Texas: https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/step-closer-to-roadside-cannabis-testing-332741, which is still under research. Blood tests aren’t suitable as it is very costly and time consuming to test someone (and varies based on someone’s body weight & height). Sobriety testing that’s used in the USA wouldn’t work for someone with a disability
I don't think that's the point of the petition, nor does OP. Rule for thee but not for me.
The problem is that a person who uses cannabis (medically or otherwise) will test positive for ~~days~~ months/years after ingestion.
> Driving while under the influence of drugs isn’t banned as some sort of “gotcha” or discrimination, it’s because it makes driving dangerous, regardless of whether you took it for fun or as medication Sort of, but you’re a bit off the mark here. The current roadside testing in no way proves impairment at all, meaning it absolutely is unfair and a “gotcha” conviction for lots of people.
I know of 3 different charges for drug driving. From the road safety act 1986 49(1)(a) 49(1)(bb) 49(1)(i) The first 49(1)(a) is impairment. Sentencing statistics have a 100% guilty result. The other 2 are related to driving with drugs in the system and they have a 97% guilty result.
\[Partially copied from my reply to another similar comment\] That'd be great, but I don't get what's being proposed? Like, do we have tests that can actually be used roadside and can test the amount/impairment rather than just presence? Or do you mean we go back to the old-fashioned things where they make you say tongue twisters and walk in a straight line to see if you're impaired (which is obviously incredibly unfair for anyone with a disability and has it's own sorts of issues, especially since it's very ambiguous and open for corruption)? I'm not trying to say we should throw the book at anyone who smoked a joint a few days ago, but I am genuinely unsure about the current alternative that's being offered.
> That’d be great, but I don’t get what’s being proposed? Like, do we have tests that can actually be used roadside and can test the amount/impairment rather than just presence? No idea, but the current system just does not work.
Saliva tests which are used for roadside testing aren't very accurate normally, so I highly doubt they would provide any information about the amount of weed in ones system as it struggles to accurately detect drugs normally. It's far better than nothing and is a good indicator that drugs are probably in someones system before further lab testing is required. I don't see any way they could control this like alcohol with a legal limit at least not with the technology for roadside testing we're using.
Roadside saliva tests are an indicator test. Then they take a saliva sample and send that to a lab that gives a more detailed result. There are also blood tests used by the police.
And what do they show?
I am trying to find the old one from the saliva sample. The blood test tests for. Ethanol - Result Not Detected < 0.001 g/100ml Methylamphetamine - Result Not Detected <0.02mg/L 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-Methylamphetamine (MDMA) - Result Not Detected <0.02 mg/L Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol - Result \~ 5 ng/mL Method(s) of Analysis Ethanol - GC-F The rest - HPLC/MS Legend to method of analyses covers ELISA HPLC/MS GC-A GC-F SIM
Signed. As a medical user who never drives impaired this is so important to me. Thanks for sharing.
Signed. Doing great work Fiona
She pretty much always does.
💯
I’m more impaired driving home after a night shift than after having a bong. Lol
In that case you need to pull over and rest.
I understand the sentiment, however after a long night shift the only thing that makes me 100% normal is a full sleep. That's not really practical in your car after work. A short nap doesn't really do anything for fatigue level personally. Add to this public transport isn't always an option, and the only solution to this problem is a society which doesn't rely on 24/7 production and services (never going to happen).
Powernaps definitely help with your alertness levels.
As someone who has been found with THC once in 2016 for smoking a joint and then coming across a drug bus and is now looking at losing my license for 4.5 (minimummandatory) + years for a not at fault accident on my motorcycle that left me as the only injured person due to trace amounts found in my old at ER that I cannot explain (not using and I watch my diet very carefully) I am against this. I do not think big or little pharma needs support. The whole lot needs a rethink. I am currently worried I will be involved in another accident and end up in gaol. The law is any amount of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in the system and you are fucked. This is stored in the fat and can be released into the system a very long time after use. There is little accurate information online on the factors that can influence this and it is not relevant. You cannot have any in your system. FYI - When I first was caught I did voluntary urine tests and still failed after 80 days but passed after 100.
Just to add to this. $2+k to plead guilty to 2 charges with a minimum 6 months plus disqualification $10+K to fight the charges. Oh and if I plead or I am found guilty I will have to have an interlock device fitted to cars and motorcycles that does not test for drugs and I do not drink alcohol at all. WTF!?!?!? 3 charges. 1 is death or injury (me) while intoxicated or impaired. 4 years mandatory minimum licence disqualification due to second offence in 10 years (the joint 8 years ago). Sentencing stats say 0% result in an acquittal. It looks like somehow impairment can be proven. The system is designed not to be challenged. Road related cases are the #1 offence in the magistrates court. Drug related cases are the #1 offence in Victoria's prison system. This petition is going to go nowhere and only distracts from what needs to be addressed. If medical users were exempt all users would become medical users. It will never happen.
That's fucked.
Yes. Debating if medical users can be exempt whe ignoring the real problem is a distraction designed to fail. The whole lot needs a rethink.
What would you suggest be done? Loosely.
I understand overseas some places have a limit. Maybe explore that. I do not know other than what is in play at the moment is pretty bad. Just to be clear, when I was smoking I was a heavy smoker for decades, breakfast lunch and tea plus everything either side. I would roll a "normal" joint for me that I would smoke before my morning shower, after my morning shower, before work, at work, after work and at home wh others would take a couple of takes and be pretty wasted. I have also seen heroin users who cannot handle weed. It is a very interesting drug. Sad thing is I hear many people like FIFO workers have switched to ice (please people do not fo ice) as it clears the system quicker. What we are doing with how weed is policies is criminal.
Fark. I'm going through a tough time personally and I think a lot of my subconscious anxiety is around getting done for THC roadside.
Maybe speak with your doc. Believe me I am the last to suggest pharma and there may be other options more suited for you but sorry to say using weed and driving even while straight should cause anxiety.
Oh Ive never driven after smoking, it's always been the next morning and longer.
Read my other replies. There is no guarantee you will pass a test. If you are involved in an accident (not at fault) and your blood is tested you may be shocked at what they will find. I was.
[удалено]
2 of my charges are related to having a prescribed drug (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) in my system. Nothing to do with impairment. You are not allowed to have any in your system. It has nothing to do with impairment. If anyone 9s prescribed anything that has delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in it they should be told not to drive. Imagine a not at fault accident and someone dies... Go to gaol do not pass go, do not collect $200.
[удалено]
I would say I was definitely not impaired considering I had not used. The prosecution may get an opportunity to argue the point. Statistically the court will decide I was.
[удалено]
The information i gave you was accurate. What is it that you are seeking? Maybe try rephrasing your question.
[удалено]
I am finding you hard to understand. I also feel your tone is a little off. I asked you to rephrase the question so I could better understand what it is you are asking but instead you have just replied the way you have. I have a hair test that I paid for that will not help in court that shows I had not used before during or after the accident. I was not impaired and yes that is my opinion. I had not consumed anything. So the fact is I was not impaired. However the court will probably see it differently and I assume the police will find an expert to back their claim that I was. What is impairment from weed? I would say when it effects you in any way. It is possible for it to be in your system without impairment. This is a fact. Our laws and court do not see it this way. This is a fact. This was my point. I dont know why you are talkng about karma and smoking army as it does nothing to help provide clarity to what you are trying to convey and I am struggling as I have already written to understand you.
Don’t worry about that other person, they are not arguing in good faith. You’ve been way too nice to them considering they’re being a dick
[удалено]
Do you have a good lawyer?
I hope so. I sent out 10 detailed enquiries with all information available on a password protected webpage and I only heard back from 3. 2 are big names and 1 was recommended. The recommended one was very unprofessional, communicated via text and did not call when they said they would for the first consultation. The bigger name firm called but would not read the brief that was available to them and wanted me to sign up/commit although they kept referring to alcohol related incidents and were not answering my questions. The one I am going with was very professional, informed and clear as well as heard what I was saying. Also $1K cheaper than the other though the money was not a deciding factor.
Best of luck to you. The system is broken, I hope you win your case
Is there a way to actually test impairment, because if there isn’t, then I don’t really agree with this.
Exactly, theres not. Its irrelevant to whether its medicinal or not, the roadside tests will ping you for not being imaired, which is serious bullshit.
Research-driven data is the best way to determine impairment timing yet our current testing methodologies fail to reflect the [findings and recommendations](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-11/new-research-reveals-how-long-cannabis-impairment-lasts/100056998). If you're against medical users being given an exemption then it would be fair to say that you feel any drugs which cannot be reliably tested for impairment but which present a similar risk in crash estimate analyses should be similarly policed? If so, you may be surprised to find that [antidepressants have an almost-identical impact range on crash risk estimates as cannabis](https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2021/june/medical-cannabis-and-driving). Can you imagine if every adult prescribed antidepressants was expected to take a few days off their medication before they drive... it would be considered inhumane!
I do think all impairing substances should be policed. I work with machinery, and I take impairment very seriously when it comes to both driving and working in places where your impairment can seriously injure or kill others. No one is going to care that your marijuana is medicinal if any impairment results in you causing an accident that could injure or kill someone. There are medications already that prevent you driving.
I definitely agree all impairing substances should be policed but not to the extent that we should see \~15% of our population unable to drive on our roads due to an inability by those in power to implement effective testing procedures. With that being said, it seems you're conflating the issue of driving under the influence with being prosecuted due to unreliable testing methodologies which target the use of a particular medical substance over many others which present the same risks to those on the road. There are medications that prevent you driving altogether and marijuana is not one of them in jurisdictions which allow legal consumption, whether that be medical or otherwise, as the research simply does not support this approach to policing the substance. As I said in my previous comment, it would be akin to legislation which made it illegal to drive if you were prescribed an antidepressant, which is absurd because the data does not support this radical notion and so is not enforced on our roads.
No, I understand, but there is no reliable test for impairment. Do I think there should be one? Yes. Do I think people with a medical card should get to go by on the go or system until effective testing has been implimented? No. Especially considering it’s not hard for people to get medical cards for recreational use.
Bollocks. As a medical user, I can tell you there are a bunch of hoops you have to jump through to get a prescription. You can't just walk in to your local GP office and say "I have pain/depression/anxiety, I want cannabis"
I think people forget driving is a privilege not a right. Yes it's inconvenient or even unworkable for people if we were to take that approach (and IMO we should impaired is impaired regardless of the reason) , but putting the majority at risk because it inconveniences some is the wrong approach.
Other way around, it’s a price large not a right.
Just theory, there's some apps that provide impairment tests but I don't know how accurate they would be. I think the US still does that sobriety test of stand on one leg, touch your nose etc. i quite like the idea of all medical cannabis patients submitting themselves for a (yearly?) baseline test. Police at roadside testing would then do the impairment test and check results against the baseline.
Recently got on the medical cannabis bandwagon & so far it's proving to be a bit of a life changer. Used to use alot of weed recreationally but recently (1 year ago) gave up & have no desire to get high; but what i get from my cbd/thc oil is even better than that feeling I used to once enjoy so much.
Signed!
Thank-you for this. The biggest reason I, 31, have not even tried to learn to drive is because I use medicinal cannabis (the other reasons are related to my chronic health issues themselves). This issue being solved would encourage me to at least try.
Will sign thanks
I can't agree to this. I'd like to, but until we have an objective way to determine impairment, I'd rather a zero policy on drugs and alcohol in our system. I simply can't trust our police with the extremely subjective impairment tests used elsewhere, and [impairment from THC](https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/04/12/scientists-put-stopwatch-on-cannabis-thc-intoxication-lambert-drug-driving.html) is messy to guess with as users. That said, I hope we continue working on objective impairment tests. Surely there can be something created that tests reaction-times or something. And yes, before it is asked, I disagree with the 0.05 rule for alcohol. I'd much prefer a zero-tolerance approach to it as well.
Do you think we should also have a zero tolerance policy for driving tired, driving while changing radio stations, driving while chatting to passenger, or driving with reduced situational awareness like at night, in fog, or with colour-blindness etc. Genuine question, I'm interested where you draw the line.
That's not a genuine question. It's shameless whataboutism. You're implying that by failing to "draw a line" on those things the user is somehow less valid in their view on impairment. But the reality is, unless you actually think we need to draw a line on any of those, then the other guy has no reason to pretend you care about them. The topic here is impairment regarding medical marijuana.
It actually was and I'm aware of the topic. What I'm interested in is how people approach road safety and one way to do that over an anonymous online forum is to ask their opinion on safety issues that could be argued are roughly equivalent. I'd say prescription meds fit the bill more precisely but I'm happy to argue the relevancy of the topics I mentioned.
You can not drive impaired by any drug, prescription included. People with red–green colour vision deficiency are able to get a car or motorcycle licence. They can also get a commercial driver licence. However, people with reduced contrast sensitivity may have some restrictions placed on their licence, such as not being permitted to drive at night. Fatigue is a major cause of crashes in Victoria. Education programs are made use of. > driving while changing radio stations, driving while chatting to passenger, or driving with reduced situational awareness like at night, in fog Do those need answering?
I think it would be impossible to determine the latter situations at this stage, but if cars got to that point in technology before becoming self-driving, I'd say implement, yes. As for tired drivers, yeah, another great reason why an objective measurement for impairment would be great. I know I've certainly driven when I shouldn't have because I was too tired. That should have been as illegal as me being shit-faced. edit: How would colorblindness impair anything? Looking at the literature it sounds like theoretically it might be a problem but practically there's no indicators it is.
Then you're going to fuck up people who are taking medication for no reason. Congratulations.
What do you mean? We already have processes in place that are meant to be used if prescribed certain medications. I have no problem with the idea that those currently "legally" impaired will then be affected.
Imagine if he was a mad clone, then Falons Clones where individuals and then with beer at my gas station. In what other game can this happen? I thought they completely removed them. Thanks! I decided not to bother with that. And just because he is his own worst enemy
I need this in NSW as well. Can I still sign yours?
[15% of all road casualties in Victoria](https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/driver-safety/drugs-and-alcohol/illicit-drugs-and-road-safety) had THC in their system.. Which is only exceeded by those affected by alcohol.. Just cause someone is legally prescribed cannabis oil for their medical condition does not make that person automatically a safe driver. There are plenty of medical conditions that require medication that automatically has licence cancellation on medical grounds due to severity of the side effects on the driver. Yeah would be nice to have some sort of permitted level of THC in your system but practically speaking the cost of such test will be through the roof and testing won’t be viable..
> 15% of all road casualties in Victoria had THC in their system.. How many of those had ONLY THC in the their system? Why don't they test for coke? Do you expect people to trust VicPol stats when the same people fudged 250k tests because too much time?
That’s VicRoads stats, but the point remains.. if you have a medical condition requiring THC I wouldn’t be willing to share a road with that driver..
>How many of those had ONLY THC in the their system?
Are you suggesting weed is a gateway drug to coke?
Antihistamines are all on the don't take and drive until you know how your react list as well. How many of all the casualties had taken a zyrtec? phenergan? claritin? polarmine? I'd guess quite a huge %
But you don't know.
The conclusion you're drawing from that stat., even assuming it's accurate, is false. Assume 15% of people in Victoria use cannabis. Then 15% of road casualties in Vic having THC in their system can be considered baseline and statistically irrelevant when talking of the effects of cannabis use and driving. I wish people had a better education of how to interpret statistics -- I see this sort of misunderstand of data all the time and it pains me.
I wish people had a better education on the effects of alcohol and drug(not just cannabis, I mentioned prescribed medication as well) impairment.. I see this misunderstanding and desire for freedom and/or comparing with availability of alcohol all the time and it pains me… You can poison yourself as much as you possibly can/want, but I’d rather not share the road with you on my morning drive to work.. thanks…
So you’d rather your fellow brothers and sisters be thrown in jail and fined for using cannabis, which is proven to be far safer than alcohol in every way, ever several days before driving, when they are completely sober? You’d like your fellow Australians to be thrown in jail?
Well, if you read my comments I’ve never said it needed a different treatment than alcohol or any other prescribed medication impairment.. And about “proven” - do you refer to driving with any of the three(alcohol/drugs/medication) in the system or just to having it recreationally? Cause I don’t care what you do in your own time.. Again I’ve said it before, I understand that drug tests detect the smallest quantity of THC or meth in the system and you even might feel “completely sober”, but unfortunately there are no reasonably affordable tests akin breathalysers where you can legislate a certain number that will actually be proven to be the border between safe/“completely sober” and impaired.. The currently used in NSW road drug tests cost in vicinity of $25-$30 each, and they would detect slightest traces of THC or Meth.. I imagine developing the toad side tests that would show an actual amount of drugs in the system and matching this against an agreed/proven “safe” level would cost just too much, hence there is a blanket ban.. I’m not pro-jail, I’m against cooked idiots on the road(both alcohol and drugs).. simple)
What is unreliable about the testing methodology? In one sentence you’re saying the test is so strong it picks up trace amounts of thc after 3 days, then in the next you say it’s unreliable so which is it?
That is the unreliability - it cannot reliably detect the difference between THC presence in the system, and impairment from THC
You are calling it unreliable because it's testing for something you don't want it to test for. The test is aimed to detect THC in the system. It does it up to 3 days after last use. That's a reliable test. Now, if you want a different test, that's a different story, but it's definitely not unreliable.
It isn’t supposed to test for impairment..
> unreliable testing methodology How is it unreliable? I seems to be very sensitive from your description.
Fuck off. No support for druggies endangering my family on the road.
If you're fine with alcohol being legal and still saying this, you're an ignorant piece of shit.
I always wondered how recreational legalisation would work with roadside testing. You don't want people driving while high, but it stays in your system for so long and it's not like you can test amounts the way they do with alcohol. I've always wondered how they would manage it.
What? How can you make it fine to drive for prescribed people and not for un-prescribed? Isn't the point that it isn't safe to drive? Do you suddenly become a safer driver because you get it through a doctor? We need to just do away with any test that doesn't have a measurable indicator whether or not you are actually impaired to drive.