3 ms·

I had no idea this was such a polemic topic. Police have been doing roadside saliva-swab tests for cannabis, ecstasy and meth where I live for years now https:

I had no idea this was such a polemic topic. Police have been doing roadside saliva-swab tests for cannabis, ecstasy and meth where I live for years now https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/ https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/ Is it because it's a breathalyser? My personal feeling is that lumping those three drugs in together (along with alcohol) is a blunt approach (which admittedly is often what the law favours) - I'd much rather be sharing the road with a bunch of stoners than meth heads or boozers, but the tendency here is towards zero tolerance for all impaired driving, regardless of the substance

michaelmrose 7y ago
It's a problem if it measures use instead of impairment especially where use is legal even more so if use is medical. You'd find it pretty stupid if a breathalyzer sunk your life where you had a beer yesterday or 2 oz of beer 30 minutes ago.
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  That's how alcohol breathalysers work here - if it looks like you're over the legal limit you get a second, more sophisticated test. If you're way over whatever limit they decide for THC then it shouldn't matter if you have a prescription - a medical need doesn't make you a better driver while under the influence. But I agree with what you're saying - it's not the tool that is problematic here, but the laws that go around it. A beer yesterday seems OK. Driving tipsy is generally accepted (except in Oz in the case of novice/probationary drivers) but considering the high correlation between alcohol and driving impairment, I think it's more a testament to the alcohol lobby's strength that even a little drink driving is considered reasonable. Drinking alcohol is/should be a recreational activity, not a human right.
- sjy 7y ago
  Some of the Australian jurisdictions in which mobile drug testing has been implemented don't see this as a problem: as well as driving while impaired, there is a separate offence for having illicit drugs in your system which is designed for cases where the user may not actually be impaired [1] [2]. [1]: https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-resources/drugs,-driving-and-you-pamphlet https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-... [2]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/nsw-announces-drug-drive-law-crackdown/11083452 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/nsw-announces-drug-dr...
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    You don't see an issue with this? The people have an obvious vested interest in ensuring people aren't driving impaired. This is why we effectively are able to justify effectively searching your body for things that we have justifiable reason to believe may exist and might cause you to accidentally murder your fellow citizen with your car. Absent the motive of impairment how do we justify such a search when we wouldn't allow such a thing in your house or on the sidewalk? Presumably Australia does because its notions of civil rights are about as interesting as Alabama's notion of reproductive freedom but do you?

michaelmrose 7y ago

It's a problem if it measures use instead of impairment especially where use is legal even more so if use is medical. You'd find it pretty stupid if a breathalyzer sunk your life where you had a beer yesterday or 2 oz of beer 30 minutes ago.

cookie_monsta 7y ago
That's how alcohol breathalysers work here - if it looks like you're over the legal limit you get a second, more sophisticated test. If you're way over whatever limit they decide for THC then it shouldn't matter if you have a prescription - a medical need doesn't make you a better driver while under the influence. But I agree with what you're saying - it's not the tool that is problematic here, but the laws that go around it. A beer yesterday seems OK. Driving tipsy is generally accepted (except in Oz in the case of novice/probationary drivers) but considering the high correlation between alcohol and driving impairment, I think it's more a testament to the alcohol lobby's strength that even a little drink driving is considered reasonable. Drinking alcohol is/should be a recreational activity, not a human right.
sjy 7y ago
Some of the Australian jurisdictions in which mobile drug testing has been implemented don't see this as a problem: as well as driving while impaired, there is a separate offence for having illicit drugs in your system which is designed for cases where the user may not actually be impaired [1] [2]. [1]: https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-resources/drugs,-driving-and-you-pamphlet https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-... [2]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/nsw-announces-drug-drive-law-crackdown/11083452 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/nsw-announces-drug-dr...
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  You don't see an issue with this? The people have an obvious vested interest in ensuring people aren't driving impaired. This is why we effectively are able to justify effectively searching your body for things that we have justifiable reason to believe may exist and might cause you to accidentally murder your fellow citizen with your car. Absent the motive of impairment how do we justify such a search when we wouldn't allow such a thing in your house or on the sidewalk? Presumably Australia does because its notions of civil rights are about as interesting as Alabama's notion of reproductive freedom but do you?