Drug-affected drivers escaping conviction

Jim Goose · 05-02-2012, 09:39 PM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-0...iction/3812032

Quote:

Drug-affected drivers escaping conviction

Posted February 05, 2012 13:17:21
Map: NSW

The peak motoring body in New South Wales says it is concerned by data that shows one-quarter of drug-affected drivers escape conviction and penalty.

The NRMA says the figures sourced from the Bureau of Crime Statistics found that between 2007 and 2010, 27 per cent of people convicted of drug driving had their convictions dismissed without a penalty under section 10 of the Crimes Act.

Offenders can be let off under section 10 if an offence is considered to be of a trivial nature or if the person is otherwise well behaved.

The NRMA's president Wendy Machin says that is sending the wrong message.

"We just don't think there is anything trivial about driving under the influence of drugs," she said.

"Obviously there are always exceptions, but we feel that 27 per cent of people over the last few years getting off without at penalty is rather high."

She also says there are serious shortfalls in the data surrounding the impact of drugs on the state's road toll.

So again we see how people are let off because they have been good little vegemites despite being caught driving while drugged up...

Legit290 · 05-02-2012, 09:55 PM

run into me drugged up and i will exact my own penalty out of u

GTP owner · 06-02-2012, 07:29 AM

Don't forget to add intothis the number of prescription drugs that impair judgement. Any opioid will impair driving ability, but most will still happily drive.

2011G6E · 06-02-2012, 07:45 AM

What? Never heard of this one before...ludicrous! Imagine the outrage that would be shown if a quarter of drunk drivers were let off because they were otherwise good little boys...apart from the fact they were endangering everyone else on the road of course...other than that they were fine...

They wouldn't like what i'd do if I had the power to make the rules for drunk and drugged drivers...
First offence: $2000 fine and loss of licence for a year...everyone is allowed one mistake.
Second offence: $5,000 fine, plus loss of licence absolutely...never to hold any sort of licence ever again, and none of this "work licence" rubbish either...if you were too dumb to learn from the first offence, too bad.
Third offence (for the truly stupid), $10,000 fine, a months jail, and confiscation of whatever vehicle you are driving no matter who owns it (unless rented or stolen), with a $10,000 bond to get it back.

w2008 · 06-02-2012, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

What? Never heard of this one before...ludicrous! Imagine the outrage that would be shown if a quarter of drunk drivers were let off because they were otherwise good little boys...apart from the fact they were endangering everyone else on the road of course...other than that they were fine...

They wouldn't like what i'd do if I had the power to make the rules for drunk and drugged drivers...
First offence: $2000 fine and loss of licence for a year...everyone is allowed one mistake.
Second offence: $5,000 fine, plus loss of licence absolutely...never to hold any sort of licence ever again, and none of this "work licence" rubbish either...if you were too dumb to learn from the first offence, too bad.
Third offence (for the truly stupid), $10,000 fine, a months jail, and confiscation of whatever vehicle you are driving no matter who owns it (unless rented or stolen), with a $10,000 bond to get it back.

haha. when they cant pay you can build jails for them, be a lot of jails though.

pottery beige · 06-02-2012, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

What? Never heard of this one before...ludicrous! Imagine the outrage that would be shown if a quarter of drunk drivers were let off because they were otherwise good little boys...apart from the fact they were endangering everyone else on the road of course...other than that they were fine...

They wouldn't like what i'd do if I had the power to make the rules for drunk and drugged drivers...
First offence: $2000 fine and loss of licence for a year...everyone is allowed one mistake.
Second offence: $5,000 fine, plus loss of licence absolutely...never to hold any sort of licence ever again, and none of this "work licence" rubbish either...if you were too dumb to learn from the first offence, too bad.
Third offence (for the truly stupid), $10,000 fine, a months jail, and confiscation of whatever vehicle you are driving no matter who owns it (unless rented or stolen), with a $10,000 bond to get it back.

*pulls bong*... lol...... lol..

010 f6 ute · 06-02-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

What? Never heard of this one before...ludicrous! Imagine the outrage that would be shown if a quarter of drunk drivers were let off because they were otherwise good little boys...apart from the fact they were endangering everyone else on the road of course...other than that they were fine...

They wouldn't like what i'd do if I had the power to make the rules for drunk and drugged drivers...
First offence: $2000 fine and loss of licence for a year...everyone is allowed one mistake.
Second offence: $5,000 fine, plus loss of licence absolutely...never to hold any sort of licence ever again, and none of this "work licence" rubbish either...if you were too dumb to learn from the first offence, too bad.
Third offence (for the truly stupid), $10,000 fine, a months jail, and confiscation of whatever vehicle you are driving no matter who owns it (unless rented or stolen), with a $10,000 bond to get it back.

Biggest load of crap mate, people have to work but if you want to pay everyone bills go ahead mate.

No.6 · 06-02-2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

What? Never heard of this one before...ludicrous! Imagine the outrage that would be shown if a quarter of drunk drivers were let off because they were otherwise good little boys...apart from the fact they were endangering everyone else on the road of course...other than that they were fine...

They wouldn't like what i'd do if I had the power to make the rules for drunk and drugged drivers...
First offence: $2000 fine and loss of licence for a year...everyone is allowed one mistake.
Second offence: $5,000 fine, plus loss of licence absolutely...never to hold any sort of licence ever again, and none of this "work licence" rubbish either...if you were too dumb to learn from the first offence, too bad.
Third offence (for the truly stupid), $10,000 fine, a months jail, and confiscation of whatever vehicle you are driving no matter who owns it (unless rented or stolen), with a $10,000 bond to get it back.

I can see the social fall out and implications of having such a system in place...good citizens will end up footing the bill through higher taxes to support offenders that will now be a burden on the welfare system due to not being able to find a job, support their families etc etc. Im all for zero tolerance and harsh punishments, but it cant stop there. Foresight needs to be taken on how it will affect society in the long run, not just the individual.

ltd_on20s · 06-02-2012, 10:13 PM

do 25% of people who refuse to pay their tax outright get off as well?

bang_on33 · 07-02-2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-0...iction/3812032

So again we see how people are let off because they have been good little vegemites despite being caught driving while drugged up...

This problem is occuring because the current roadside drug testing methods are nowhere near accurate enough. With alcohol breath testing it's easy... the test is accurate enough to determine that you are under the influence at the exact time you're pulled over. With roadside drug testing however, not only is it a much slower process but in addition to that, the best they can do is be reasonably confident that you've taken an illegal substance within the last 24-36 hours. That's nowhere near accurate enough to prove that someone is under the influence at the time they are pulled over, which leads to all sorts of problems. Add to this the high number of false positive readings and the problems these cause for innocent people, the unnecessary court cases etc... and you can see how the whole process is flawed.

Drug driving is a serious charge. I'm not against roadside drug testing but it should really be suspended until more accurate testing methods are found / used.

F6T · 07-02-2012, 03:28 PM

^^^^^bang on there, er....bang_on

mik · 07-02-2012, 03:58 PM

bit of a joke is`nt it, looking at it from a drunks point of view, one could almost argue it bloody discrimination, druggy gets off, beer head gets pinged

ChrisCE · 07-02-2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

do 25% of people who refuse to pay their tax outright get off as well?

Maybe....guess it depends on if your tax is of a trivial nature (less than 6k earned) or if your well behaved

jpd80 · 07-02-2012, 04:56 PM

I'm a bit cautious about drug testing for a very good reason.

TCH from Marihuana can remain in the body for up to four weeks after use,
drivers may test positive
but have long since recovered from impairment. At the moment the drug tests would be likened to
confirming that someone consumed alcohol in the past few weeks..

What the police should be testing for is impairment as that is the key issue here, not a person's lifestyle.
The key wording in the release is "trivial nature" which implies people who test positive but not impaired.

Postives can also be caused by over the counter meds with Codine and Pseudoephedrine in them.

ChrisCE · 07-02-2012, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

I'm a bit cautious about drug testing for a very good reason.

TCH from Marihuana can remain in the body for up to four weeks after use,
drivers may test positive
but have long since recovered from impairment. At the moment the drug tests would be likened to
confirming that someone consumed alcohol in the past few weeks..

What the police should be testing for is impairment as that is the key issue here, not a person's lifestyle.

maybe the police should do a Sobriety test (Like the U.S.) if you test positive to certain drugs??

jpd80 · 07-02-2012, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisCE

maybe the police should do a Sobriety test (Like the U.S.) if you test positive to certain drugs??

Edit,
they are an effective way to test drivers although some uncoordinated types might fail..LOL

There are kits that check for impairment only but the government want to detect all drugs

Auslandau · 07-02-2012, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

I'm a bit cautious about drug testing for a very good reason.

TCH from Marihuana can remain in the body for up to four weeks after use,
drivers may test positive
but have long since recovered from impairment. At the moment the drug tests would be likened to
confirming that someone consumed alcohol in the past few weeks..

What the police should be testing for is impairment as that is the key issue here, not a person's lifestyle.

.......... big difference being, Marijuana is illegal, drinking isn't. You can have a drink and drive and be 0.04 but one puff and done. (Not getting in a "Should it be legal" discussion though as know where that would end ......... )

jpd80 · 07-02-2012, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Auslandau

.......... big difference being, Marijuana is illegal, drinking isn't. You can have a drink and drive and be 0.04 but one puff and done. (Not getting in a "Should it be legal" discussion though as know where that would end ......... )

I understand that and what the cops are about is correcting dangerous practices...

As one who gets regularly drug tested as part of employment, MJ is a lifestyle decision
that is now precluding a lot of people from good paying jobs....

ray38l · 07-02-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

As one who gets regularly drug tested as part of employment, MJ is a lifestyle decision
that is now precluding a lot of people from good paying jobs....

And so it should. I have worked with a lot of people who smoke it and they are so dumb. They also take more risks and cant follow simple instructions.

burnz · 07-02-2012, 06:12 PM

so where does the poppy seed bagle fair in this, it is the number one false positive..

jpd80 · 07-02-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

so where does the poppy seed bagle fair in this, it is the number one false positive..

Makes you wonder hey....
And it's not just illicit drugs, have to much codiene or prescription drugs in your system and bam...

pottery beige · 07-02-2012, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ray38l

And so it should. I have worked with a lot of people who smoke it and they are so dumb. They also take more risks and cant follow simple instructions.

i have worked with heaps of thick people... never had a puff in their lives....
ya thick.. ya thick.. a puff of hooter aint make a diff...

Fireblade · 07-02-2012, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

What? Never heard of this one before...ludicrous! Imagine the outrage that would be shown if a quarter of drunk drivers were let off because they were otherwise good little boys...apart from the fact they were endangering everyone else on the road of course...other than that they were fine...

They wouldn't like what i'd do if I had the power to make the rules for drunk and drugged drivers...
First offence: $2000 fine and loss of licence for a year...everyone is allowed one mistake.
Second offence: $5,000 fine, plus loss of licence absolutely...never to hold any sort of licence ever again, and none of this "work licence" rubbish either...if you were too dumb to learn from the first offence, too bad.
Third offence (for the truly stupid), $10,000 fine, a months jail, and confiscation of whatever vehicle you are driving no matter who owns it (unless rented or stolen), with a $10,000 bond to get it back.

Great so my hard earned doesn't already pay enough tax to pay druggies and bums on welfare but your going to make it 10x worse, can I have your name so I know not to vote for you.

Plenty of idiots out there not on drugs as there is that are, "Don't Judge, lest you be Judged".

martyk54 · 07-02-2012, 07:36 PM

I have no sympathy for those weak minded enough to resort to elicit drugs on any level. As others have suggested, tax $ could definitely go to a variety of more worthwhile areas of the community. Anyone caught under the influence of drugs on the road should be penalised with a fine in the 1000s and automatic license suspension. These people are not unlike children, you need to punish them first up or they'll fail to learn and react.

svo supporter · 07-02-2012, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Postives can also be caused by over the counter meds with Codine and Pseudoephedrine in them.

There is already rules in place for these drugs, whereby you prove you've taken them legally and your let off the hook.

Of course some prescription drugs have warnings all over the packet warning not to do certain things when taking them, so of course getting caught driving whilst on them, suffer the consequences.

2011G6E · 07-02-2012, 07:57 PM

Feel free to judge me...I work in an industry where you MUST be zero BAC at all times when on duty...no tolerance at all, with random testing as well. It takes discipline...people know they simply can't have more than a couple of drinks the night before going on duty, they know they might have to go to a BBQ and simply drink soft drink, and we accept it.
I firmly believe that there should also be a zero BAC on the road...combined with perhaps the system we train drivers have where we have to virtually "resit our licence" every 18 months or so, and if we get too many gaps (fails) we're off the tracks until we prove we are back up to speed again. Train drivers often ponder what the roads would look like if car drivers had to conform to our standards...we're not sure, but we bet they'd be a lot emptier...

Driving isn't a simple automatic process, and requires 120% concentration at all times, especially in heavy traffic...but we've been fooled (especially young drivers have) into thinking it's an easy process that doesn't really require that much thought to perform. It's not...it's life and death, yours and/or someone elses, and anything you can do to minimise the risk should be a normal practice for you...if that means doing without precious alcohol now and then, too bad.

JC · 07-02-2012, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

What? Never heard of this one before...ludicrous! Imagine the outrage that would be shown if a quarter of drunk drivers were let off because they were otherwise good little boys...apart from the fact they were endangering everyone else on the road of course...other than that they were fine...

They wouldn't like what i'd do if I had the power to make the rules for drunk and drugged drivers...
First offence: $2000 fine and loss of licence for a year...everyone is allowed one mistake.
Second offence: $5,000 fine, plus loss of licence absolutely...never to hold any sort of licence ever again, and none of this "work licence" rubbish either...if you were too dumb to learn from the first offence, too bad.
Third offence (for the truly stupid), $10,000 fine, a months jail, and confiscation of whatever vehicle you are driving no matter who owns it (unless rented or stolen), with a $10,000 bond to get it back.

I agree. Who has the right to think they can drink and drive? Or drug and drive? Knowing how it affects you and impairs decision making and driving ability, there is no excuse for it. These penalties may sound harsh, but are we serious about the road toll or not?

pottery beige · 07-02-2012, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyk54

I have no sympathy for those weak minded enough to resort to elicit drugs on any level. As others have suggested, tax $ could definitely go to a variety of more worthwhile areas of the community. Anyone caught under the influence of drugs on the road should be penalised with a fine in the 1000s and automatic license suspension. These people are not unlike children, you need to punish them first up or they'll fail to learn and react.

such a narrow minded simplistic outlook..

you sound like my straighto potato old man..

all druggos should be shot..

meanwhile hes driving around off his guts on moggys.........

martyk54 · 07-02-2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottery beige

such a narrow minded simplistic outlook..

you sound like my straighto potato old man..

all druggos should be shot..

meanwhile hes driving around off his guts on moggys.........

You're entitled to your opinion as I am. The fact remains that people who brake the law are in the WRONG. This includes taking elicit drugs or driving while under the influence of alcohol. People under this umbrella cost society a lot of money and pain... Call it a narrow opinion if you like, it's not arguable.

Bucknaked · 07-02-2012, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

They wouldn't like what i'd do if I had the power to make the rules for drunk and drugged drivers...
First offence: $2000 fine and loss of licence for a year...everyone is allowed one mistake.
Second offence: $5,000 fine, plus loss of licence absolutely...never to hold any sort of licence ever again, and none of this "work licence" rubbish either...if you were too dumb to learn from the first offence, too bad.
Third offence (for the truly stupid), $10,000 fine, a months jail, no access to lube while in Jail and confiscation of whatever vehicle you are driving no matter who owns it (unless rented or stolen), with a $10,000 bond to get it back.

You left a bit off, so I added it.