(NSW, Australia) 40% of drivers in the Hunter tested positive for illicit drugs - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Article]NEARLY 40 per cent of motorists pulled over and tested during the first day of a random drug blitz have tested positive, police say. The operation, conducted by the Traffic & Highway Patrol Command and Central Hunter police, tested 55 drivers on Wednesday with 21 testing positive to illicit drugs.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2456903/40-per-cent-of-drivers-test-positive-on-day-one-of-police-drug-blitz/?cs=12[/url] They are testing for cannabis, meth and ecstasy. This has been happening where I live but I'm more worried that they'll realise I'm driving without my green P plates on as I haven't got around to getting some new ones after I lost my last pair. Anyways I'm surprised that the number isn't higher.

what, no krokodil hunters among this lot?

And? What people do in their off time is none of their business. These tests don't prove anyone was driving under the influence.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;45556271]And? What people do in their off time is none of their business. These tests don't prove anyone was driving under the influence.[/QUOTE] If they were on the road while under the effects of a drug, they were driving under the influence, full stop. It's probably a different story if drug traces were found in them though.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45556280]If they were on the road while under the effects of a drug, they were driving under the influence, full stop. It's probably a different story if drug traces were found in them though.[/QUOTE] You can test positive for all three of those drugs without being under the influence of them. Say I took MDMA two days ago, I would still test positive for it if I were to take a test for it. Does that mean I'm unsafe to drive when the effects of the drug only last 4-6 hours? Say I smoke a joint and a month later I take a drug test and fail it, should I have avoided driving for the entire month? These tests are bullshit and serve no purpose what-so-ever. Driving under the influence is wrong but this is not the way to go about finding people who do it.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;45556304]You can test positive for all three of those drugs without being under the influence of them. Say I took MDMA two days ago, I would still test positive for it if I were to take a test for it. Does that mean I'm unsafe to drive when the effects of the drug only last 4-6 hours? These tests are bullshit and serve no purpose what-so-ever. Driving under the influence is wrong but this is not the way to go about finding people who do it.[/QUOTE] And that's why I said it's a different affair altogether if the drivers themselves were not actually under the influence, but still tested positive.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45556321]And that's why I said it's a different affair altogether if the drivers themselves were not actually under the influence, but still tested positive.[/QUOTE] Where I live at the very least, most of the time they are still charged as if they were under the influence. This particular article doesn't say but the way they say they were "caught" leads me to believe they were charged anyway.

Anyways to be fair to the percentage of drivers caught, the police probably chose to pull over drivers most likely to test positive for illicit drugs ie P platers (younger drivers) and drivers of VL-VR Commodores (bogans). The actual number of drivers who drive under the influence would be way lower. I know that being under the effects of illicit drugs is decriminalised (the government wants people who overdose to seek medical help), but I don't know how that translates to those who drive vehicles while under the influence of drugs. [editline]1st August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=mugofdoom;45556271]And? What people do in their off time is none of their business. These tests don't prove anyone was driving under the influence.[/QUOTE] This argument doesn't hold much logic because you could apply it to alcohol. 'What people drink in their off time is none of their business', while the driver may not be fit to drive due to being drunk. Obviously people who still have drugs in their system after a few days or longer won't be under the influence, but if you only just smoked a few blunts and went for a drive straight after you'd obviously be under the influence.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;45556210][url]http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2456903/40-per-cent-of-drivers-test-positive-on-day-one-of-police-drug-blitz/?cs=12[/url] They are testing for cannabis, meth and ecstasy. This has been happening where I live but I'm more worried that they'll realise I'm driving without my green P plates on as I haven't got around to getting some new ones after I lost my last pair. Anyways I'm surprised that the number isn't higher.[/QUOTE] Lol my hometown its loaded with pingers and weed

Well you did form from a penal colony.