cannabisnews.com: Drug-Drive Tests To Be Compulsory










  Drug-Drive Tests To Be Compulsory

Posted by FoM on January 01, 2002 at 20:05:20 PT
Drivers are free to go if they pass a breath test 
Source: BBC News 

On-the-spot capability tests for motorists suspected of driving under the influence of drugs will be made compulsory, a minister has confirmed. Junior transport minister David Jamieson told BBC Radio Five Live that as soon as legislative time allows, driving impairment tests will be made compulsory. A investigation for the Five Live Report programme found a driver who smoked cannabis could not walk in a straight line and went on to fail three basic tests on reaction time and co-ordination. 
The findings follow proposals to re-classify cannabis from a class 'B' to a class 'C' drug and a £1.5m government campaign aimed at preventing young people from taking ecstasy and cocaine on New Year's Eve. An estimated one in five drivers killed on the roads has traces of drugs in their bodies. RAC figures suggest that 7% of the UK population have been in a car with a driver who is under the influence of drugs. Mr Jamieson says that driving-impairment tests should be made compulsory when a motorist is stopped under suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. An experiment carried out by Datron, a company which specialise in testing driver proficiency under different circumstances, showed how one driver who had smoked cannabis knocked over three out of six cones in a slalom test. Her braking distance increased by 40 feet, with a half a second delay to her reaction time. In the impairment tests, the driver could not walk in a straight line, and could not accurately count to 30. She could not stand on one leg, or touch her nose.  User count Under current rules, a police officer cannot insist on an impairment test if a driver has passed a breath test. But Mr Jamieson said: "What we have to do is to establish the number of people taking drugs and how impaired they are. "When there is a legislative opportunity to do so we will make compulsory driving-impairment tests. "Those would give the police force the ability to perform those tests and then mount a prosecution on the basis of that, if they found a person impaired. "Five Live Report - The Drug Drivers" can be heard at 1200GMT on 30 December. When there is a legislative opportunity to do so we will make compulsory driving-impairment tests - David Jamieson, Junior Transport Minister. Notes: Cannabis stays in the bloodstream for up to a month after consumption.At present, drivers are free to go if they pass a breath test.The tests will allow police officers to check a driver's ability, even if he or she passes a standard breath test. Newshawk: puff_tuffSource: BBC News (UK Web)Published: Sunday, December 30, 2001Copyright: 2001 BBCWebsite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/Feedback: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/Related Articles:Party Season's Drug-Driving Danger http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11653.shtmlChange of Tack in Drug Warning Campaign http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11644.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #22 posted by E_Johnson on January 03, 2002 at 10:11:16 PT
I am ripping BBC a new one
Pardon the rough language but I have been busy arguing with the BBC about what constitutes science and what constitutes pseudoscientific tabloid journalism designed to get ratings and make profits from manufactured public anxiety.I have gotten their attention but it seems that they refuse to acknowledge that no useful information could be derived from their uncontrolled, non-peer reviewed, unpublishable non-experiment.I am trying right now to get them to admit that science exists for a reason.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #21 posted by Jose Melendez on January 03, 2002 at 06:01:51 PT:

malarkey
Here is more on driving safety and marijuana. 
from: http://www.ccguide.org.uk/driving.html

Proof that stoned drivers are safer than drunks
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #18 posted by i420 on January 03, 2002 at 04:44:40 PT

Whats good for the goose...
Maybe we should start protesting at testing facilities like they do abortion clinics.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by BGreen on January 02, 2002 at 14:02:13 PT:

Any Canadian Brothers or Sisters out there?
I've never thought about that before, and I've only been out of Amerika once, when I went to Amsterdam last September, so I know very little about other countries.I'm just confused when people say Amerika is the freest country in the world, because we can freely speak our minds. I know it's not the least free, but I don't think the people in Canada or the Netherlands have to bite their tongues too often.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by FoM on January 02, 2002 at 13:53:34 PT

BGreen 
I know you are right. How do Canadian's settle lawsuits stemming from car accidents and how is accountability decided? They don't have insurance like we do as far as I know. PS: Sorry you have to share your state with you know who! Can't even bring myself to type his name. That's bad.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by BGreen on January 02, 2002 at 13:40:21 PT:

Probably, FoM
I'd say yes, at least as you said as far as denial of claim or even denial of applicant. Amerikan big business is made up of cells, just like the terrorists, so I'm sure somewhere along the line they have a direct stake.Just wait 'til the bastards get a hold of our DNA. They'll be able to deny just about every new applicant because of genetic markers for diseases, and I'm sure they'll deny every claim they can for "pre-existing illness." They'll argue that the condition had existed from birth.This is getting pretty freaky!!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on January 02, 2002 at 13:23:29 PT

Drug Testing and Insurance Companies
Drug testing is also a way for insurance companies to get out of paying much on some claims I think. Settlements will be less in my opinion. Do insurance companies make money from investing in drug testing? 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by potpal on January 02, 2002 at 13:02:18 PT

Marketing...
Slimy way to market urine tests is all. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by BGreen on January 01, 2002 at 23:32:12 PT:

Enough humor, I'm PO'd again
Did you notice how the BBC said "the Five Live Report programme found a driver who smoked cannabis ..." instead of 'one driver tested,' or 'one particular driver,' or (sorry Ladies) 'one woman driver.'Their wording implies "a driver" means every driver.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by BGreen on January 01, 2002 at 23:06:16 PT:

lucky qqqq
You mean you actually get to change your strings? You rich people have all the luck. I usually just replace them as they break. LOL
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by qqqq on January 01, 2002 at 22:41:40 PT

BGreen
.I misunderstood your day gig/musician thing. I thought you were trying to get a day gig as a musician. I'm hep,,,I've played hundreds of club gigs throughout the 80s and 90s.I've been paid in beer,drugs,and varying amounts of money ranging from paltry to handsome.Most of the time,we were lucky to get enough to pay for roadies,gas money, and guitar strings. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by BGreen on January 01, 2002 at 22:27:50 PT:

I really do edit, but ...
The correct wording is "a day gig is a euphemism for any job EXCEPT music."Gee, I tell you I'm from Missouri, and I've written "for a any." LOL
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by BGreen on January 01, 2002 at 22:00:44 PT:

qqqq and FoM
qqqq:In musician language, a day gig is a euphemism for a any job EXCEPT music, which we usually have to have just to support ourselves. Music gigs barely pay for the cost of our equipment, let alone support us. Back then, it was common for club owners to pay us in beer! That was totally unproductive and dangerous. I took it as a challenge. Aside from some hemp beer I had in Amsterdam, I really don't use alcohol anymore.FoM:I live in the state of Misery (I mean Missouri.) I've been under Ashcrofts' tyranny for 20 years. (I'm sorry, everybody! I never voted for him!) I know ALL TOO WELL about drug testing in this "free" country. I've just avoided any job that requires it. The problem I see, and I'm sure all of you do, too, is that they should be giving IQ tests to some of these imbeciles working at our businesses. I think it takes a joint or two just to forget you have a crappy job that pays a crappy wage that won't let you pay all your crappy bills.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by qqqq on January 01, 2002 at 21:40:33 PT

Mandatory drug testing
...wow BGreen,,that must have been a heavy gig,,a lie detector test for a musician.......If I needed to hire some new musicians for my band,,I think maybe I would have mandatory drug testing for all applicants.Anyone who had never used drugs would not even be able to audition,,,and all members of the band would be subject to random drug testing,,,if your test comes back negative or clean,you will be kicked out of the band........Now that would put a whole new spin on drug testing....there would be lawsuits saying that mandatory drug use is unfair descrimination,,then,perhaps one could argue that mandatory abstinence is also unfair and descriminatory?...........
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by FoM on January 01, 2002 at 21:34:08 PT

BGreen 
Drug testing is very wide spread here. My husband has had to report for 2 random urine tests in 3 months. They even drug test people for jobs at stores like Walmart. They drug test most factory workers in our area now. They drug test athletes in high school. It's really bad.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by BGreen on January 01, 2002 at 21:13:01 PT:

You can tell I've never taken a drug test
I forgot about the urine test.I had to take a lie detector test back in the 1980's for a stupid day gig that I was trying to get. As a musician, I was completely truthful and still got the job.Examiner: Have you ever taken drugs?
Me: Yes.
Examiner: Have you ever taken drugs on the job?
Me: Yes.
Examiner: Did you take drugs on the job on more than one occasion?
Me: Yes.I then told the examiner that I was a rocker in the 1970's, and I was always high. He had no problems with that and gave me the go-ahead.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #3 posted by BGreen on January 01, 2002 at 20:54:06 PT:

The answer isn't going to be very well liked
Breath tests are only given after the officer has done the roadside impairment test. The only possible answer would be a blood test, which we know is absolutely impractical to determine impairment from cannabis.I went to Amsterdam and the cannabis didn't even phase me. I'd probably test positive for years after I quit (BG), but that doesn't prove impairment. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 01, 2002 at 20:42:37 PT

BGreen 
It doesn't explain how they plan on testing for driving-impairment does it? I don't understand. Is it what we must do in the states. Is it drug testing or driving tests? Is it like walking a straight line or touch your nose with your eyes closed? Sounds very complicated to me. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by BGreen on January 01, 2002 at 20:25:30 PT:

It's already started!
I knew this BS would be used as "PROOF" by the liars in the media.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment