It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

South Australia Introduces Random Drug Testing On July 1st

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
That's right. It was set to currently test for Methamphetamine and THC but now the media have constructed a field day in pushing to close what they call a 'loop hole' whereby ecstasy is not tested, and in comparison with their police research data saying 1 in 3 people who had car crashes were on ecstasy they are now hurrying legislation through parliament for July 1st. With the acceleration of the New World Order in Australia, including my home state South Australia it bothers me, especially since world first draconian legislation has just been passed in South Australia to allow police to PERMANENTLY keep the DNA and fingerprints of ANY person arrested for ANYTHING, even if they are not charged or convicted. This includes if someone is picked up for pissing on a fence or being drunk in public, and means the police will be able to track any DNA or fingerprints a person leaves behind to them. This is especially frightening if you consider the huge case of identity theft in the world and the now easy ability to frame people for things. Formerly, the law was semi-passed in SA and the police were supposed to destroy it if a person was not convicted or charged with an offence but police corruption kept occuring and it was foundout that DNA evidence which SHOULD have been destroyed of innocent people was indeed not being destroyed, so as usual the government does whatever it wants to do and passes a law so it can do what it wants.

Getting back to the random drug testing section this is a worry because it has nothing to do with saving lives on the road, no matter what the media or parliament will originally tell you. Their government agenda is to keep a more advanced eye on people and gain greater control. Forget the permant red light/speed cameras being installed in every traffic light, random drug testing will allow the police to know exactly WHO has and uses what drug and when. Just wait and you will see, methamphetamine and THC will be the original substances they'll test, a few months later they'll start including MDMA, '___', Psilocybin, '___', PCP, probably Mescaline, Cathinone, and anything else which is illegal, thereby invading a persons freedom as they may not be driving on the substance but still have it in their system.


Currently, my main general concern in the law is the THC one. THC has a halflife and is quite hard to get rid of from one's body. What if someone smoked Marijuana the day before, or days before, or smoked a HUGE amount of Marijuana the day before. Would THC still showup positive and thus cause MANDATORY 6-12 month disqualification of one's licence, with a court hearing 4 months down the track and a $500 fine?
Just thought I'd make people aware of what's happening and rebel against the media propaganda and the claim that their long term objective is a positive one.




posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Great first post, but as always with threads like these it is my duty to remind members to please refrain from discussing personal experiences or the experiences of others in relation to drug use. Such activity will result in the thread being locked.


Terms And Conditions Of Use
2e.) Illegal Activity: Discussion of illegal activities such as drug use, drug paraphernalia, hacking, etc. are strictly forbidden.


Carry on.






[edit on 2006-6-19 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Oh damn, I hope what I just posted elsewhere is ok.

How about adding here that such measures as described above in the thread opener are insane, spiritually illegal, can only cause more harm to the best-thinkers and wisest people that are born or otherwise come to this world, stifle creativity, prevent thinking, stop important realisations, ignore the many things that would not have been invented at all if it weren't for various substances, create a climate of fear where only imbalance and violence will result, and are downright human rights abuses - no-one has the right to make laws about what anyone else is allowed to experience with their own nervous system.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Seems like it would make sense to have randomized drug testing of people that are arrested.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Well, to be perfectly honest, if you're taking illegal drugs, you've got no right to become angry if and when the police catch you. The simple fact that you weren't on these drugs when you were driving is irrelevant. These drugs are illegal. This is similar to people who express outrage at the police increasing the numbers of speed cameras on the road. If you're not speeding, you've got nothing to worry about. Similarly, if you're not taking illegal drugs, you've got nothing to worry about. If you are, then you should be caught and punished, in my opinion. You've got no cause crying about it.

Laws such as these are in place for a very good reason. How might your opinion change if it was a member of your family who was killed by a driver on drugs? Not every move by Government is an attempt to instill more control. In this case, they're following the primary duty of any government - protecting thir citizens.

[edit on 19/6/06 by Jeremiah25]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah25
Well, to be perfectly honest, if you're taking illegal drugs, you've got no right to become angry if and when the police catch you. The simple fact that you weren't on these drugs when you were driving is irrelevant. These drugs are illegal. This is similar to people who express outrage at the police increasing the numbers of speed cameras on the road. If you're not speeding, you've got nothing to worry about. Similarly, if you're not taking illegal drugs, you've got nothing to worry about. If you are, then you should be caught and punished, in my opinion. You've got no cause crying about it.

[edit on 19/6/06 by Jeremiah25]


Theres a good little citizen, do as your told without question..here, have a biscuit, it's legal, so it's ok, I said so.....


So by your definition, if the Government suddenly decided to ban bananas, for no good reason, you would be happy with that? And you would be happy for anyone caught with a banana to be punished?

That's the situation with Cannabis, at least. Other drugs I am not fond of as they do have serious effects on you, which I have seen, but Cannabis is far less harmful than drinking or smoking, yet is illegal.

There is no sound evidence why Cannabis should be illegal while Alcohol is legal.

You can produce whatever argument you like, but you cannot escape the simple fact that Alcohol is by far more harmful and causes more deaths and misery in a year than Cannabis ever has in the history of man.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah25
Well, to be perfectly honest, if you're taking illegal drugs, you've got no right to become angry if and when the police catch you.


I think when there is a victimless crime there should be no punishment, so I feel I got all the right to feel angry.




The simple fact that you weren't on these drugs when you were driving is irrelevant. These drugs are illegal.


Alcohol is quite legal yet is a major factor in wrecks, this is were personal responsibility would come in.




This is similar to people who express outrage at the police increasing the numbers of speed cameras on the road. If you're not speeding, you've got nothing to worry about. Similarly, if you're not taking illegal drugs, you've got nothing to worry about. If you are, then you should be caught and punished, in my opinion. You've got no cause crying about it.


No it's not like that at all, this is invasion of privacy, tis my own body is it not?



Laws such as these are in place for a very good reason. How might your opinion change if it was a member of your family who was killed by a driver on drugs?


Blame the drugs? Or blame the person for being an idiot and wanting to drive while intoxicated?



Not every move by Government is an attempt to instill more control. In this case, they're following the primary duty of any government - protecting thir citizens.

Pfft, sounds like another way to make money to me, if they really cared perhaps they wouldn't let the drugs get in so easily, you know because of prohibition they've created what they hate, they've created an extremely lucrative market for illegal drugs, one which is so profitable that they can't stop it.


This is just another step in the war on privacy.


Must... Obey... Comply... With... Protectors... They... Know... Whats.... Best...






posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
To create a law is to create a crime.
It's becoming like the movie Minority Report when they suspect everyone to be thinking up "criminal" activity. You are sought out before the crime has been committed. The extreme cases when someone is killed in an auto accident (usually drinking, not drugs) is not the same situation as someone who "potentially" could cause an accident.
As far as considering anyone who has chosen to alter their minds with drugs as a criminal, well....... I don't remember voting on that one.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Theres a good little citizen, do as your told without question..here, have a biscuit, it's legal, so it's ok, I said so.....



Hmm, don't mind if I ... Hey, wait a minute.




So by your definition, if the Government suddenly decided to ban bananas, for no good reason, you would be happy with that? And you would be happy for anyone caught with a banana to be punished?


No, because eating bananas doesn't negatively impair people's ability to drive. You raise the notion that alcohol is potentially more dangerous than marijuana. No doubt about that, but if I drink and drive, I'm not going to whinge about getting caught. If you consume any mind-altering substance and then get behind the wheel of a car, you deserve to be caught. I don't care if you're taking it in the privacy of your own home, but driving whilst under the influence - of alcohol or drugs - is dangerous and is rightly illegal.



Cannabis is far less harmful than drinking or smoking, yet is illegal.

There is no sound evidence why Cannabis should be illegal while Alcohol is legal.

You can produce whatever argument you like, but you cannot escape the simple fact that Alcohol is by far more harmful and causes more deaths and misery in a year than Cannabis ever has in the history of man.


Hey, if you want to smoke play-dough in the privacy of your own home, go for it. My only objection is people who consume mind-altering substances - of any kind - and then drive and complain when they are caught. That is what these laws are targetting. They aren't randomly stopping people in the street, they're stopping people who are driving to test them for drugs, the same way they test people for alcohol.


Originally posted by Lysergic
I think when there is a victimless crime there should be no punishment, so I feel I got all the right to feel angry.


And I would agree with you, if this were a victimless crime. But driving whilst under the influence of illegal drugs - or even legal ones in the form of alcohol - is not a victimless crime. That's why, even though alcohol is legal, driving whilst under its influence is not. In the same way these laws, which test drivers for drugs, are designed to prevent needless road casualties.

Perhaps I should have made my position more clear, but my problem here isn't with the drugs. It's with people doing them and then driving and getting angry when they're busted for it. If this minor "invasion of privacy" (which has been happening for years in the form of breath tests anyway) lessens our appalling road fatality figures, then so be it.

[edit on 20/6/06 by Jeremiah25]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
J25 and all here, We've had these test in Victoria for about a year now.

The first person, 'busted' by this flawed system was made a mockery of and ridiculed by the press only to have his second test come back clean after his public humiliation. The police didn't even apologize. That's VIC Police for you. Corruption at its finest.

The tests are not accurate, and basically if you get caught, like the peson above, you have to pay for the second test - and they - VIC POLICE do not repay you if you are found innocent.

I do not support drug driving - however if the tests are not 100% accurate why deploy it??? Perhaps a deterent? Perhaps to justify a bigger budget?

The fact you are guilty until proven innocent really rubs me the wrong way.

I am fairly sure no other country does it because they know the tech is defective.

I would love to provide links - however am at work.

Bottom line you can not have a black and white approach to this - purely because passive inhalation of dope is not direct consumption thus the driver impaired or not is not guilty of any crime.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Jeremiah25 what happens when they pass 'testing for perscribed medication that should not be used with heavy machines' and you get cought. Will you be happy to be called a drug driver then? those perscribed drugs can be worse than dope driving, will you mind then? Even though u may need to take the medication and on the opposite side u need to drive because u have a job to get to. Will you not wine and moan about that law? Because it will happen and we all will be in the same boat. Meaning... HOW LONG UNTIL WE CAN DRIVE AGAIN AFTER USE AND HOW CAN WE TEST OURSELVES BEFORE WE DRIVE. Several hours after use they say.......
Thats a joke considering you can test yourself for alchohol but not dope or speed.
Those tests cost $40 a pop to the tax payer, here is the funniest bit...... The biggest offenders of the 'drug driving law' will not be randomly tested. Yes That is right.... Truck drivers will not be tested under the new law as the salyva tests will take too long... Christ sake they are using speed and driving long distances ..... but no they want to go after pot smokers (meth users are on their own lol). When everyone knows full well u can smoke as much dope as u can all night and jump in your car and drive around with absolutley no problems at all (might drive a bit slow lol) yet if you drink all night and do the same and try to drive you wont even make it to the car.

I do support detection of all hard drugs

22% of drivers killed on the roads are found to have drugs in their system. Those tests are done in a toxicology report, those reports show if the person has the substance in their "system" meaning they could have taken the drugs days prior... yet they are still included in the 22% ..... just to make the stats look good.


if you have ever been cought for dope in your life u can garantee you will be 'randomly tested' hahahahahaaa


Did anyone notice this in the paper?

-----------------

Drunk minister keeps licence – twice limit but no conviction

A minister in charge of promoting safe motoring who was caught drink-driving walked free from court yesterday with no conviction - recorded and his licence intact. The decision to allow disgraced ACT Transport Minister John Hargreaves to keep his licence despite blowing almost twice the legal limit has outraged road safety advocates. But his boss, Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, last night seemed indifferent about his former minister’s drunken exploits.
Daily Telegraph, Friday 16 June 2006



Gotta love the double standards...



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Couple of observations:

I just realized how stupid it is for a website, which discusses conspiracy in all capacities, would decide to not discuss drug conspiracies, or loosely discuss drugs, or make drug references. It's as if it's a conspiracy in and of itself. Honestly, there are members who unresponsibly and loosely discuss assembeling to take over secret military bases in New Mexico, and other asinine and illegal activities, but discussing drugs is out of bounds?

Drugs have been used to attain understandings by reputable civilizations and people throughout history to come to some coherent conclusions about what it is to be alive. (you can find your own links to Mayan, Shaman, Carl Sagan, Egyptians, Don Juan, Terence and Dennis McKenna links).

The fact that discussions about drugs on this site is off limits is unnacceptable, considering the scope of discussion already allowed and the depth which drug topics offer.

I know this site has a reputation to keep and a base to please, but not everyone stays up late reading about peak oil. Some people such as myself use legal substances such as kava to guide in the meditation which is connected to astral dreaming and other interesting topics, and quite frankly, think the government has no place deciding what substances I should be ingesting.

Mods, please explain why ATS members must be threatened when mentioning drugs, or in this case, legitimate drug conspiracies, and don't say it's the rules, because if the rule is retarded, then just change it - it's still not against the law to talk about drugs. And it is just one more subject to connect us as we stand tall to deny this ominous thing we call ignorance.



[edit on 6-7-2006 by tha stillz]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
The core of this thread is not wheather we are all drug addled pissheads, but the govs new powers to obtain DNA/genetic material for permanant record.

As a disabled person who take regular, legal opiate medications for chronic pain, I would test positive to one of these roadside tests, then be arrested, subjected to blood and urine tests, only to then be cleared .But under the new laws they will have my DNA on file forever.

Big brother is watching



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by tha stillz
Mods, please explain why ATS members must be threatened when mentioning drugs, or in this case, legitimate drug conspiracies, and don't say it's the rules, because if the rule is retarded, then just change it - it's still not against the law to talk about drugs. And it is just one more subject to connect us as we stand tall to deny this ominous thing we call ignorance.


It's a privately owned board, and the ownership has created specific guidelines on the matter... There's a whole wide world of web forums that allow such a discussion... We don't.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.



2e.) Illegal Activity: Discussion of illegal activities such as drug use, drug paraphernalia, hacking, etc. are strictly forbidden.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Wait - are they actually randomly stopping people and adminstering the test, or are they stopping people for things like speeding, etc. AND THEN randomly adminstering the test?



No, because eating bananas doesn't negatively impair people's ability to drive.


No, but eating a banana WHILE driving will negatively affect someone's driving. Or talking on a cellphone, or changing CD's in the player. And without a doubt, the driving of sleep-deprived people can be affected as much or more than those impaired by alcohol and drugs. Irresponsible or erratic driving caused by being late to work. Even having a conversation with someone in the passenger seat or backsets can affect driver control. Putting on makeup, reading a map, sneezing, coughing, looking for an address, etc.

It might be easier if we just skip all the tests and instead, we just randomly pull people over and fine them for driving.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by tha stillz
Mods, please explain why ATS members must be threatened when mentioning drugs, or in this case, legitimate drug conspiracies, and don't say it's the rules, because if the rule is retarded, then just change it - it's still not against the law to talk about drugs. And it is just one more subject to connect us as we stand tall to deny this ominous thing we call ignorance.


It's a privately owned board, and the ownership has created specific guidelines on the matter... There's a whole wide world of web forums that allow such a discussion... We don't.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.



2e.) Illegal Activity: Discussion of illegal activities such as drug use, drug paraphernalia, hacking, etc. are strictly forbidden.



I actually knew you were going to say that...

It's the only reason my dad says marijuana is bad - because its illegal. Believe me I know there are other web forums to study this, and I frequent them. I just thought there would be a ghost of a chance you would explain why you have this rule, rather than just tell me there is this rule, then repeat the rule, and provide a link. I think weve hit a brick wall.

In concusion, you can't agree this drug testing business is ok, because it is very wrong, whether you use drugs or not.

And, mods, I figure with as much time as you have to post on this site, you could come up with a better excuse for banning this topic, other than it's privately owned... that is weak.


Kind Regards



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
Wait - are they actually randomly stopping people and adminstering the test, or are they stopping people for things like speeding, etc. AND THEN randomly adminstering the test?


Here in Australia we have 'mobile random breath testing'. Basically the police sit in various hiding spots (highways or back roads, they don't care) and randomly pull over cars driving past and administer a breath analisis test, if you pass you can go, fail and you are arrested . . The scheme was oringially used to catch drunk drivers and did well, but these new tests will catch the drug takers as well. But it will also catch many innocent people that are on prescription drugs as well.

FATMAN

[edit on 6-7-2006 by fatman]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
Wait - are they actually randomly stopping people and adminstering the test, or are they stopping people for things like speeding, etc. AND THEN randomly adminstering the test?



No, because eating bananas doesn't negatively impair people's ability to drive.


No, but eating a banana WHILE driving will negatively affect someone's driving. Or talking on a cellphone, or changing CD's in the player. And without a doubt, the driving of sleep-deprived people can be affected as much or more than those impaired by alcohol and drugs. Irresponsible or erratic driving caused by being late to work. Even having a conversation with someone in the passenger seat or backsets can affect driver control. Putting on makeup, reading a map, sneezing, coughing, looking for an address, etc.

It might be easier if we just skip all the tests and instead, we just randomly pull people over and fine them for driving.


What about just being a dipsh_t. There are a lot of people on the road who aren't drunk, or on drugs... they are just morons - these guys are fine, right?

To incarcerate someone because of a negative result from a random drug test is very infuriating to me. If you are going to randomly drugtest people and throw them in jail, then you need to also randomly IQ test people and throw the mouthbreathers in jail too... I am being sarcastic. But just being an idiot is more dangerous to other comuters on the road than me coming back from a long lunch break, I guarantee it.

And as for the topic of drugs having no validity in this community, here's a good link to start off with; its based in Switzerland, a country that doesn't care if it's citizens expand their understanding because of politics.

www.maps.org

Maybe, Mirthful Me, if you guys actually would like this site to encompass this provocative topic, and are just concerned about liabilities surrounding them, you could host your site from there as well, or even Denmark.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Seems like it would make sense to have randomized drug testing of people that are arrested.


I agree with you.

Personally I have REAL issues with just random drug testing.
Imo, it means the cops assume i am guilty and test me.

I don't claim to know the auss. laws, but if it is similar to that of the us (u are assumed innocent until proven guilty by a trial of your peers) (in theory).

Let me make a point that was brought up already, what about prescription medication's.
Me, for example, i take a steriod daily to contol a medical issue.
When it gets very bad, i have to take an anibolic steriod to get better-very high dose for about 2 months.
This stays detectable in my blood/urine for 6-12 months.

Even if i were let go-after being arrested for being on steriods, i would be pissed as hell.

Shame Aussies are becoming nazi-like too!


This brings up some other interesting questions.
1)do ALL the cops get randomly drug tested? Do ALL governement workers get randomly tested? DO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO PASSED THIS NAZI-ISM GET TESTED?

[edit on 7/6/2006 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by fatman
Here in Australia we have 'mobile random breath testing'. Basically the police sit in various hiding spots (highways or back roads, they don't care) and randomly pull over cars driving past and administer a breath analisis test, if you pass you can go, fail and you are arrested . . The scheme was oringially used to catch drunk drivers and did well, but these new tests will catch the drug takers as well. But it will also catch many innocent people that are on prescription drugs as well.


That's unbelievable. I mean, it doesn't surprise me(I AM on ATS), but still...


Are there seriously people out there who think that it's okay to simply pull anybody over without cause, to administer a drug test?


I would be okay with a test being given AFTER a traffic stop, but not when it's the sole purpose of the stop.


I might change my mind if the people who passed it clean got a $50 cash prize.

Maybe.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join