Cops and their new powers

[babey8]

What do you guys think of the new powers the cops have:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=199930070822

To me it is a bad thing.

[allycatz]

What do you guys think of the new powers the cops have:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=199930070822

To me it is a bad thing.

Hmm another survey on behalf off some officialdom in high places?????? :angry2:

[Ixion]

Motorcyclists are responsible law abiding members of the community, and therefore unreservedly support the police in their efforts to keep us all safe.

Report back now.

[Leviticus]

Wasn't John Smith the Admin of the Group in Babey8's first posting, that has now disappeared?

This could be a case for Mulder and Scully:sherlock:

[MSTRS]

Wasn't John Smith the Admin of the Group in Babey8's first posting, that has now disappeared?

This could be a case for Mulder and Scully:sherlock:

Or Ripley's...:yawn:

[Fatjim]

Its against my religion to give blood except for medical reasons.

[BoristheBiter]

if you have hothing to hide who cares.
if you are drugged up then you should not be on the road end of story.

[scissorhands]

I think many of the police are interested in road safety and will be glad for the impairment testing, as it does very well lead to unsafe driving.

The cops know already who smokes weed and who doesnt in a community!!! And you dont see them running around trying to bust everyone? If the local cop knows Joe Q is a heavy as stoner, has a clean license and always does 50km/hr and waves with a clear capable expression on his face, has a nice wife and kids with a good job, I mean, what would a good cop do?

A bad cop could not like your long hair or dirty car, the way you talk or your attitude, and take to you unfairly. Already this is becoming less common with NZ Police, I believe.

Globally, loss of privacy and many human rights are still being eroded, under the guise of combating terrorism. In many countries the cops look like Nazi's with long knee boots and those Gestapo type police hats. We are at least lucky in NZ to have a lowish profile policing policy, and fairly good cops by world standards.

[CookMySock]

There aren't any "good" cops. They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it. If they got laid this morning they might not. If they didn't, you're fucked. Simple.

They are all about supporting their own industry, and they will always be focussed on ways to make it bigger and better, just like any other industry.

Steve

[Kickaha]

There aren't any "good" cops. They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it. If they got laid this morning they might not. If they didn't, you're fucked. Simple.

They are all about supporting their own industry, and they will always be focussed on ways to make it bigger and better, just like any other industry.

Steve

You sound dumber and dumber every time you post

[Juzz976]

I don't see any reason for this to concern us except for the fact this Act not only deals with motor vehicles, it covers cyclists and pedestrians aswell.

Just dont get caught walking across the road when your high.

[imdying]

They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it.To be fair, that's what I'm paying them for :lol:

[EgliHonda]

They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it.

Um, yes they do. That is their job, how about you try not doing anything wrong...


There aren't any "good" cops.

Oh, that may explain your attitude... bit of a generalisation don't ya think.?

[pzkpfw]

We feed trolls now?

(Yes, dumb question. We always fed trolls.)

[Laava]

Is Baby B8 your name on the paedophile forum too?

[Ronin]

There aren't any "good" cops. They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it. If they got laid this morning they might not. If they didn't, you're fucked. Simple.

They are all about supporting their own industry, and they will always be focussed on ways to make it bigger and better, just like any other industry.

Steve

That's right, and there aren't any good bikers either, they are all drugged up gang members just waiting to rape your daughter and kill your puppy.

[scumdog]

There aren't any "good" cops. They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it.
Steve
Ergo, the ones that wait until you do something wrong and then DON'T nick you for it are the good ones, right?, eh?:crazy:

[Ixion]

I could live with that.

Those, on the other hand who process you BEFORE you do anything wrong ......

[MSTRS]

Ergo, the ones that wait until you do something wrong and then DON'T nick you for it are the good ones, right?, eh?:crazy:

No no...the 'good' ones are sitting in the doughnut shop, completely ignoring naughty people. Esp naughty bikers going about their daily tasks of flipping the bird at physics and the law.
Get with the program. Sheesh....

[BoristheBiter]

There aren't any "good" cops. They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it. If they got laid this morning they might not. If they didn't, you're fucked. Simple.

They are all about supporting their own industry, and they will always be focussed on ways to make it bigger and better, just like any other industry.

Steve

what a f***** dick. do you read what you write before you post it. thats what tthe cops get payed to do, if you do nothing wrong then no problems other wise shut the F*** up.

[Ronin]

what a f***** dick. do you read what you write before you post it. thats what tthe cops get payed to do, if you do nothing wrong then no problems other wise shut the F*** up.

Do you?


10ch

[Fatjim]

You sound dumber and dumber every time you post

If it wasn't DB I'd think he was trolling. But he's not bright enough to do that.

I think everytime him and III meet they leave a little bit of themselves inside each other.

[BoristheBiter]

Do you?


10ch

at least it was just a spelling error.

[Mom]

What do you guys think of the new powers the cops have:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=199930070822

To me it is a bad thing.

I have no problem with the Police enforcing the law. None what so ever.......

Report that back please.

[Ronin]

Do you?


10ch

I was just pointing out the irony in your question.

[Ronin]

Does this look familiar?

http://pressf1.co.nz/showthread.php?t=105560

Our man is a troll of many forums.

[Mom]

There aren't any "good" cops. They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it.

Well I feel really sorry for you mate, I live in a community of good cops. Yeah, yeah, hazzard county and all that. Our roads ARE policed heavily, of that make no mistake, and sure there may be an element that are over zealous. I dont have a problem with being prosessed for doing something wrong, I actually am a law abiding citizen.

My community has been severely challenged recently, the police presence has felt invasive. However, I have taken the scene guard cops coffee, hardly their fault they have to stand alone for a shift guarding the place where a terrible crime was committed.

I would hate to get confused here about the Police in our community for they do a massive and friggen thankless task for the most part, and the snakes that have a quota to fill!

[marty]

It's no different to the request to give blood for an evidential blood test for excess alcohol - you can refuse. You can't be forced to give blood - just like you can't be forced to give fingerprints, or consent to being arrested.

[BoristheBiter]

I was just pointing out the irony in your question.

it was also the wrong payed (paid) and grammatically incorrect, but english was never my best subject.

i wrote that very fast.
that dick and people like him who just like to bag the cops get under my skin.

[BoristheBiter]

It's no different to the request to give blood for an evidential blood test for excess alcohol - you can refuse. You can't be forced to give blood - just like you can't be forced to give fingerprints, or consent to being arrested.

Yes you can be forced to be finger printed if you have been arrested and you don't have to consent to be arrested.

[SixPackBack]

There aren't any "good" cops. They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it. If they got laid this morning they might not. If they didn't, you're fucked. Simple.

They are all about supporting their own industry, and they will always be focussed on ways to make it bigger and better, just like any other industry.

Steve

Dumbass. Even with my experiences and knowledge of dodgy Hazzard county coppers I could never swallow that line. Some of 'em are top blokes/ladies.

*I expect bling for this, any colour will do*;)

[red mermaid]

Oh, we luff u 6pb, whereas DB should really disclose fully and honestly his reasons for his issues.

[SPman]

The tricky thing with the drug/driving thing is that...cannabis hangs around in the blood for some months, so, you could have had a smoke a couple of months prior to being tested and come up positive - then be charged with driving under the influence! They’ve managed to get subjective Drug Driving powers that have no impairment levels.......
Another example of a law, slammed through under urgency, with no proper debate or scrutiny.......like so many lately


if you have nothing to hide....you have nothing to fear..............:whistle:

[Subike]

After having many many run ins with the police in my youth, I met maybe 3 bad ones. Most were ok guys until you decided you were smarter than they were.
How you are treated by the police is as much decided by how you treat or approach them in the first instance.
If you come at them with a cocky , know it all, I know my fucky rights type attitude then expect to get shit, because YOU are starting with shit.
OK ther are the odd hardliners, but that just that, Hardline.
They work hard to enforce the law in a society that is loosing respect for any form of authority. You only have to look at the schools to see this happening.
There are also the coppers who are good buggers, friendly, helpfull , willing to give advce, and assist in finding help for you when you are genuine in your plight.
There are coppers who will, and do put your safty before theirs, if it means saving your life.
Yes there are a fucken lot of laws that we have to live with that we may feel are over the top or whatever, and many may agree that some of the laws both invade our privacy or corrode our freedom.
But we are a society that invokes change all the time, to meet those canges we need new laws to combat those amoung use who choose to manipulate the laws for personal gain at the cost of others.
I dont mean just gangs either, as there are white collar criminals too.
Our police do the best they can with the limited resourses at their disposal. Some do get frustrated and make errors of judgment in the face of the public, that just proves they are as human as all of us.
Yeap good guys in my eyes, even if I have had my butt kicked by them on more than one occasion in the past.

[babey8]

It's no different to the request to give blood for an evidential blood test for excess alcohol - you can refuse. You can't be forced to give blood - just like you can't be forced to give fingerprints, or consent to being arrested.

AFAIK a blood test for drugs is different than a evidential blood test for excess alcohol. I don't think you can refuse the blood test. I think the police can hold you down to get the blood. Even if you can refuse you will be arrested for refusing and go to court.

The facebook group seems to have a photo on it now and the details have been updated:

Don't Steal My Blood:
Simon Power has introduced a new law called the Land Transport Amendment Act 2009 which allows police officers to FORCE a driver to give blood if the driver fails a compulsory drug impairment test.
What is a compulsory impairment test?
Seeing if your pupil is dilated, which could be dilated for many reasons, not just drugs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mydriasis

Seeing if you can walk in a straight line heel to toe, and to stand on one leg, which you may not be able to do for many reasons including having a sore leg, just not good at balancing, nervous, not just because of drugs.

And with a blood test, it can detect marijuana that a person smoked 90 days ago:
http://tinyurl.com/y9c3ycs

Don't steal my blood Simon Power because i may fail a flimsy impairment test. I'm all for testing for drugged drivers but please use the saliva test that Australia uses where you put a small absorbent pad on a person's tongue for a few seconds, and wait five minutes for the result:
http://tinyurl.com/ycxrw6k

This law is like saying:
Police: Hey 16 year old girl step out of the car and walk in a straight line.
Girl: Ok
Police: You can't walk in a straight line so I am going to force you to pull down your pants and I am going to forcefully stick my hand up your anus and vagina to see if there is any drugs in there which could be the reason why you cannot walk in a straight line. And after this we are going to the hospital to forcefully pump your stomach to see if you swallowed any drugs.

So immediately you should put a STOP to the police forcing alleged drugged drivers to undergo a blood test.

Don't Steal My Property Rights:
Simon Power introduced a new law called the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill which will allow the police to issue instant protection orders to an alleged offender that will mean the alleged offender will have to leave his/her home for up to 5 days.
How is this STEALING my property rights? If the alleged offender owns/co owns or is renting/co-renting the home it will mean the alleged offender will be FORCED to leave his/her own home, and the home owner will still have to pay their mortgage/rent when they aren't even living their for 5 days.
I'm all for reducing violence in the home but the police should only be able to issue instant protection orders to an alleged offender if the alleged offender does NOT own/co own/rent/co-rent the home.

Join this group and tell all your friends to join and notify the media.

[scissorhands]

After having many many run ins with the police in my youth, I met maybe 3 bad ones. Most were ok guys until you decided you were smarter than they were.
How you are treated by the police is as much decided by how you treat or approach them in the first instance.
If you come at them with a cocky , know it all, I know my fucky rights type attitude then expect to get shit, because YOU are starting with shit.
OK ther are the odd hardliners, but that just that, Hardline.
They work hard to enforce the law in a society that is loosing respect for any form of authority. You only have to look at the schools to see this happening.
There are also the coppers who are good buggers, friendly, helpfull , willing to give advce, and assist in finding help for you when you are genuine in your plight.
There are coppers who will, and do put your safty before theirs, if it means saving your life.
Yes there are a fucken lot of laws that we have to live with that we may feel are over the top or whatever, and many may agree that some of the laws both invade our privacy or corrode our freedom.
But we are a society that invokes change all the time, to meet those canges we need new laws to combat those amoung use who choose to manipulate the laws for personal gain at the cost of others.
I dont mean just gangs either, as there are white collar criminals too.
Our police do the best they can with the limited resourses at their disposal. Some do get frustrated and make errors of judgment in the face of the public, that just proves they are as human as all of us.
Yeap good guys in my eyes, even if I have had my butt kicked by them on more than one occasion in the past.

What he said.

Must be a bummer doing your job as a cop, and you have an ethical disagreement with a outdated(or brand new) law, that wastes your time and resources due to political bullshit. But government states this is how you must work.

I wonder how many times a week an average cop lets something slide.

[red mermaid]

Don't know where the hell you are getting your info from but I can tell you without doubt that it is absolute rubbish.



AFAIK a blood test for drugs is different than a evidential blood test for excess alcohol. I don't think you can refuse the blood test. I think the police can hold you down to get the blood. Even if you can refuse you will be arrested for refusing and go to court.

The facebook group seems to have a photo on it now and the details have been updated:

Don't Steal My Blood:
Simon Power has introduced a new law called the Land Transport Amendment Act 2009 which allows police officers to FORCE a driver to give blood if the driver fails a compulsory drug impairment test.
What is a compulsory impairment test?
Seeing if your pupil is dilated, which could be dilated for many reasons, not just drugs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mydriasis

Seeing if you can walk in a straight line heel to toe, and to stand on one leg, which you may not be able to do for many reasons including having a sore leg, just not good at balancing, nervous, not just because of drugs.

And with a blood test, it can detect marijuana that a person smoked 90 days ago:
http://tinyurl.com/y9c3ycs

Don't steal my blood Simon Power because i may fail a flimsy impairment test. I'm all for testing for drugged drivers but please use the saliva test that Australia uses where you put a small absorbent pad on a person's tongue for a few seconds, and wait five minutes for the result:
http://tinyurl.com/ycxrw6k

This law is like saying:
Police: Hey 16 year old girl step out of the car and walk in a straight line.
Girl: Ok
Police: You can't walk in a straight line so I am going to force you to pull down your pants and I am going to forcefully stick my hand up your anus and vagina to see if there is any drugs in there which could be the reason why you cannot walk in a straight line. And after this we are going to the hospital to forcefully pump your stomach to see if you swallowed any drugs.

So immediately you should put a STOP to the police forcing alleged drugged drivers to undergo a blood test.

Don't Steal My Property Rights:
Simon Power introduced a new law called the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill which will allow the police to issue instant protection orders to an alleged offender that will mean the alleged offender will have to leave his/her home for up to 5 days.
How is this STEALING my property rights? If the alleged offender owns/co owns or is renting/co-renting the home it will mean the alleged offender will be FORCED to leave his/her own home, and the home owner will still have to pay their mortgage/rent when they aren't even living their for 5 days.
I'm all for reducing violence in the home but the police should only be able to issue instant protection orders to an alleged offender if the alleged offender does NOT own/co own/rent/co-rent the home.

Join this group and tell all your friends to join and notify the media.

[Tank]

There aren't any "good" cops. They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it. If they got laid this morning they might not. If they didn't, you're fucked. Simple.

They are all about supporting their own industry, and they will always be focussed on ways to make it bigger and better, just like any other industry.

Steve

you are a sad, sad man.

There are plenty of great / fantastic cops out there. And Im sure you would happily call them if you kid was grabbed of the street and raped.

But like so many other losers you bitch and moan and complain about what a hard time you have and how you are being picked on. A professional victim who will never move forward in life.

[marty]

Please provide a legislative link to where it says you can be FORCED to undergo a blood test. I can't find it.

[Tank]

bullshit rant

Funnily enough it is only the cock smocking brain dead wasters who seem to have a issue with it.

The rest of us are happy to have the fucks off the road.

[marty]

I've found it. It wasn't hard. There's a raft of defences already in the legislation. I suggest you do some searching and reading of actual legislation instead of Facebook groups, or are you just a little paranoid about finding out the truth?

Like I said, you can't be FORCED to give a blood sample (refer S.60 Land Transport Act 1998 & S.10 Land Transport Amendment Act 2009)

http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/acts/QAsdrugimpaireddrivinglaw/

And the Policing Act 2008, S. 32 covers the taking of fingerprints. Nothing in there about holding people down to accomplish it.

[Tank]

I've found it. I suggest you do some searching and reading of actual paliamentary legislation, or are you just a little paranoid about finding out the truth?

Like I said, you can't be FORCED to give a blood sample.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/acts/QAsdrugimpaireddrivinglaw/

what .... you want us to read legislation in order to make a well informed judgement based on facts.

FFS - its far easier to just believe some fucktard on facebook.

[Laava]

I've found it. It wasn't hard. There's a raft of defences already in the legislation. I suggest you do some searching and reading of actual legislation instead of Facebook groups, or are you just a little paranoid about finding out the truth?

Like I said, you can't be FORCED to give a blood sample (refer S.60 Land Transport Act 1998 & S.10 Land Transport Amendment Act 2009)

http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/acts/QAsdrugimpaireddrivinglaw/

And the Policing Act 2008, S. 32 covers the taking of fingerprints. Nothing in there about holding people down to accomplish it.

Fuck that! I'm way to out of it to read, comprehend or even concentrate! What else you got?

[marty]

AFAIK a blood test for drugs is different than a evidential blood test for excess alcohol. I don't think you can refuse the blood test. I think the police can hold you down to get the blood. Even if you can refuse you will be arrested for refusing and go to court.



so you're saying you CAN'T refuse, but you CAN refuse? Which one is it?

Shut the fuck up about not being able to refuse, and wear the consequences, or just do the fucking test.

[scumdog]

AFAIK a blood test for drugs is different than a evidential blood test for excess alcohol. I don't think you can refuse the blood test. I think the police can hold you down to get the blood.

Join this group and tell all your friends to join and notify the media.

I think you don't think enough......:rolleyes:

As you were.....

[marty]

Fuck that! I'm way to out of it to read, comprehend or even concentrate! What else you got?
these?


http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj274/toolowtoofast/thumbhtml.jpg

[MSTRS]

So the hormone shots really work? You'll have to change your name...can't be Marty with those. And we already have a MartyBabe...

[oldrider]

There aren't any "good" cops. They all wait until you do something wrong and they process you for it. If they got laid this morning they might not. If they didn't, you're fucked. Simple.

They are all about supporting their own industry, and they will always be focussed on ways to make it bigger and better, just like any other industry.

Steve

The only reason that "Policing" is a growth industry is because there is such a big "fuckwit" industry in this country! :mellow:

[oldrider]

these?


http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj274/toolowtoofast/thumbhtml.jpg

Those are "YOURS"? :rolleyes:

[BoristheBiter]

I've found it. It wasn't hard. There's a raft of defences already in the legislation. I suggest you do some searching and reading of actual legislation instead of Facebook groups, or are you just a little paranoid about finding out the truth?

Like I said, you can't be FORCED to give a blood sample (refer S.60 Land Transport Act 1998 & S.10 Land Transport Amendment Act 2009)

http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/acts/QAsdrugimpaireddrivinglaw/

And the Policing Act 2008, S. 32 covers the taking of fingerprints. Nothing in there about holding people down to accomplish it.

NO but then you are charged with failing to provide a blood sample and the penelty is the same as if you had given a failed sample.

ask anyone who did all they could to not give fingerprints or wouldn't hold there hand still.

[Waxxa]

policing, not a problem.

but this having a 'Impairment Test' is bullshit! How many of you can recite the alphabet backwards? on the spot without making mistakes or going through the alphabet forwards to find the next letter in order to go backwards? fluently? Very few of you I bet.

What if the Officer asks you to stand on one foot which you have had an operation or have a bad knee and cant stand without wobbling? "Right blood test for you". Once again these tests that have been put in place are too subjective. I'm not againest Policing but this is....bullshit!

[Tank]

policing, not a problem.

but this having a 'Impairment Test' is bullshit! How many of you can recite the alphabet backwards? on the spot without making mistakes or going through the alphabet forwards to find the next letter in order to go backwards? fluently? Very few of you I bet.

This may help.

Any reasonable person can see that with just cause, failing dilated eyes and not being able to walk and turn around is a reasonable reason to test someone.

Normal people need not worry. And heck - no need to learn the alphabet backwards either.



There is a complete lack of knowledge about this law - that dosnt seem to stop the people commenting on it.

Questions and answers on new law to combat drug impaired driving

Last updated on 2/11/2009 8:45 a.m.
The Land Transport Amendment Act 2009


The Land Transport Amendment Act 2009 gives Police greater powers to deal with the problem of people driving under the influence of drugs.

The drug driving provisions of the Land Transport Amendment Act 2009 came into force on 1 November 2009.

What is the new offence for drug impaired drivers?

The Land Transport Amendment Act 2009 creates a new offence of driving while impaired and with evidence in the bloodstream of a qualifying drug or driving while impaired and with evidence in the bloodstream of a prescription medicine. The presence of a qualifying drug alone is not sufficient for an offence; there must also first be impairment as demonstrated by unsatisfactory performance on the compulsory impairment test.

Isn’t drugged driving already against the law?

Yes, it is. Drivers currently have a general duty to be mentally and physically fit when they drive a motor vehicle on public roads – this includes not being impaired by alcohol or drugs.

There is also an offence of being incapable of proper control of a vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs. However, this can be difficult to prosecute as the interpretation of “incapable" can vary.

The existing “incapable” offence remains in place. In cases where the impairment test cannot be used Police will have the option of charging the person under this offence, if there is sufficient supporting evidence.

How will it be enforced?

Where a Police officer has “good cause to suspect” that a driver has consumed a drug or drugs, the officer may require the driver to take a compulsory impairment test.

Grounds for having good cause to suspect include erratic driving or, if the driver has been stopped for another reason, appearing to be under the influence of drugs. An example of the latter is the person stopped at an alcohol checkpoint who is behaving in an intoxicated manner but there is no evidence of drink driving.

If the driver does not satisfactorily complete the compulsory impairment test, the Police officer may forbid the driver to drive, and require the driver to provide a blood sample.

Forbidding the person to drive deals with the immediate road safety risk represented by the impaired driver. It is likely that drivers who fail the impairment test would be forbidden to drive for 12 hours (the period of prohibition applied to a driver who is over the legal adult breath alcohol limit) but this may vary depending on the discretion on the Police officer.

The procedure for taking a blood sample is the same as for drink drivers who opt for a blood test. When the blood test results are known, Police make a decision whether or not to charge the driver.

What is the compulsory impairment test?

The compulsory test includes:

* an eye assessment – pupil size, reaction to light, lack of convergence, nystagmus (ie abnormal eye movement - irregular eye movement can be a marker for drug impairment)
* a walk and turn assessment
* a one leg stand assessment.

It is based on a test used in the UK and adapted for the New Zealand Police by experts from Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. Details of the test will be published in the New Zealand Government Gazette.

What substances will be looked for in the blood test?

The test will target the substances which pose the highest risk for road users and which are the most likely to be used by New Zealand drivers. Drugs targeted are likely to include opiates, amphetamines, cannabis and prescription medicines that may impair driving (including sedatives, antidepressants and methadone). The list will be reviewed from time to time in the light of research, and changes in New Zealanders’ drug taking habits. The new law allows blood samples that were taken as evidence for alcohol testing to be retained and reanalysed for road safety research relating to alcohol and drugs.

The controlled drugs that are included in the drug driving regime are set out in specified schedules in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Parliament has recently amended the Land Transport Amendment Act to include the family of drugs known as benzodiazepines (anti-anxiety, tranquilliser medication) in the list of drugs for which a driver can be tested for in the new drug impaired driving offence from 1 November 2009. A full list of prescription medicines that are included can be found in the Medicines Regulations. However, as noted, the Police will determine a target list for testing.

Why are prescription medicines included in the offence?

The new law treats controlled drugs and prescription medicines even handedly because both can impair a person’s ability to drive safely. This law is concerned with road safety risk, not with the use of drugs per se.

The new law provides a defence for a person who can prove that they were using the qualifying drug in accordance with a current prescription and instructions from the manufacturer, the doctor who prescribed it or the pharmacist who dispensed it.

Does the new law oblige doctors and pharmacists to warn their patients?

The new law does not impose any additional obligations on doctors or pharmacists. Naturally, doctors and pharmacists will continue to provide advice to their patients on the possible side effects of drugs or prescription medicines (including any potential adverse impacts on driving) in accordance with accepted standards of clinical practice.

What happens if the driver is injured?

If the driver is injured or incapacitated he or she cannot be required to undertake the compulsory impairment test. Under the Act, Police will be able to require a person in hospital or a doctor’s surgery as a result of being injured in a motor vehicle accident to provide a blood sample for the purpose of testing whether Class A controlled drugs are present. The principal Class A drug of concern is methamphetamine or 'P'.

This is consistent with the law for drink driving where Police may require a person in hospital or a doctor’s surgery as a result of being injured in a motor vehicle accident to provide a blood sample to determine whether or not the person is over the blood alcohol limit.

What will be the penalty for drug impaired driving or driving with Class A drugs in the blood stream?

The penalties for drug impaired driving are aligned with the penalties for drink driving offences. The table below gives examples of the penalties.

Nature of Offence Penalties
No Injuries
Drug Impaired - First or second offence

* Up to 3 months in prison or a fine of up to $4,500; and
* disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for at least 6 months.

Drug Impaired - Third or subsequent offence

* Up to 2 years in prison or a fine of up to $6,000; and
* disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for more than 1 year.

Causing injury or death
Drug Impaired

* Up to 3 years in prison or a fine of up to $10,000; and
* disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 1 year or more.

Driving carelessly with Class A drugs in the blood

Why doesn’t the new law state a maximum legal level of drug such as exists for alcohol?

It is not necessary to specify a maximum legal driving limit for drugs: the driver will be shown to be impaired or not impaired by the outcome of the impairment test.

Setting a maximum legal limit for drivers using a controlled drug would be at odds with the Misuse of Drugs Act which states that the use of certain controlled drugs (eg cannabis and methamphetamine) is illegal at any level.

Why aren't we doing saliva testing as in some Australian states?

The new law is concerned with impairment and a saliva test cannot show impairment, only the presence of a drug. Also, the saliva test technology is not yet reliable enough for use in criminal prosecutions.

Why doesn’t drink drive testing use an impairment test?

An impairment test was used for drink driving before the breathalyser was developed. A breathalyser test is as reliable as the impairment test and can be undertaken in a fraction of the time.

When does the new law come into effect?

The new drug driving law came into effect on 1 November 2009.

[Naki Rat]

What do you guys think of the new powers the cops have:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=199930070822

To me it is a bad thing.

If that is a sample of our adversary's subversive activities I am much relieved :whistle:

[ManDownUnder]

Ergo, the ones that wait until you do something wrong and then DON'T nick you for it are the good ones, right?, eh?:crazy:

Of course... what kind of stupid question is that?

You forgot to list the exceptions though.. let's start with bike theives... cops are enetitled to run them down, shoot them, take all their blood.

Then there's paedophiles, they should be locked up and have their balls cut off on mere suspicion.

You also have to know who our relatives are and treat them accordingly, so the ones we like you have to let off and the ones we don;t like you have to prosecute the shit out of.

Jees man, it's not like you have to just have some set of rules to enforce... use the force1

[BoristheBiter]

Of course... what kind of stupid question is that?

You forgot to list the exceptions though.. let's start with bike theives... cops are enetitled to run them down, shoot them, take all their blood.


don't forget everybody else on the road except me.

where is the sarcasm smiley?

[babey8]

I've found it. It wasn't hard. There's a raft of defences already in the legislation. I suggest you do some searching and reading of actual legislation instead of Facebook groups, or are you just a little paranoid about finding out the truth?

Like I said, you can't be FORCED to give a blood sample (refer S.60 Land Transport Act 1998 & S.10 Land Transport Amendment Act 2009)

http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/acts/QAsdrugimpaireddrivinglaw/

And the Policing Act 2008, S. 32 covers the taking of fingerprints. Nothing in there about holding people down to accomplish it.

Ok i checked out the link. You can refuse but if you do you will be arrested and charged and could go to jail. It's the way the police can require you to have a blood test that is flimsy.

[BoristheBiter]

It's the way the police can require you to have a drug test that is flimsy.

most of the cops i know say it should be the paper test like in Aus.
much easy to check streight away.

[marty]

NO but then you are charged with failing to provide a blood sample and the penelty is the same as if you had given a failed sample.

ask anyone who did all they could to not give fingerprints or wouldn't hold there hand still.

Exactly. My point is, you CAN still refuse.. Just wear the consequences. Don't bleat and say that you can be FORCED to give blood, when you can't be.

And I have seen a good number of people (I'd hazard a guess more than you have) who have successfully refused to give their fingerprints.

[peasea]

If it wasn't DB I'd think he was trolling. But he's not bright enough to do that.

I think everytime him and III meet they leave a little bit of themselves inside each other.

Wouldn't condoms fix that?

[babey8]

Group seems to be more accurate now:

Don't Steal My Blood:
Simon Power has introduced a new law called the Land Transport Amendment Act 2009 which allows police officers to REQUIRE a driver to give blood if the driver fails a compulsory drug impairment test. The driver CAN refuse but the driver will be arrested, charged, and be convicted of refusing and then the driver will be fined or jailed.
What is a compulsory impairment test?
Seeing if your pupil is dilated, which could be dilated for many reasons, not just drugs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mydriasis

Seeing if you can walk in a straight line heel to toe, and to stand on one leg, which you may not be able to do for many reasons including having a sore leg, just not good at balancing, nervous, not just because of drugs.

And with a blood test, it can detect marijuana that a person smoked 90 days ago:
http://tinyurl.com/y9c3ycs

Don't steal my blood Simon Power because i may fail a flimsy impairment test. I'm all for testing for drugged drivers but please use the saliva test that Australia uses where you put a small absorbent pad on a person's tongue for a few seconds, and wait five minutes for the result:
http://tinyurl.com/ycxrw6k

This law is like saying:
Police: Hey 16 year old girl step out of the car and walk in a straight line.
Girl: Ok
Police: You can't walk in a straight line so I am going to require you to pull down your pants and I am going to stick my hand up your anus and vagina to see if there is any drugs in there which could be the reason why you cannot walk in a straight line. And after this I require you to come to the hospital to pump your stomach to see if you swallowed any drugs. You can refuse all of this but if you do you will be arrested, charged, and be convicted of refusing and then you will be fined or jailed.

So immediately you should put a STOP to the police requiring alleged drugged drivers to undergo a blood test because there are too many factors why a person may fail the compulsory impairment test without even being under the influence of drugs .

Don't Steal My Property Rights:
Simon Power introduced a new law called the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill which will allow the police to issue instant protection orders to an alleged offender that will mean the alleged offender will have to leave his/her home for up to 5 days.
How is this STEALING my property rights? If the alleged offender owns/co owns or is renting/co-renting the home it will mean the alleged offender will be FORCED to leave his/her own home, and the home owner will still have to pay their mortgage/rent when they aren't even living their for 5 days.
I'm all for reducing violence in the home but the police should only be able to issue instant protection orders to an alleged offender if the alleged offender does NOT own/co own/rent/co-rent the home.

[red mermaid]

But if you haven't taken any drugs and are stoned out of your brain while driving, then there is no problem to give a blood sample as it will come back negative and there will be no charges.

[peasea]

But if you haven't taken any drugs and are stoned out of your brain while driving, then there is no problem to give a blood sample as it will come back negative and there will be no charges.

"If you haven't taken any drugs and are stoned out of your brain......"???
WTF? How does that work? I would really like to know, it'd be a whole bunch cheaper than the current carry-on.

"If you haven't..." nah, it'll never work.

[bogan]

This law is like saying:
Police: Hey 16 year old girl step out of the car and walk in a straight line.
Girl: Ok
Police: You can't walk in a straight line so I am going to require you to pull down your pants and I am going to stick my hand up your anus and vagina to see if there is any drugs in there which could be the reason why you cannot walk in a straight line. And after this I require you to come to the hospital to pump your stomach to see if you swallowed any drugs. You can refuse all of this but if you do you will be arrested, charged, and be convicted of refusing and then you will be fined or jailed.

Doesn't really sound right, but then neither does the 80k a year biker back injury you guys used on the news, while it is possible it puts a negative spin on it. Why not quote a more plausible case, stoned person is pulled over, made to take the test, fails, is charged.... stops him crashing into innocent pedestrians.

[red mermaid]

Doesn't really sound right, but then neither does the 80k a year biker back injury you guys used on the news, while it is possible it puts a negative spin on it. Why not quote a more plausible case, stoned person is pulled over, made to take the test, fails, is charged.... stops him crashing into innocent pedestrians.


You're right, it doesn't sound right and is not right.

Internal searches are not allowed, pumping of the stomach is not either, but the wild story suited babey8's crazy drug induced paranoia.

[BoristheBiter]

Exactly. My point is, you CAN still refuse.. Just wear the consequences. Don't bleat and say that you can be FORCED to give blood, when you can't be.

And I have seen a good number of people (I'd hazard a guess more than you have) who have successfully refused to give their fingerprints.

what station do you work at then?

[scumdog]

what station do you work at then?

He doesn't

He flys.

[marty]

what station do you work at then?


Like he said, I don't.

I just try to get the facts before getting all emotional

[kwaka_crasher]

If you come at them with a cocky , know it all, I know my fucky rights type attitude then expect to get shit, because YOU are starting with shit.

In what way is knowing your rights and exercising them giving cops shit?

[BoristheBiter]

Like he said, I don't.

I just try to get the facts before getting all emotional

i just know that if some is not holding their hand still you just get more people.

[scumdog]

In what way is knowing your rights and exercising them giving cops shit?

Stop stirring.

You know that there's a big difference between: "I know my rights"

And: "You pigs can't do jack shit, I know my rights and I don't have to tell you nuffink so youz can just piss-off right now"

You know which way is 'giving the cops shit' and making you look like 'da man' to your easily impressed mates - well it wouldn't be to impress the cop, whould it?

(Like any cop gives a f.f. anyway:rolleyes:)

[huff3r]

I've actually been quite pleased with the attitude (or lack of) of NZ cops whenever ive had a run in, the young guys from the police college that run the booze buses down here are always quite pleasant to deal with, and the one time ive been pulled up doing something wrong the guy thought id seen him and was fleeing, and when he realised i never knew he was there before the lights came on he just checked everything over and sent me on my way :D.

[kwaka_crasher]

Stop stirring.

You know that there's a big difference between: "I know my rights"

And: "You pigs can't do jack shit, I know my rights and I don't have to tell you nuffink so youz can just piss-off right now"

You know which way is 'giving the cops shit' and making you look like 'da man' to your easily impressed mates - well it wouldn't be to impress the cop, whould it?

(Like any cop gives a f.f. anyway:rolleyes:)

That's not my experience at all - quite the opposite. I've found they hate it and get quite visibly annoyed and upset when you're calm and don't give them anything other than that which you're obliged, especially as it always turns up nothing useful to them to assist in bullying you.

Then you see the sort who hurl abuse at the cops get told to just calm down. I guess that's because the cops know they don't actually know their rights or how to act so they know they'll get something useful out of them anyway.

[peasea]

Stop stirring.

You know that there's a big difference between: "I know my rights"

And: "You pigs can't do jack shit, I know my rights and I don't have to tell you nuffink so youz can just piss-off right now"

You know which way is 'giving the cops shit' and making you look like 'da man' to your easily impressed mates - well it wouldn't be to impress the cop, whould it?

(Like any cop gives a f.f. anyway:rolleyes:)

I'm rolling MY eyes also.

[scumdog]

I've found they hate it and get quite visibly annoyed and upset when you're calm and don't give them anything other than that which you're obliged, especially as it always turns up nothing useful to them to assist in bullying you.

Then you see the sort who hurl abuse at the cops get told to just calm down. I guess that's because the cops know they don't actually know their rights or how to act so they know they'll get something useful out of them anyway.

Ist Para: I can tell that you have never been spoken to by me sunshine, ya must just meet the tetchy ones.:pinch:

2nd Para: I 100% agree. :2thumbsup