Roadside drugs testing?

[steve_t]

Just watched a bit of a show called RBT in between plays of the game between SA and Namibia. Anyway in this show the Australian cops were doing breath testing and came across a guy with bloodshot eyes. They did a preliminary roadside test for cannabis. Just wondering if we have these here and I hadn't heard. I reckon they'd be busy as around the student areas :corn: I didn't even know there was such a test. Are there NZ laws prohibiting operating a motor vehicle under the influence of weed or other drugs? Prescription drugs that impair?

[Hitcher]

Yes there are laws against driving whilst impaired. New Zealand has yet to pick up the roadside testing kit used in Australia.

I am aghast that people allow themselves and others to drive under the influence of mind-altering substances. Just because it's not routinely tested for shouldn't mean that it's OK.

[onearmedbandit]

They can do an 'impairment test' if they want but they haven't (afaik) started using saliva tests.

[superman]

They can do an 'impairment test' if they want but they haven't (afaik) started using saliva tests.

Similar to those very humorous American ones? COOOL.

[bsasuper]

No, not like the yanks tests.I have been through one where they had RBT and dogs going through cars.

[onearmedbandit]

Similar to those very humorous American ones? COOOL.

Well it did state in the material I found that they can ask you to stand on one leg and undergo eye tests, so yeah similar.

[rastuscat]

It's called a Compulsory Impairment Test (CIT).

The problem with the saliva tests used in Oz was the a short time after they were introduced they gave a couple of false positives. The state (not sure which one) ended up paying big compensation to the falsely accused. Bang, end of credibility. The tests are now far, far better, and probably totally reliable, but the bad start convinced the NZPol that the saliva thing needed a lot more work before being introduced.

We have the CIT here, it's based on 40 years of practice elsewhere. It's a reliable impairment test. Eye examination, walk and turn, yeah, a bit like the ones they do on telly. Thing is, to prove the charge of driving while impaired here we have to prove both that you have failed an impairment test, AND that you have drugs in your blood. So no Popo can just decide you're guilty of Driving While Impaired (DWI) based on a badly done test; if you have no drugs in your blood, you're won't be charged.

The old driving under the influence charge still exists, but that relies on a very high level of impairment. Like, I stop a car, the driver says nothing and gives me a glassy gaze. I open the door, the driver falls out. I then write a seatbelt ticket (never miss an opportunity, he can't have been wearing it to have fallen out so easily), and nick him for driving while under the influence.

It's quite a complex field, so be careful when discussing it, as it's easy to confuse the charges if you don't know the whole picture.

Good to see it being discussed though, as it's fairly widely unknown. It wasn't given much media attention, coz the law change happened a short time before the earthquakes, the Pike River disaster etc.

Hi ho, off to (not working today) I go.

Donuts.

[Paul in NZ]

Half of Northland and Gisbourne would grind to a halt if they started testing for weed.... (all for it btw)

[MSTRS]

... if you have no drugs in your blood, you're won't be charged...

So, in other words, it's fine to drive like you are impaired just as long as you aren't
That explains a shit load of what passes for driving...

[Spearfish]

Plus a little more care is needed with medicines.

Who pays for the blood test?

[Road kill]

The road side impairment test is interesting because what they are looking for is more your ability to follow basic instructions than anything else.
And you can just bet that doing a bitch about "your rights" will see you enjoying a ride back to where ever base is for a more in depth looking at.
Where I work we have urine tests when ever some body fucks up,,it's always those going on about "my rights" that end up looking for another job.
It's almost like people that bitch about their rights and not liking being treated like druggies,,,that are the druggies.
Well,lets face it,,, it always is those guys:laugh:

[Usarka]

The road side impairment test is interesting because what they are looking for is more your ability to follow basic instructions than anything else.
And you can just bet that doing a bitch about "your rights" will see you enjoying a ride back to where ever base is for a more in depth looking at.
Where I work we have urine tests when ever some body fucks up,,it's always those going on about "my rights" that end up looking for another job.
It's almost like people that bitch about their rights and not liking being treated like druggies,,,that are the druggies.
Well,lets face it,,, it always is those guys:laugh:

I didn't understand that. Are you on drugs?

[Big Dave]

I just wish they'd make the test multiple choice.

[Road kill]

I didn't understand that. Are you on drugs?

Which part ??

Understanding and following basic instructions??
Yeah ok,, no help for that one.

Druggies always being the first to bitch about their rights when asked to do the test ?

Those that have things to hide are always the first to become defensive.

Still don't get it,,,that's ok I understand:facepalm:

[unstuck]

I could get my stash tested to see if it is as good as the dealer recons.:yes:

[Ender EnZed]

We have the CIT here, it's based on 40 years of practice elsewhere. It's a reliable impairment test. Eye examination, walk and turn, yeah, a bit like the ones they do on telly. Thing is, to prove the charge of driving while impaired here we have to prove both that you have failed an impairment test, AND that you have drugs in your blood. So no Popo can just decide you're guilty of Driving While Impaired (DWI) based on a badly done test; if you have no drugs in your blood, you're won't be charged.

Could you describe what the results of a blood test actually show?

Hypothetical scenario: A guy smokes a joint on Saturday and fails an impairment test on Tuesday while sober. A blood test taken on Tuesday is obviously going to show drugs in his system, is he busted?

[Usarka]

Which part ??

Understanding and following basic instructions??
Yeah ok,, no help for that one.

Druggies always being the first to bitch about their rights when asked to do the test ?

Those that have things to hide are always the first to become defensive.

Still don't get it,,,that's ok I understand:facepalm:

You're sounding a bit defensive bro. :lol:

[slofox]

Could you describe what the results of a blood test actually show?

Hypothetical scenario: A guy smokes a joint on Saturday and fails an impairment test on Tuesday while sober. A blood test taken on Tuesday is obviously going to show drugs in his system, is he busted?

I'd also like to know the answer to this question. Cannabis byproducts hang about for quite a while - well after any intoxication. What's the guts there then?

[4AGE]

I'd also like to know the answer to this question. Cannabis byproducts hang about for quite a while - well after any intoxication. What's the guts there then?
The problem with THC is that the half life is so varied. Ranging between 1.6-24 hours. So you could well get a test 2 days after smoking it, not be impaired while driving but still have enough in your system to trigger a positive test result.

[Usarka]

A widely used argument is that you can legally consume cannabis in Amsterdam, fly home, not be impaired, and still fail a drug test having broken no laws.

[Katman]

Hi ho, off to (not working today) I go.

Donuts.

Do you guys like muffins?

[Bassmatt]

Could you describe what the results of a blood test actually show?

Hypothetical scenario: A guy smokes a joint on Saturday and fails an impairment test on Tuesday while sober. A blood test taken on Tuesday is obviously going to show drugs in his system, is he busted?

I'm surprised this situation hasn't gone to court yet. Or is it just a case of it not being widely reported?
This must have happened in a workplace situation by now.
IIRC i have seen some sort of "official" suggesting if it can still be detected in your blood then you must still be under the influence, FFS!!
It might have been on one of the Aussie traffic cop shows

[Usarka]

IIRC i have seen some sort of "official" suggesting if it can still be detected in your blood then you must still be under the influence, FFS!!

Over 500,000 scripts for benzodiazapines each year, all of these people would be under the influence then - even if taken the night before.

But that's ok because it's prescribed.....?

[Bassmatt]

Over 500,000 scripts for benzodiazapines each year, all of these people would be under the influence then - even if taken the night before.

But that's ok because it's prescribed.....?

Of course.
From the LA Times:
"Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., data show
Fueling the surge are prescription pain and anxiety drugs that are potent, highly addictive and especially dangerous when combined with one another or with other drugs or alcohol."

Do you get the feeling we are all being "played" ?

[pritch]

A widely used argument is that you can legally consume cannabis in Amsterdam, fly home, not be impaired, and still fail a drug test having broken no laws.

THC is fat soluble. So if you have been in the habit of enjoying the occasional electric puha previously, and you subsequently go on a diet, it is possible to have "flashbacks". (Or so I have read.) :innocent:

Shame if you had one such while arriving at a check point.:Police:

[awa355]

The problem with THC is that the half life is so varied. Ranging between 1.6-24 hours. So you could well get a test 2 days after smoking it, not be impaired while driving but still have enough in your system to trigger a positive test result.

After affects from dope can stay in the brain cells for up to 28 days. All the time slowly filtering into the blood system.

[Bassmatt]

After affects from dope can stay in the brain cells for up to 28 days. All the time slowly filtering into the blood system.

That doesn't necessarily mean your impaired.
Do you have a source for that claim?
I dont believe it.

[rastuscat]

Could you describe what the results of a blood test actually show?

Hypothetical scenario: A guy smokes a joint on Saturday and fails an impairment test on Tuesday while sober. A blood test taken on Tuesday is obviously going to show drugs in his system, is he busted?

Sorry about delay, been moving house again. Bloody earthquakes.

The blood test merely has to show a presence of a drug. It doesn't have to show a certain level. How bizarre would it be if the law set an allowable level of an illegal drug? No, it is a test for drugs and if there is a presence of a certain drug, it's a positive test.

So, to answer your hypo question, if the due does a CIT with an unsatisfactory result on a Tuesday, and drugs show up in his blood, he's toast. It doesn't matter when they were consumed. Thing is, he's fairly unlikley to fail a CIT three days after having a toke, but that's what your question asked, so it's why the answer is what it is.

Donuts.

[blackdog]

Actually (because of the aforementioned fat solubility) cannabis will return a positive urine test result for up to 8 weeks.

[rastuscat]

Actually (because of the aforementioned fat solubility) cannabis will return a positive urine test result for up to 8 weeks.

We don't do urine tests (other than taking the piss), we use blood tests.

[blackdog]

We don't do urine tests (other than taking the piss), we use blood tests.

Thanks for clarifying.

Up to 96 hours in blood and saliva I believe.

[Ender EnZed]

Sorry about delay, been moving house again. Bloody earthquakes.

The blood test merely has to show a presence of a drug. It doesn't have to show a certain level. How bizarre would it be if the law set an allowable level of an illegal drug? No, it is a test for drugs and if there is a presence of a certain drug, it's a positive test.

So, to answer your hypo question, if the due does a CIT with an unsatisfactory result on a Tuesday, and drugs show up in his blood, he's toast. It doesn't matter when they were consumed. Thing is, he's fairly unlikley to fail a CIT three days after having a toke, but that's what your question asked, so it's why the answer is what it is.

Donuts.

Thanks for your reply, that's what I assumed would be the case. I agree that failing an impairment test while unimpaired probably doesn't happen often/ever. Maybe his wife just left him, he had a bad cold and a bird shat in his eye through an open window.

Another hypothetical scenario: A guy smokes some Kronic or similar (still perfectly legal to own and use), gets pulled over while driving and fails an impairment test. What happens to him?

[rastuscat]

Thanks for your reply, that's what I assumed would be the case. I agree that failing an impairment test while unimpaired probably doesn't happen often/ever. Maybe his wife just left him, he had a bad cold and a bird shat in his eye through an open window.

Another hypothetical scenario: A guy smokes some Kronic or similar (still perfectly legal to own and use), gets pulled over while driving and fails an impairment test. What happens to him?

As long as the blood sample doesn't contain any of the unlawful drugs (or prescription drugs being used outside the conditions applied by the prescribing doctor), no charge would be laid.

As previously posted, Driving While Impaired depends on both failing an impairment test AND having drugs in your blood.

Read my first post on it.

Donuts.

[Scuba_Steve]

As long as the blood sample doesn't contain any of the unlawful drugs (or prescription drugs being used outside the conditions applied by the prescribing doctor), no charge would be laid.

As previously posted, Driving While Impaired depends on both failing an impairment test AND having drugs in your blood.

Read my first post on it.

Donuts.

kinda a shit system aint it??? So I could take sedatives & go for a drive, as long as I cruise the same as everyone else nothing would be done? despite the fact I'd be in a worse condition to drive than if I had just down'd 3 bottles of jack???

[oneofsix]

kinda a shit system aint it??? So I could take sedatives & go for a drive, as long as I cruise the same as everyone else nothing would be done? despite the fact I'd be in a worse condition to drive than if I had just down'd 3 bottles of jack???

Whata your problem? You want Rastuscat to waste his time stopping everyone that is cruising as well as everyone else? Be careful what you wish for.

[Ender EnZed]

As long as the blood sample doesn't contain any of the unlawful drugs (or prescription drugs being used outside the conditions applied by the prescribing doctor), no charge would be laid.
...
Donuts.

Interesting, makes sense I s'pose. Is this a situation that comes up often? Or ever?

[rastuscat]

Interesting, makes sense I s'pose. Is this a situation that comes up often? Or ever?

I've charged a couple, and so have the others I work with. It's relatively uncommon. That charge is the new one passed a couple of years back, and only trained officers can administer a CIT test.

Don't forget tho, that the old chestnut charge still exists, Driving Under The Influence Of Drink Or Drugs Or Both To Such An Extent As To Be Incapable Of Proper Control, a.k.a. Driving While Incapable.

The courts have set a fairly high level of proof before they'll convict, so just stumbling isn't enough. The courts will listen to expert evidence on this i.e. a doctor who has conducted a clinical examination, or occasionally a very experienced Popo who can convince a judge that he/she is an 'expert' in the field. This charge has existed as long as the law has dealt with hammered drivers.

Interestingly, if you are too wasted to do a CIT test, you'll be charged with Driving While Incapable.

It's quite funny watching someone who is so trashed they can't stand up, after they have been driving. Kinda gratifying to lock them up.

So there.

[Usarka]

kinda a shit system aint it??? So I could take sedatives & go for a drive, as long as I cruise the same as everyone else nothing would be done? despite the fact I'd be in a worse condition to drive than if I had just down'd 3 bottles of jack???

But they're legal! That's what matters... :blink:

[steve_t]

It's quite funny watching someone who is so trashed they can't stand up, after they have been driving. Kinda gratifying to lock them up.



It's quite amazing seeing the people on TV who get pulled over and either they or the cops open the car door and they fall out on to their faces. How they could even start the car is quite amazing :blink:

[rastuscat]

Forgot to mention. If you drive like a dick and get stopped and are drunk on alcohol, you get charged with driving with excess breath or blood alcohol.

If you drive like a dick and you haven't been drinking or taking drugs, you just get charged with driving like a dick.

So get a discount for driving like a dick, get drunk before you do it.

Did I just write that? :facepalm:

[Scuba_Steve]

Forgot to mention. If you drive like a dick and get stopped and are drunk on alcohol, you get charged with driving with excess breath or blood alcohol.

If you drive like a dick and you haven't been drinking or taking drugs, you just get charged with driving like a dick.

So get a discount for driving like a dick, get drunk before you do it.

Did I just write that? :facepalm:

did you just say dangerous drink driving was a lesser charge than dangerous driving??? that confirms even when it comes to sensible laws the system is fucked :facepalm:

[rastuscat]

did you just say dangerous drink driving was a lesser charge than dangerous driving??? that confirms even when it comes to sensible laws the system is fucked :facepalm:

No. No. No.

On a serious note, when we lay a dangerous driving charge with an excess breath alcohol charge the courts pretty much just combine the penalties. It's sort of accepted that if you're over the drink limits you'll drive like a dick. It's sort of part of the package.

Thanks for once again misquoting me tho, you've not let me down.

:blink:

[Jack Miller]

the NZPol that the saliva thing needed a lot more work before being introduced.
When they do it'll be another reason not to spit on a cop


...we have urine tests ...
Don't piss on a cop either.