New drug testing for road users

[jellywrestler]

Looks like it's triggered many, saliva tests, DNA stashed, it's our right to drive bombed etc.....
Interestingly it appears to detect some substances, you're then parked up for 12 hours, and when deeper tests come through they might add charges and demerits etc.
Tough for those on medicinal marijuana whose stuff suggests no driving for 6 hours i beleive, but it can linger in your system for days and detected.

They;ve had these tests in plenty of other places in the world, what's he likely they do something robust here, or fuck it all up and leave a few lawyers filthy rich helping people

[SaferRides]

Option 2 would be my guess. This wasn't just a few cops, over 100 have been identified.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/577805/over-100-police-officers-under-investigation-after-breath-tests-falsified-are-still-working

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[R650R]

The comments on fakebook from the most likely to fail the test are pure gold in proving why drug use is harmful to brain cells.

20 years ago random drug testing was a worry eg how do you protect yourself in false positive scenario? But after moving into modern era where it’s common industry practice now it’s stress free and you just don’t hear of false cases.
Saliva testing only really captures recent use, need piss test to catch out the hardened users who know the tricks. But it will at least take some off road.

As for medical M use, the proper prescribed commercial stuff doesn’t actually have THC in it although they can’t guarantee 100% removal. The problem is the prescription stuff is expensive. Many uneducated people will go to cheap tinny house stuff which is apparently lot more potent these days and your medical use does NOT cover that. Going to cost a lot of people licences and jobs who don’t listen to doctor’s instructions

What we really need is airport style sniffer dogs at high traffic areas to catch dealers

Green Party MPs will all have to take public transport options that they champion lol

[jellywrestler]

The comments on fakebook from the most likely to fail the test are pure gold in proving why drug use is harmful to brain cells.

20 years ago random drug testing was a worry eg how do you protect yourself in false positive scenario? But after moving into modern era where it’s common industry practice now it’s stress free and you just don’t hear of false cases.


the issue is the first test is for traces, not level, if there are traces you're off the road for 12 hours, if your on a busy road your car costs to remove, then if your test comes back from the lab under the level they deem harmful then what, you've been parked up for no reason.
what if you've just returned home from a country where it is legal to smoke so you've broken no laws?

[R650R]

the issue is the first test is for traces, not level, if there are traces you're off the road for 12 hours, if your on a busy road your car costs to remove, then if your test comes back from the lab under the level they deem harmful then what, you've been parked up for no reason.
what if you've just returned home from a country where it is legal to smoke so you've broken no laws?

Saliva test isn’t that sensitive, usage has to be fairly recent. Guys in workplace who are regular smokers that pass tests most of time.

Not sure where the closest “legal” country is but if you can’t manage your personal choices with a known flight window home then prob have trouble working out road rules too.

FB algorithms just bought up medicinal cannabis page in feed. Some munter has posted a picture of a 2017 Skoda with roof cycle racks claiming it’s one of the new speed camera cars. There’s all you need to know about drug use right there.

[rastuscat]

what if you've just returned home from a country where it is legal to smoke so you've broken no laws?

The new law doesn't prosecute you for drug use. It prosecutes you for having drugs in your system while driving.

So the overseas use case is actually only an offence if you then drive in NZ.

[rastuscat]

FB algorithms just bought up medicinal cannabis page in feed. Some munter has posted a picture of a 2017 Skoda with roof cycle racks claiming it’s one of the new speed camera cars. There’s all you need to know about drug use right there.

Yes, that pic was alleaging that the ANPR system is being used for government surveillance. It can track someone for 70 km, apparently.

Like, what has someone done to cause the government to want to track themn for 70 km?

[sugilite]

Maybe made a political donation to their party in the last election cycle? <_<

[jellywrestler]

The new law doesn't prosecute you for drug use. It prosecutes you for having drugs in your system while driving.


Drugs in your system when driving or over a certain level in your system as that was what it seemed was going to happen after a positive test for traces is sent away????

[F5 Dave]

Hmm, not applicable for me but got me curious. Found this.


Unfortunately, we know that saliva tests can detect drugs long after they’ve been used and long after someone is impaired by them. Unlike alcohol, where its presence in your blood or breath directly correlates to impairment, a medicine or drug can be detected in your saliva long after you stop being impaired.

More reading in a guide that should answer questions it seems.

https://drugfoundation.org.nz/news-and-reports/roadside-drug-testing-what-you-need-to-know

[R650R]

Hmm, not applicable for me but got me curious. Found this.


Unfortunately, we know that saliva tests can detect drugs long after they’ve been used and long after someone is impaired by them. Unlike alcohol, where its presence in your blood or breath directly correlates to impairment, a medicine or drug can be detected in your saliva long after you stop being impaired.

More reading in a guide that should answer questions it seems.

https://drugfoundation.org.nz/news-and-reports/roadside-drug-testing-what-you-need-to-know

The problem there is what one person may perceive as a”long time ago” and “impaired” prob differs from what the science and medical experts can prove.
Bloke A might just have a joint once every couple months catching up with mates while Bloke B might be a habitual user every few days or more. Bloke A can prob recognise his own impairment while Bloke B is permanently stoned but doesn’t think he is.

Had chance to listen to experts speak on the matter and it correalates with behaviour observed in those who you know are users. Decision making and the speed there of seems to suffer cumulative damage.

Just like when DUI came in people will just have to learn and adapt. It’s taken awhile but most people wouldn’t let a drunk mate get behind the wheel anymore….

[R650R]

Drugs in your system when driving or over a certain level in your system as that was what it seemed was going to happen after a positive test for traces is sent away????

In workplace a positive is called a non negative result and a puss test is needed for proper accuracy. So lawyers will have fun if word positive is bandied about when there exists clear evidence in various employment law cases no doubt about correct terminology and boundaries of saliva testing.

[pritch]

Unlike alcohol which is water soluble THC can be stored in body fat until you decide to diet when it can reenter the system. It'd be unfortunate to be ticketed for having marijuana in your system when you hadn't partaken for a couple years.

[rastuscat]

Thing is, the people who wrote this rule don't generally use drugs. So they aren't too concerned about the pitfalls of the rule.

[jellywrestler]

Thing is, the people who wrote this rule don't generally use drugs. So they aren't too concerned about the pitfalls of the rule.

So they are incompetent at their job then.
More government employees in the trough, the responsible thing is to look at the problems, and the challenges in the legal system it may bring, etc etc,

[jellywrestler]

Thing is, the people who wrote this rule don't generally use drugs. So they aren't too concerned about the pitfalls of the rule.

Maybe it's the same clowns who brough it the 4 km tolerance rule, 4% at 100km/h, and the same government insisted by law your vehicles speedo was checked to within 10% accuracy, how fair was that?
the solution, drop the 10% in the warrants of fitness and now they only have to ensure they function.
So we have a fleet of vehciles out there checked regularly for safety, but no speedo checks except that it operates,
Makes me feel much safer on the road

[BMWST?]

Maybe it's the same clowns who brough it the 4 km tolerance rule, 4% at 100km/h, and the same government insisted by law your vehicles speedo was checked to within 10% accuracy, how fair was that?
the solution, drop the 10% in the warrants of fitness and now they only have to ensure they function.
So we have a fleet of vehciles out there checked regularly for safety, but no speedo checks except that it operates,
Makes me feel much safer on the road
agreed .bad laws are bad for the whole system. People dont care about bad laws. The enforcement of bad laws brings the whole law enforcement and justice system into disrepute.

[F5 Dave]

What are you talking about? Zealots love bad laws so they can officiously enforce them. 'It's the law' so I can strut around with my gang feeling morally superior and punishing Joe Public whilst having a mustache.

Illegal to be a Homo. Lockimup.
Illegal to have a drink after 6pm. Lockimup.
Illegal to be a Prossie. Lockerup.

And so on.- Just the laws involved change.

No don't get me wrong. We need laws and we need enforcement. It's the bad laws (see above for what we now consider obvious but were heinous at the time), that need a sanity check.

Yes I don't want me or my family run over by a stoner impaired by crystal meth.
But are they?
It is not easy.

[pritch]

IIRC there was a case shortly after the introduction of the breathalyser laws. A passenger in a car refused a breath test on the grounds he was not the driver. When it got to court the judge said if you refuse a breath test the law says you go to prison. The law did not specify you had to be the driver so he sent the guy to prison.

Presumably the law was changed. It's also assumed that the guy being Maori may have influenced the judges decision. If it was a Cabinet Minister's son the result would surely have been different.

[Kickaha]

IIRC there was a case shortly after the introduction of the breathalyser laws. A passenger in a car refused a breath test on the grounds he was not the driver. When it got to court the judge said if you refuse a breath test the law says you go to prison. The law did not specify you had to be the driver so he sent the guy to prison..

I was in court when that exact thing happened about 1989, cop had pulled a vehicle up, guys had done a runner but got caught, he wanted to breath test everyone and a guy refused as he said he was a passenger, I think the driver owned up in the end but the passenger was charged and went to court, I cant remember the outcome

[R650R]

Maybe it's the same clowns who brough it the 4 km tolerance rule, 4% at 100km/h, and the same government insisted by law your vehicles speedo was checked to within 10% accuracy, how fair was that?
the solution, drop the 10% in the warrants of fitness and now they only have to ensure they function.
So we have a fleet of vehciles out there checked regularly for safety, but no speedo checks except that it operates,
Makes me feel much safer on the road

Going off topic but that’s a brilliant reminder of mission creep when govt or agencies bring in a new policy or law. Eg Capitsl gains tax is just for rich property investors….

4K started out as a get let’s be a bit more safety focused in holiday periods.

Then it was permenant just for large trucks….

Then it was permanent for everyone.


But 175km for Aunty Helen to get to rugby match was ok…

[pritch]

Going off topic but that’s a brilliant reminder of mission creep when govt or agencies bring in a new policy or law. Eg Capitsl gains tax is just for rich property investors….

4K started out as a get let’s be a bit more safety focused in holiday periods.

Then it was permenant just for large trucks….

Then it was permanent for everyone.


But 175km for Aunty Helen to get to rugby match was ok…


Exactly. When breathalysers came in they said you would only be breath tested if there was evidence you were driving impaired. Then it turned out that a nail light not working was suitable evidence. They then "discovered" that the law was written in such a way that that they didn't need to bother with even that.

Still, looking on the bright side, what we have here is light years ahead of what they have in the US of A.

[F5 Dave]

I have no problem with random breath testing. Shit we as a country used to go troppo killing ourselves and random strangers driving drunk. I sit here in the sun a few beers in ready to start the Barby with no reason to drive and an understanding that it is actually a dumb idea.

I'd visit a mate in the 80s and a flatmate would arrive home in a falcon500 battering ram. He'd make 3 attempts to get up the stair to the sliding door falling over. Cunt.

[pritch]

I have no problem with random breath testing.

Neither have I. We were talking about how new legislation is introduced with claims about how it will work but then "mission creep" makes an appearance.

The breathalyser is probably largely responsible for the death rate on our roads being half what it was in the 70s.

[F5 Dave]

The breathalyser is enforcement part of the equation.

The other time we had legislation make an actual impact was compulsory seat belt (and helmet?) Law.

Philosophical question: Am I my brothers keeper?

Answer: well if he is that stupid, Yes.Yes you are going to have to be.

Flashback to Manners mall one Friday night in the late 80s. A bunch of us were milling around or maybe just me and gf, anyways this lass with a scarf over her head gives us a brochure for a Bronz call for change to compulsory helmet use. Biker Rights of NZ. :headbang:Two of them ride off with no lids.

I resolved at that time to have nothing to do with those idiots. I guess that's the problem with advocacy. Sometimes you are tarred with the brush of zealous participants.

Obviously they changed thier tune but that whole push was disastrous for PR back then.

[SaferRides]

Neither have I. We were talking about how new legislation is introduced with claims about how it will work but then "mission creep" makes an appearance.

The breathalyser is probably largely responsible for the death rate on our roads being half what it was in the 70s.When I started riding back in the 70s, I very quickly learned not to ride at night. Daytime wasn't always much better...

That and motorbike tyres were the main improvements I noticed when I started riding again in 2009. We've probably gone backwards since then and drug impaired drivers are definitely out there.

But every time cops get new powers they find some way to abuse them.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[BMWST?]

When I started riding back in the 70s, I very quickly learned not to ride at night. Daytime wasn't always much better...

That and motorbike tyres were the main improvements I noticed when I started riding again in 2009. We've probably gone backwards since then and drug impaired drivers are definitely out there.

But every time cops get new powers they find some way to abuse them.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk
It may not be impaired drivers I think there are a lot of distracted, i dont really want to be driving drivers.

[neels]

It may not be impaired drivers I think there are a lot of distracted, i dont really want to be driving drivers.

As evidenced by the number of drivers who take an eternity to start moving when the traffic lights have changed.

I remember seeing a bit of the aussie roadside testing tv show a while back, there was a young guy on his way to a university exam who failed the roadside drug test, and was therefore had to hang around waiting for a blood test to be taken and was forbidden to drive for X hours etc.

At the end they said his lab test came back clear so all was good with the world, but I suspect the situation would have created all kinds of issues for him to sort out as a result of their test being wrong.

There is a difference between testing for the presence of something that indicate previous drug use, and identifying a level that indicates impairment, particularly when there are legal medicines which can produce 'non negative' results. If compared to alcohol testing I don't expect the public at large would accept a situation where any indication immediately prevented you driving, and waiting a few days for test results which may prove you were in fact legal to drive for that time, it seems a bit of a case of presumption of guilt until proven innocent.

[rastuscat]

As evidenced by the number of drivers who take an eternity to start moving when the traffic lights have changed.

I remember seeing a bit of the aussie roadside testing tv show a while back, there was a young guy on his way to a university exam who failed the roadside drug test, and was therefore had to hang around waiting for a blood test to be taken and was forbidden to drive for X hours etc.

At the end they said his lab test came back clear so all was good with the world, but I suspect the situation would have created all kinds of issues for him to sort out as a result of their test being wrong.

There is a difference between testing for the presence of something that indicate previous drug use, and identifying a level that indicates impairment, particularly when there are legal medicines which can produce 'non negative' results. If compared to alcohol testing I don't expect the public at large would accept a situation where any indication immediately prevented you driving, and waiting a few days for test results which may prove you were in fact legal to drive for that time, it seems a bit of a case of presumption of guilt until proven innocent.

Identifying a level that equates to impairment in a linear fashion is the problem. It's pretty well established in terms of alcohol, but no so for drugs.

Which is why the test being used is for presence of a drug.

[SaferRides]

Identifying a level that equates to impairment in a linear fashion is the problem. It's pretty well established in terms of alcohol, but no so for drugs.

Which is why the test being used is for presence of a drug.

That's the concern, of course. I remember watching a few Oz RBT episodes some time ago, and it appeared that they were doing the drug test if they suspected that someone they had breath tested was impaired. I recall that maybe half of the follow up tests were negative.

If the police here start drug testing large numbers of drivers, it could get very messy.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[R650R]

The true real unrealised danger on road

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360912857/watch-man-admits-driving-wrong-way-blames-other-half-was-yapping-my-ear

Perhaps at roadside test if wifey is present a test should be carried out to see how long she can stay silent lol

Kudos to the guy for his honesty in sharing the vid.

[Katman]

The taking of DNA samples (and what happens with them afterwards) is strictly regulated by the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act.

Roadside drug testing comes under the Land Transport Act which has none of the strict regulations regarding the taking and usage of DNA samples.

As a sovereign free being, that will be the basis of my refusal to provide a sample.

[R650R]

The taking of DNA samples (and what happens with them afterwards) is strictly regulated by the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act.

Roadside drug testing comes under the Land Transport Act which has none of the strict regulations regarding the taking and usage of DNA samples.

As a sovereign free being, that will be the basis of my refusal to provide a sample.

Good luck with that, it’s 75 demerit points to refuse the new roadside test.

I also disagree with govt obtaining DNA samples from innocent people but the reality is they don’t have the funding, manpower or infrastructure systems in place for mass sample storage.
The couldn’t even keep the covid testing records which would have been of high financial commercial value to vaccine manufacturers.

Btw if you were born in nz mid 70’s onwards the govt has your dna stored under a program to monitor a serious disease starts with G but police need to go through massive hurdles to utilise that.

And if ANYONE in your wider family has been curious and used popular services like Ancestry DNA then your data/dna is also freely available to anyone with money. A criminal was convicted in UDS after his cousins use of DNA service proved enough data to link a crime scene sample to likely candidates, while not direct implication it narrowed the pool of suspects for police to investigate.

[pete376403]

Good luck with that, it’s 75 demerit points to refuse the new roadside test.

I also disagree with govt obtaining DNA samples from innocent people .

The government as had DNA samples of most children born in NZ since 1969 - the newborn Guthrie test. Yes it is ring fenced and and by law not to be used for anything other than health tests but with a serious enough insurrection the govt could change the rule quick enough.