these?Originally Posted by Laava
these?
The instructions are simple...
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...
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Just faidin away!
The only reason that "Policing" is a growth industry is because there is such a big "fuckwit" industry in this country!
Just faidin away!
Those are "YOURS"?these?
troglodytam extraordinaire
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.
Hardcore Biker
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!
3825 67 944779 (oh yeah)
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.
Comfortably numb
If that is a sample of our adversary's subversive activities I am much relieved
One, two free, floor!
Of course... what kind of stupid question is that?Ergo, the ones that wait until you do something wrong and then DON'T nick you for it are the good ones, right?, eh?
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
$2,000 cash if you find a buyer for my house, kumeuhouseforsale@straightshooters.co.nz for details
troglodytam extraordinaire
don't forget everybody else on the road except me.
where is the sarcasm smiley?
L-Plate Rider
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.
troglodytam extraordinaire
most of the cops i know say it should be the paper test like in Aus.
much easy to check streight away.
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.
is currently sulking in the Sin Bin
Wouldn't condoms fix that?
L-Plate Rider
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks