MADD Canada calls for drug testing at roadside

[GenuinelyInterested]

How long does a roadside saliva test take?
A roadside saliva screening test takes around five minutes. Where a positive result is obtained, the driver is required to undertake a second saliva test or provide a blood sample to confirm the presence of the prescribed drug. In most cases, the confirmatory saliva test takes around 30 minutes.

http://drugaware.com.au/DrugDriving/Faq.aspx

[SurplusElect]

So what would people say if I said that marijuana impairment was different than alcohol impairment.?

Before MADD starts testing my spit for month-old THC, I want to see mandatory SLEEP CHECKS on all drivers.

There is no way smoking a joint and driving is more dangerous than overworked stressed out people on 4 hours a sleep in the last 72 hours.

Then, lets deal with drivers on prescription meds. Cross reference every prescription with a drivers license. I know of countless seniors that drive on basically qualudes because "nobody is taking my driving away".

Then, lets deal with drivers on energy drinks and coffee. You cant tell me a hyped up driver prone to mood swings and road rage is safer than a hippie in a VW van going 80 down the highway who smoked a joint 3 hours go.

In short, ridiculous.

[GenuinelyInterested]

How long after consuming cannabis, methylamphetamine or MDMA can these drugs be detected in saliva?
THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) can be detected in saliva for up to four hours after use, but is dependent on the amount and potency of the cannabis, on the individual’s metabolism and the method of use. THC residue from using cannabis in previous days or weeks will not be detected. Methylamphetamines, including MDMA, can be detected for approximately 24 hour after use. Extremely large doses, a person’s metabolism and whether other drugs were taken at the same time may affect the duration of the effects of these drugs.

http://drugaware.com.au/DrugDriving/Faq.aspx

[GenuinelyInterested]

Why were drug driving laws changed in Western Australia?
New and revised laws were introduced in Western Australia in October 2007, with penalties amended as of 1 October 2011, to reduce the incidence of drug driving and the number of people killed and seriously injured as a result of drug driving. Although research consistently shows that alcohol is the major problem in relation to impaired driving, there is increasing concern regarding the incidence of other drugs and their contribution to road deaths and serious injury. There are a range of drugs other than alcohol that affect driving performance, increase crash risk and negatively impact on road safety. Studies have shown that drugs that are capable of impairing driver skills have been found in significant numbers of drivers who have been injured or killed on our roads. The drugs of major concern from a road safety perspective are THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) and amphetamine type stimulants including methylamphetamine (‘speed’ or ‘ice’) and MDMA (‘ecstasy’).

http://drugaware.com.au/DrugDriving/Faq.aspx

[MAPearce]

i think if they can test as accurately as alcohol its a good thing we don't need seriously baked people any more than drunks driving

Can they test acurately for alcohol ??? Every time I've been tested , I've gotten a pass or a "warn"...not a .02 or .04...

seriously baked or a little tipsy , the line has been drawn and made VERY clear when it comes to alcohol , it should be very easy to tell anyone who provides sample of their breath EXACTLY how much they have in their system. It doesn't happen.

Just how to do the same when it comes to other substances isn't going to be easy but don't think for a minute that the gov't and/or police agencies will proclaim they've "found a fool proof way" to do so .

Meanwhile , the lawyers will find a way to dispute it and win in court , while the maniacs at MADD will move on to their next way to "keep us safe"..If they don't , we wouldn't need them any more and the fund raising machine that they are wouldn't need all the high paid exec's that they have...

[fluffy]

...I want to see mandatory SLEEP CHECKS on all drivers...Then, lets deal with drivers on prescription meds...Then, lets deal with drivers on energy drinks and coffee.

There's lots of things that threaten driver safety. I think perhaps some sort of assessment just how serious each and every threat is would make it obvious where the priorities should lay in dealing with them.

[Sn0man]

There's lots of things that threaten driver safety. I think perhaps some sort of assessment just how serious each and every threat is would make it obvious where the priorities should lay in dealing with them.

Why not just take it all the way and ban driving. Because that's pretty much where all this regulation is going.

That would be safer wouldn't it?

Tired? Impaired.
Had a sniff from a wine bottle? Impaired.
Took a pill for your cholesterol? Impaired.
Had a cigarrette? Coffee? Impaired.
Over 50? Impaired.
Under 50? Impaired.
Etc.

[theyeti]

could save u 15 % or more on your car insurance !


madd !

[NAB]

Exactly fluffy. Just because there are numerous drugs and situations that can produce a dangerous driver (and which don't get tested adequately for at present) ...doesn't mean we should just ignore "all' of them. There appear to be some folk who are even advocating slakening attention on alcohol for heavin's sake. If we can easily, conveniently, and cost effectively add a few more uncontrolled substances that have been proven to be in common use when behind the wheel, then in my view we should do so. Doesn't mean we need to go "all or nothing". Just a small step at a time is worth it to help me and mine feel at least a bit safer on the road.

From that link....

""The drugs of major concern from a road safety perspective are THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) and amphetamine type stimulants including methylamphetamine (‘speed’ or ‘ice’) and MDMA (‘ecstasy’)."

Nab

[kibbs]

Its seems like the battle should be for all forms of driving impairment.awareness to booze drugs fatigue ,getting your twin brother to do your drivers test,They should change the name to mothers' against impaired driving or MAID "we clean up biased propaganda"MADD sounds kinda crazy

[fluffy]

Exactly NAB, the fact that there are many steps between here and total road safety shouldn't deter us from taking any one of those steps if the need and/or opportunity arises. The idea that the existence of a multitude of risks should justify decreased attention on any one of them is simply an exercise in deflection, usually by those with a different agenda.

[Captain Awesome]

Its seems like the battle should be for all forms of driving impairment.awareness to booze drugs fatigue

You can never get rid of any given problem completely - but you can attack some of the most prevalent causes that are causing majority of the incidents. Some analytical work required to figure out the priorities - but after you solve some big ones, going after small ones just doesn't make sense. Say, alcohol is a big cause, I'm sure. Hence all the work fighting it. People driving under influence on drugs? Yeah, perhaps - the numbers should justify it. People who cause accidents under influence of coffee? Probably non-existent or anecdotal, so not worth coming after.

[Glacier]

I think that instead of conducting breathalyzers and saliva samples they should conduct alertness/reflex tests. Who cares if you have had a few beers if you are within the threshold. If you are over because you've had 1 beer, smoked half a joint, and haven't had any sleep in 24 hours, and you fail because of a combination of all three, then good-bye.

[Bsuds]

I think that instead of conducting breathalyzers and saliva samples they should conduct alertness/reflex tests. Who cares if you have had a few beers if you are within the threshold. If you are over because you've had 1 beer, smoked half a joint, and haven't had any sleep in 24 hours, and you fail because of a combination of all three, then good-bye.

Exactly

Roadside 24hr suspension and your fine is a tow truck ride home!

[cliffy1]

For a reflex test, the cop could just throw a punch at the driver. If the driver ducks the punch, he is OK and if he isn't, he gets whacked on the jaw or nose, then suspended. Simple, cheep.

Personally, I wonder about people who think it is OK to take away more of our freedoms, more of their freedoms. There is no such thing as security. When your time is up, it is up. There are no accidents, just learning opportunities. People who spend their lives avoiding getting hurt are not really living. Most of us survived our youths without helmets, knee and shoulder pads. When I learned to drive there were no seat belts. Every day you get out of bed could be your last, you could get killed by any number of things, but you get up and go out anyway. So someone gets struck by a car. You don't hear anybody fussing about a squirrel or deer being stuck by a car. Why are humans so self absorbed that they think they are the only important life form on the planet?