
12-13-2004, 05:57 PM
|
 |
<----Snappin' Pussy
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 106,936
|
|
Cool....i'd be intersted to hear other countries drinking limits and such....so anyone feel free to add
Random stopping is not done often here...generally its for some minor thing that they'll pull you over( as Scarcrow said turn signal. seat belts etc)....but they can do it if they wish
__________________
Smile, it's the second best thing you can do with your mouth.
*~Sharni~*
If you go hunting tigers....be prepared when ya catch one!
|

12-14-2004, 07:31 AM
|
I make sexytime with you
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,616
|
|
There are a couple of things that concern me here. Are they only testing for illicit drugs? In which case, why aren't they testing for legal drugs that impair driving also? Also, unless the law changed and I wasn't aware, driving under the influence of drugs is illegal - not driving with detectable amounts of drugs in your system. THC, for example, stays in your system a long time after its influence has worn off to any noticeable level. BAC has a line that demarcates safe and unsafe...why not other drugs?
__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters
|

12-14-2004, 11:40 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 541,353
|
|
Belial,
Good points. I followed Sharni’s link, and the story leaves the licit/illicit issue ambiguous. I suspect (especially after Sarni’s subsequent expansion), that if someone tested out with a BAC greater than that allowed in Victoria State, a traffic citation would be issued for that also. In re the presence of an illicit drug: here in the States, the presence of a controlled substance (illicit drug) in the blood or urine is often admissible as evidence of possession – which is illegal.
One item which did catch my eye was the increase in probability of a more severe penalty in the case of a failed appeal. Assuming that it is all on the up and up (and I do make such an assumption), there is no necessary reason to incorporate the disincentive for the motorist to contest the issue in court. You’ll note that there is no corresponding sanction on the state should the appeal be successful.
__________________
Eudaimonia
|

12-14-2004, 01:57 PM
|
 |
is not this trim anymore!
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 21,709
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belial
Also, unless the law changed and I wasn't aware, driving under the influence of drugs is illegal - not driving with detectable amounts of drugs in your system. THC, for example, stays in your system a long time after its influence has worn off to any noticeable level. BAC has a line that demarcates safe and unsafe...why not other drugs?
|
As Jseal touched upon with his point of possession, one could effectively argue that there is NO acceptable amount of drugs your system can contain while operating a vehicle. Not like the FDA's determination that there is, in fact, an acceptable amount of rat droppings allowed in hot dogs.
I'm not one to promote a police like state where everyone needs to pee in a cup and show their papers when they so much as go to the grocery store to pick up diapers, but auto accidents happen easily enough when people aren't impaired. I don't mind a little random testing.
__________________
Though I am different from you,
We were born involved in one another.
For it was not into my ear you whispered, but into my heart. It was not my lips you kissed, but my soul.
Complete surrender should not just come at moments in which one faces overwhelming odds, but in the calm when it seems one is personally in complete control of one's life.
|

12-14-2004, 04:36 PM
|
 |
<----Snappin' Pussy
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 106,936
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jseal
.....that if someone tested out with a BAC greater than that allowed in Victoria State, a traffic citation would be issued for that also.
|
It certainly would...also they would lose points....or the loss of licence altogether
Quote:
Originally Posted by jseal
You’ll note that there is no corresponding sanction on the state should the appeal be successful.
|
I would assume that if the state lost, it would be required to pay all legal costs of the winner and the winner would not have to pay the fine obviously
The state does NOT like paying out money *LOL*
__________________
Smile, it's the second best thing you can do with your mouth.
*~Sharni~*
If you go hunting tigers....be prepared when ya catch one!
|

12-14-2004, 04:41 PM
|
 |
<----Snappin' Pussy
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 106,936
|
|
__________________
Smile, it's the second best thing you can do with your mouth.
*~Sharni~*
If you go hunting tigers....be prepared when ya catch one!
|

12-14-2004, 04:45 PM
|
 |
<----Snappin' Pussy
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 106,936
|
|
__________________
Smile, it's the second best thing you can do with your mouth.
*~Sharni~*
If you go hunting tigers....be prepared when ya catch one!
|

12-14-2004, 04:49 PM
|
 |
<----Snappin' Pussy
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 106,936
|
|
__________________
Smile, it's the second best thing you can do with your mouth.
*~Sharni~*
If you go hunting tigers....be prepared when ya catch one!
|

12-14-2004, 04:53 PM
|
 |
<----Snappin' Pussy
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 106,936
|
|
__________________
Smile, it's the second best thing you can do with your mouth.
*~Sharni~*
If you go hunting tigers....be prepared when ya catch one!
|

12-14-2004, 05:00 PM
|
 |
<----Snappin' Pussy
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 106,936
|
|
__________________
Smile, it's the second best thing you can do with your mouth.
*~Sharni~*
If you go hunting tigers....be prepared when ya catch one!
|

12-14-2004, 05:11 PM
|
 |
<----Snappin' Pussy
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 106,936
|
|
Road Safety (Amendment) Bill ~ Parliment of Victoria
***"This bill is part of a package of legislative and policy initiatives that the Bracks government is taking under its Road Safety 2000 campaign to achieve a significant reduction in the road toll over the next five years.
The provisions of the bill concerning drugs arise from the recommendations of the parliamentary Road Safety Committee as a result of its inquiry into the effects of drugs (other than alcohol) on road safety in Victoria. It is the policy of the present government to expedite the implementation of those recommendations which were made more than three years ago, in 1996.
The Road Safety Committee expressed concern at the increasing incidence of drug-driving and the potential impact on road safety in this state. In its report, the committee indicated that the annual cost of the road toll attributed to road crashes where drugs alone or drugs mixed with alcohol were present was $143 million or one-eighth of the state's road toll.
The new offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug will be in addition to existing offences such as culpable driving and driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug. These are serious offences but have limited effect in combating the problem of drugs and driving as they are usually prosecuted after a serious accident has taken place. There are people driving motor vehicles who have taken drugs, and whose driving is impaired but who will not necessarily have had an accident. The new offence will enable these people to be dealt with much more effectively.
The bill defines impairment to mean that the driver's behaviour or appearance is such as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he or she is unable to drive properly. Drivers whom the police suspect are impaired will be required to undergo an assessment of drug impairment.
If the assessment indicates that the person may be impaired by a drug or drugs, the person will be required to provide a sample of blood and/or urine. The procedure to be followed in assessing drug impairment will be specified in the Government Gazette. Performance on the assessment of drug impairment will be videorecorded unless the prosecution satisfies the court that there are exceptional circumstances for not doing so. If a person is charged with driving while impaired by a drug, a copy of any video record will be provided to the person. The person will also receive a copy of a written report on the assessment of drug impairment."
***The bill
__________________
Smile, it's the second best thing you can do with your mouth.
*~Sharni~*
If you go hunting tigers....be prepared when ya catch one!
|

12-14-2004, 11:16 PM
|
 |
♦*♥Moderatrix♥*♦
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: on top of it all
Posts: 50,568
|
|
|

12-14-2004, 11:34 PM
|
 |
<----Snappin' Pussy
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 106,936
|
|
OMFG.....LMFAO
Too funny Lil
__________________
Smile, it's the second best thing you can do with your mouth.
*~Sharni~*
If you go hunting tigers....be prepared when ya catch one!
|

12-15-2004, 06:00 AM
|
I make sexytime with you
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,616
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharni
|
I know. What I was saying was that while I knew driving under the influence was illegal, I didn't think it was illegal to drive with any drugs in your system.
__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters
|

12-15-2004, 06:04 AM
|
I make sexytime with you
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,616
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildIrish
As Jseal touched upon with his point of possession, one could effectively argue that there is NO acceptable amount of drugs your system can contain while operating a vehicle. Not like the FDA's determination that there is, in fact, an acceptable amount of rat droppings allowed in hot dogs.
I'm not one to promote a police like state where everyone needs to pee in a cup and show their papers when they so much as go to the grocery store to pick up diapers, but auto accidents happen easily enough when people aren't impaired. I don't mind a little random testing.
|
One could argue it, but one would fly in the face of mountains of anecdotal evidence. This is why drunk-driving laws permit a safe BAC threshold.
__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 AM.
|