A zero tolerance approach to DRINK while driving overdue!

  1. 6.9k

    The drink driving limit of .05 and .02 for the newbies should be reduced to ZERO just like it is for medicinal cannabis and all those nasty illegal crappy drugs.

    So if any trace of the deadly BOOZE is found in the bloods of a perp drink driver then they should have their licence suspended for the 3 6 or 9 months just as it's handed out to the sick people using the healing herb of MedCan, ok mi peeps 😎

    Updated 29 Jan 2016, 10:07am

    Photo: The inherent unfairness of drug driving laws can be illustrated by comparing them to drink driving laws. (Supplied: NT Police)

    Australia's drug driving laws criminalise individuals who represent no risk to other drivers, making a mockery of the law as a tool for reasonably managing risk in a community, writes Greg Barns.

    Every Australian jurisdiction has, over the past decade, passed laws that make it an offence to have any trace of an illicit drug in your blood when you are driving. It does not matter that your driving is exemplary or that the trace of drugs in your blood is from a couple of puffs of a cannabis joint a few days earlier.

    In most states and territories the court will have no choice but to disqualify or cancel a first time

    offender's drivers licence for a period of between a minimum of three months and maximum of six to nine months.

    Drug driving laws are grossly unfair. They are not based on data or scientific knowledge.

    These laws are under pressure in the United States with the advent of medical cannabis and an acknowledgement by one superior court last month that it is patently unjust to penalise a person who does not threaten other road users in any way.

    The inherent unfairness of drug driving laws can be illustrated by comparing them to drink driving laws.

    The link between alcohol and road deaths and injuries is well known, as Assistant Professor Andrea Roth wrote about in the California Law Review last year.

    **Australia's drug driving laws have no evidential basis but can have severe impacts on the rights of individuals and their families**

    In the article, Assistant Professor Roth described the work by epidemiologists - who in the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960, along with law enforcement researchers and medical scientists undertook exhaustive studies and tests - to prove a link between the level of alcohol in a person's blood and how it impairs their capacity to drive a motor vehicle safely.

    We base our drink driving laws on this demonstrably correct data and accordingly allow for some alcohol in the bloodstream for full drivers licence holders, so long as it is below a blood alcohol content of 0.05 per cent.

    But not so with other drugs such as cannabis. Here we take the prohibitionist stance and apply it to driving without bothering to undertake the rigorous analysis that accompanied and underpinned drink driving law development.

    This is admitted by researchers in the field. Roth cites a 2007 paper published in Addiction by Franjo Grotenhermen and colleagues who observed:
    "A zero tolerance approach to drugs while driving "avoid[s] the need for a reliable science-based correlation between drug concentration and level of impairment".

    As Professor Roth observes, it is a case of legislators being lazy and simply saying "a prohibitionist stance would have to do."

    Dr Alex Wodak, now Chair of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation and formerly head of drug and alcohol services at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, notes that:

    "One of the problems with 'zero tolerance' drug driving laws is that they punish some drivers who are not impaired as a way of deterring other drivers who might be impaired or might become impaired from driving. This is what we call 'vicarious punishment' and it offends basic notions of fairness."

    Or, as Professor Roth puts it, "punishment without purpose is immoral."

    In short, Australia's drug driving laws have no evidential basis but can have severe impacts on the rights of individuals and their families, given that the loss of a drivers licence can mean losing your job.

    The US is now grappling with the consequences of the immorality and injustice of zero tolerance drug driving laws in the context of the legalisation of cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes.

    You cannot allow people to use cannabis legitimately but then criminalise them if they drive.

    Some states, such as Washington and Montana, have adopted limits for cannabis presence in the bloodstream analogous to 0.05 per cent laws.

    But to quote Professor Roth again, even these more liberal laws are not legitimate because "there is no demonstrated linear or predictable relationship between THC blood limits and an increased crash risk."

    Australian courts are criminalising individuals who represent no risk to other road users.

    The Arizona Supreme Court weighed into the issue last December in a landmark ruling when it identified the flaw in zero tolerance drug driving laws.

    It noted that a driver cannot be considered to be " 'under the influence' based solely on concentrations of marijuana or its metabolites that are insufficient to cause impairment."

    In other words, it is only legitimate as a matter of justice and sound public policy to prosecute individuals about whom it can be shown that the concentration of the drug in their blood steam meant that they presented a risk to other road users.

    Australian courts are, literally on a daily basis, dealing with drug driving cases and criminalising individuals who represent no risk to other road users. This is making a mockery of the law as a tool for ensuring that risk in a community is managed reasonably.

    Drug driving laws must be reformed and this can only be done by governments spending money on pursuing rigorous analysis of the impact of drugs on driving.

    The only offence which ought to be on the statute books is one based, as is the case in respect of drink driving laws, where there is a strong research consensus on causation between the substance in a person's blood stream and impairment.


    1 like
  2. 6.9k

    That sure shut the gobs of mi ANTI-SIXER GANG BANGERS aye mi sixer fixer 😎

    1 like
  3. 7.5k

    So every govt in Australia has got it wrong, scientist have got it wrong, society as a whole have got it wrong. This is what you believe sixpac, Weed is good for driving, and in essence it will reduce the road toll and serious accidents

    1 like
  4. 62.1k

    maybe it Is BETTER ,

    the intending driver is too 'mellow' to risk driving on those dangerous ,badly maintained roads .

    now every driver NOT killed by DUI drivers (or their own DUI driving ) what about them... they are still the majority

  5. 3.2k

    adds04 ,weed causes virtually no impairment to drivers and the statistics in every country and state where marijuana is legalised duplicates over and over sizeable reductions in the road toll . To compare marijuana with alcohol impairment is ridiculous one of my favourite songs is too drunk to fuck by the dead kennedys, no band will ever release a song called to stoned to fuck because they fuck like monkeys when they are stoned, loss of motor skills my arse our lying government are selling more lies.

    1 like
  6. 6.1k

    we need more roadside tests for weed and if they fail, put them straight in the pokie

    1 like
  7. 3.2k

    H.B. seen a few furry cell bitches enjoying the pokie , dirty sick disgusting degenerates the lot of em .

    1 like
  8. 7.5k

    Krueger, driving stoned may not be as bad as when people are really drunk, but anything that effects your head, like mull, people shouldn't drive. It's simple.

    Stoners shouldn't have a right to drive. The community and authorities are right to ban it

  9. 3.2k

    adds04, if the evidence less mentality of your good self is any measure of the community and the authorities then it is obvious that the community and the authorities are a bunch of mentally deficient nincompoops.

  10. 6.9k

    Hey krueges I don't think these blokes even know how to do a Mr GOOGLE search LOL FLOOPING LOL!

    adds.000004, when I was an interstate truck driver in the olden days I drove throughout every state in the country (except Tas.) a thousand times over totally whacked as a cat and NOT ONE SINGLE INCIDENT!
    Ok I agree not everyone can do this safely but the ones that can't should NEVA EVA touch the stuff as they're normally the ones that tend to have mental disorder of some description anyways so I suggest you & yur mates here give the herb a wide birth. ok 😎

    Just another of the many many SIXER facts.

    Lighting up may help you turn on.

    Scientists confirm what you always suspected: Cannabis is the ultimate aphrodisiac

    Study reports that consuming cannabis before sex increases pleasure (YOU BETCHA! 😎)

    Published: Dec 29, 2016, 9:21 am • Updated: 12 days ago Comments (12)

    By Tess Allen, Civilized

    What do oysters, strawberries and cannabis have in common?

    According to a new report, all three may be considered powerful aphrodisiacs.

    A new study published in the Pharmacological Research journal is lending further credence to the long-held theory that cannabis could be your best friend in the bedroom.

    Studying cannabis

    Help at the end: America’s oldest hospice to study medical marijuana

    Long history of exploration: How this tiny Middle Eastern nation came to lead the world in medical marijuana research

    Research news: Lean more about CBD studies, how cannabis affects the body, the social impact of legalization and more

    Treating PTSD: How this became the most divisive medical pot issue of 2016

    In the study, researchers from the University of Catania in Italy and Charles University and Masaryk University in the Czech Republic reviewed a number of investigations conducted in the 1970s and 80s on the effects of cannabis on sexual desire and satisfaction.

    What they discovered was that people who consumed cannabis before sex experienced “aphrodisiac effects” in roughly half of the reported cases, while 70 percent claimed that pre-coitus consumption led to “enhancement in pleasure and satisfaction.”

    1 like
  11. 6.1k

    Sixer and krueger you guys clearly know nothing

    Cannabis will shrink the size of your pecker, and also will give you HIV, cancer and brain damage.

    1 like
  12. 6.9k

    I'd really like to see our pollies grow some real balls and ban both tobacco and alcohol completely as those two substances are this country's biggest scourge on society and costing us tax payer billions in treatments, education and scraping entire families up off our highways with a bloody shovel :( yet there's only a couple here @ T$ that actually acknowledge this, WHY?

    No doubt they're pissheads and suck down 2 packs of ciggie butt poison a day, YUK! DRUNKEN FILTHY SMELLING CIGGYBUTT BREATHS!

  13. 62.1k


    if that were true big Pharma would be selling for indigestion reaping trillions on the side-effects

    1 like
  14. 6.1k

    dont worry Sal they will be soon

  15. 62.1k

    not worried , just amused

    hunter-gatherer with connectivity is fine for me

    1 like
  16. 6.9k

    Mi silly b b b Bear, so has Cannabis shrunk the size of your pecker and caused you to catch HIV, cancer and brain damage????

    You are the first on the entire planet and that's just bad luck buddy being that one victim out of 7.2 billion including all those that died from ciggy butt sucking and drinking piss since Christ walked this herb endowed planet. :(

    Did you know Jesus blew the odd spliff too for healing and feeling religiously TOP SHELF but many many millions still look up to him as their saviour aye ya silly billy 😂

    Soooooooooooooo much for you to learn yet so very little time left unfortunately :(

    1 like
  17. 6.1k

    Nah was just thinking about you sixer.... look downstairs at that wee little thing and it'll all become clear to you.

  18. 6.9k

    What you thinking????? Jokes!

  19. 7.5k

    Sixpac, cannabis is small doses will get you up maybe. But too much of cannabis will make you limp. Everything in small doses is usually ok. After one cone is too much.

    1 like
  20. 3.2k

    H.B. reckons that cannabis reduces the size of your pecker causes cancer HIV and brain damage , you must have brain damage if you think that anyone is stupid enough to believe your blatant unfounded lies. Liars are the lowest of the low and you have now confirmed yourself to be a liar , there is no known medical or scientific evidence that would give credibility to any of your bizarre claims.

  21. 6.1k

    **H.B. reckons that cannabis reduces the size of your pecker causes cancer HIV and brain damage**

    Yeah well how do you explain your own situation if this is untrue Krueger? Hmm?

Your browser is too old for TopStocks and not secure. Please update your browser