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?

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

It certainly would...also they would lose points....or the loss of licence altogether


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*

New Driver Drug Testing Device

As to what the other drugs are it tests for i dont know....i'm attempting to find out

Random Drug Testing For Victoria

This one mentions that legal over the counter drugs will not be tested for

Motorists Face Drug Testing Over Christmas
Another interesting read

RE: WA & NSW

It's heading Australia wide....good

Victorian Police website

Straight from the GeeGee's mouth :D....it IS illegal to drive under the influence of drugs

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

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.

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.