Pixies Place Forums - View Single Post - Australian ~ World first

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharni

Wether it is 2 laws or 1 is irrelevant really....there are many laws like that pertaining to other crimes...so thats seems pretty normal to me

Yep...as in random testing....like hmmm lets pull over that car...hmmmmm he seems a little odd...i think we should do a drug test on him....
I mean if the car driver is behaving in a suspicious manner it would be pretty obvious that something is going on....a test for influencial properties would seem prudent would it not
When your pulled over for a breath test for alcohol...it would seem you will be tested for drugs as well

It has always been illegal to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of either drugs or alcohol....and if ya read the bill anyone suspected of doing either was put to test...blood/urine

Now they just have a speedier way of testing

Whether or not it's 1 or 2 laws is quite relevant, firstly because each corresponding offence has its own setencing guidelines, secondly because it has implications for the sentencing of future crimes (especially where mandatory sentencing applies) and the accused's future in general - more offenses = more charges even if the accused is found innocent in the end.

What you've described is not random testing. Random testing is where the driver is pulled over for no particular reason, as close as possible/practical to a mental "roll of the dice" on the officer's part. I have no problem with random testing (even though "random testing" tends to play into prejudices) nor with testing drivers who show visible signs of having taken influential substances, I just found it odd that the article referred to random testing when the bill calls for the exact opposite.

Prescription drugs pose no problem if we trust those taking them not to drive if the drug can impair driving. What's to say people won't say "Bugger it, I'll be right", and then cause an accident?