Drugs on the road...

[Gob]

Ok, if there was a roadside test which could tell that four days ago you consummed a skinfull of booze, and in detecting this you could get a driving ban, would you be in favour of iit?

After years of arguing and continued opposition from Jon Stanhope for the need for Random Roadside Drug Testing (RRDT), the ACT Legislative Assembly today voted in-principle for the Canberra Liberal’s RRDT legislation. This is a victory for Canberra’s road users and a victory for common sense, Shadow Minister for Police, Jeremy Hanson, said today.



“The Legislation will be debated in detail at a later stage, but today’s vote provides support for RRDT and sends a clear message to people who drive on our roads under the influence of drugs that their behaviour is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated,” Mr Hanson said.



“RRDT has been opposed by Jon Stanhope since 2005 when he described the legislation as ‘Redneck’ legislation. The Chief Minister failed to meet his promised deadline to act on this issue by today, and was forced to apologise in the Assembly for failing to deliver any form of RRDT legislation.



“Now that we have agreement for RRDT in principle, I call on Jon Stanhope to put aside his own politically motivated opposition to this legislation. I look forward to working with the Government and incorporating any useful contribution they have to this legislation. Obviously that is a process that needs to occur quickly.



“This legislation is based upon the Victorian legislation which has been in use for over six years. Approximately 50,000 RRDT were successfully conducted in Victoria last year and today’s agreement in principle in the Assembly takes the ACT a great step forward to conducting its own tests.



“Canberra’s road users are the winners today and I have no doubt that this legislation will ultimately make our roads safer and will save lives. RRDT has been implemented in every other State and Territory in Australia and it is great to finally get Assembly support for this important road safety legislation in Canberra,” Jeremy Hanson said.

http://www.canberraliberals.org.au/html ... _top_id=-1

5 May 2010

[Scooter]

I recognize that this is an anti-drug site, but they say this:

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 cannabis 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 the 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.

Are they bullshitting? I've never heard of saliva testing for drugs, but within those timeframes I think its reasonable to expect there to be some impairment.

[tyro]

if there was a roadside test which could tell that four days ago you consummed a skinfull of booze.

Only if they can prove that (and I did) drive sometime with that skinfull of booze still in my system.

But 4 days ago?

You get home on a Friday and party. Does that mean you need a designated driver to take you to work on Monday?

[Scooter]

That's why I was asking. The site I found says the test will detect pot for four hours and speed for 24 hours. Is this bullshit just to lull people into not protesting, and would it really detect drugs that had been taken several days before?

[Gob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_test


Substance Urine Hair Blood / Oral Fluid
Alcohol 6–24 hours up to 90 days 12–24 hours

Amphetamines 1 to 3 days up to 90 days 12 hours

MDMA (Ecstasy) 24 hours up to 90 days 25 hours

Cannabis 3 to 7 days, u up to 90 days 2–3 days, up to 2 weeks in heavy users

[Scooter]

That's not particularly helpful. What does "blood/oral fluild" mean? Are they claiming that detection times in blood and saliva are the same? I find that hard to believe.

[rubato]

That's why I was asking. The site I found says the test will detect pot for four hours and speed for 24 hours. Is this bullshit just to lull people into not protesting, and would it really detect drugs that had been taken several days before?

I don't know about this specific test but ... By commonly used methods Cannabinoids usually for 1-2 weeks after a single use and for months for a long-term user. When I was doing forensic chemistry a fellow called up who had decided to clean up his act but failed an employment drug test > 6 weeks after last use. He was pretty devastated about it because it was a great opportunity for him. Hundreds drugs are detectable in hair for as long as its on your head, many months, as of the middle 1990s. Part of the reason for this is the very low detection limits for cannabinoids using immunoassay tests. ng/g IIR.

Most DOB are detectable for 2 days after a typical use using the NIDA cutoff limits and common test methods; the minimum detected amounts required for a 'positive'.

Some other exceptions are barbiturates and benzodiazepines.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

That was my understanding too.

And lets not forget the problem is not that detection is possible or not, it's that the effects of the drug detected are not quantifiable.

[rubato]

That was my understanding too.

And lets not forget the problem is not that detection is possible or not, it's that the effects of the drug detected are not quantifiable.

That depends on the drug.

For most drugs you can establish a dose/response curve which gives a good correlation between titre and effect.

PCP, notoriously, is the major exception.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Yep, but does the dose/response include time since ingestion, or just peak effect?

If it does, then we should be able to formulate laws which reflect that.

Unfortunately, due to the "drugs bad!!" mentality, I think these tests would be used to prove presence alone, and not effect.

What do you think?

[Scooter]

By commonly used methods Cannabinoids usually for 1-2 weeks after a single use and for months for a long-term user. When I was doing forensic chemistry a fellow called up who had decided to clean up his act but failed an employment drug test > 6 weeks after last use.

That's precisely it, though. "Commonly used methods" in an employment setting are urine and hair follicle tests. Cannabis will show up for a long time in urine because it gets stored in fat and thus takes a long time to completely metabolize. Intuitively, the same should not be true for a saliva test. They are claiming a positive test for about four hours after use. Anyone with info about this type of test that says different? Because otherwise, that sounds eminently reasonable as a surrogate for impairment.

[rubato]

Yep, but does the dose/response include time since ingestion, or just peak effect?

If it does, then we should be able to formulate laws which reflect that.

Unfortunately, due to the "drugs bad!!" mentality, I think these tests would be used to prove presence alone, and not effect.

What do you think?

Dose/response curves represent the effects due to the blood level* measured at that time. This is not the same as the amount consumed. Time since injestion is irrelevant.

Tests for most inactive metabolites (like benzyl ecognine for cocaine or Morphine 3-glucaronide for morphine and heroin) cannot be used to infer influence only exposure.


yrs,
rubato

* and in limited cases urine levels.

[Gob]

Ok, that's interesting.

Is it possible to have a scale of influence composed on the blood level?