New drug driving road side tests are a political farce
I believe that we don’t ever spend enough time understanding and acknowledging what a fascist little police state NZ truly is.
The appalling manner in which NZ treated and abused conscientious objectors in work camps far more severe than any of the other anglo nations of Australia, Britain, Canada or America during the world wars.
The manner in which the state arrested and detained and harassed the Left during the 1930s and 1940s.
The way the Government turned the full force of the state against Unions to the point that even giving a hungry child of a Unionist one slice of bread was illegal.
And that’s not to forget the way white settler culture robbed and stole Māori land and passed laws that specifically targeted them.
We have such. laid back culture, it’s almost horizontal.
I think NZ has a cultural hangover from our settler days.
The NZ Police Force grew out of the Mounted Constabulary, a thug force who was ostensibly put together to go bash the bejesus out of drunk Māori at the edge of the settlement.
The unspoken deal between white settler NZ and the Mounted Constabulary was, ‘we will turn a blind eye to whatever heavy handed tactics you want to use, as long as you make us feel safe’.
That mindset of turning a blind eye to Police tactics to protect us from our fears of the things that go bump in the night has extended all the way from our settler culture to today.
Look at the latest Drug Driving powers and laws and appreciate they are nothing more than a new drag net to legally harass Kiwis…
‘Roadside drug testing’s puritanical political agenda’
The Government has announced the rollout of roadside drug testing for four illicit substances – THC (cannabis), MDMA (ecstasy), methylamphetamine (meth), and cocaine – after an amendment to the Land Transport Act. But just because these drugs are illicit does not mean they always impair driving ability, which makes me question the intent of the scheme and whether public safety is really the priority being exercised here.
Police will be able to take an oral sample, and a testing kit will flag potential drug presence, which will be confirmed (or not) by proper laboratory analysis. Drivers with a positive result will not be allowed to drive for 12 hours, and a positive lab result means an infringement notice. Refusal to take the test carries the same penalties as a positive result.
The dangers of driving “impaired” by substances including alcohol, opioids, and other medications are well documented. As stated in the Government’s press release: “Around 30% of all road deaths now involve an impairing drug. If you take drugs and drive, you’re putting innocent lives at risk – and we will not tolerate it.”
Many drugs can reduce reaction times, fine motor skills, or critical thinking and judgment. Drunk driving is a leading cause of road-based injury, and both licit and illicit drugs are increasingly implicated as causes or contributing factors in road accidents.
At first glance this announcement may seem like a no-brainer, but the specifics of this scheme raises the question of what is really behind this plan. Is this a genuine effort to improve road safety by “cracking down” on “drug drivers”, or is this an attempt to police drug use under the guise of road safety?
Driving impaired is clearly a problem for road safety, but this scheme does not test for impairment. Rather, it tests for (historical) use of drugs. Although those can be the same thing, often the link between drug use and driving impairment is much more complex than these roadside devices can know.
Take cannabis, for which the criminal blood limit has been set at 3mg/ml of THC. For occasional users such a level can be detected for about 24 hours after consumption; for frequent users this can be over 72 hours (three days). If you smoke on a Sunday afternoon, you could be over the legal limit until Thursday morning. Cocaine is similarly detectable by these kits for about 12 hours, even though the effects of the drug hardly last an hour.
The Attorney-General’s report on the legislative amendment states: “The Ministry of Transport and Police consider that there is likely to be a high number of drug-impaired drivers who are not captured under the [current Compulsory Impairment Test which includes the hop-on-one-leg test] regime because there may be no observable signs of impairment at the time of driving.”
If the impairment is not observable, there are no deficits of coordination, speech, or motor skills detected by specially trained police, then what does it mean to be impaired?
…The Daily Blog has been banging on about this flawed process for over a decade, THIS IS NOT ABOUT IMPAIRMENT it’s a drag net to catch out drug users without the annoyance of having too actually justify the interference.
We are allowing the Police vast new powers over us at a time when they have proven they don’t deserve such powers.
The McSkimming’s scandal has blossomed from being a ‘few bad apples’ to now 20 staff caught using their phones and laptops to view porn…
Twenty police staff under investigation over device misuse – charges possible
…and let’s not forget the lies Police have been caught out with alcohol breathalysers…
Over 100 police officers investigated after 30,000 breath tests falsified
…so why allow Police new powers to drug test you for Drugs that are’t impairing you when legal prescription drugs are ignored?
This isn’t about public safety, it’s a vast expansion of powers to infringe on your civil liberties and because NZ is such a laid back culture, we gloss over these erosions of our civil liberties without ever challenging them
In 1943, NZ’s Ambassador to America, Sir George Laking, reflected on the surprising ability of the NZ Government to pass authoritarian powers against the citizens of NZ with little to no resistance from Kiwis by saying, “Much that was accomplished in those early years was possible only because of the absence of any detailed or sustained public interest in the issues”.
We have become experts in a hyper laid back culture of turning a blind eye.
Remember – there is no depression in NZ, or corruption and we don’t know how lucky we are.
You silly, stupid, sleepy Hobbits.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
New Zealand has a Police force which can’t be trusted to administer alcohol breath testing. Why would you give them further scope for incompetence and mendacity?
If a drug test fails to provide results for current incapacitation then it is useless – there is no logical reason to pursue the cannabis testing given false positives will likely outnumber actual positives (impaired at the time of testing) because this is not a measure of current incapacity – this is like ‘imposing’ a CGT on a homeless person – total waste of time and money from the party that promises fiscal responsibility!
Yes indeed, the thin edge of the wedge. CTV everywhere, traffic surveillance cameras on every second roadside column, smart phone tracking, security in supermarkets who’ll issue a trespass order irrespective of the gravity. Some attention to detail is perhaps warranted. Banks do have a social responsibility to protect the vulnerable from online scammers. The new 2022 Incorporated Societies Act traps all the small fish but arguably captures the big ones. Still, ya wonder what the future holds. Orwell was a visionary.
What gets me is for alcohol, a powerful downer, you are allowed to get a little bit fucked up and still drive. But too fucked up and you get nicked for it.
But for performance enhancing stimulants which do the opposite of the powerful downer alcohol there is zero tolerance. Even though the military has carried out extensive research using amphetamines to stay alert on long flights.
Then again zero tolerance for weed, which does not seem to enhance performance much if any and arguably may decrease driving ability in some users, especially in excessive amounts taken by inexperienced weed users or drivers; or if combined with alcohol. But come on, even in extreme cases it’s unlikely to decrease driving ability the way alcohol does. So why no lower limit for weed like alcohol, where you can have a few puffs and drive 3 hrs later, just don’t get mashed right before you get behind the wheel?
Med use for those that can afford it means you do not get nicked for it. But if the copper doesn’t like the look of you he can still lock up your car for 12 hrs. I wonder if you can sleep in the car for the 12 hours to avoid your car being stolen if its in a bad neighborhood?
In any event, we need an even playing field for all drugs regardless of their legal status. We need to let scientists determine the decrease or increase in driving ability provided by each drug and determine the safe limits for each in line with this.
“Many drugs can reduce reaction times”
Absurdly unclear wording. Yes, weed _worsens_ reaction time (that’s an increase). Safer drugs like cocaine and meth do indeed reduce- which is to say IMPROVE- reaction times. In fact, this beneficial effect is particularly pronounced in people driving tired- which is the actual cause of most late night crashes.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1334411/
“fine motor skills”
A relevant consideration… if you are controlling a motor vehicle with a remote control joystick, rather than a steering wheel.
“critical thinking and judgment.”
Yes, it is true that these are severely impaired by weed- but those on uppers are largely unaffected in performance in situations where there are consequences to making incorrect decisions.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2694492/
“The way the Government turned the full force of the state against Unions to the point that even giving a hungry child of a Unionist one slice of bread was illegal.”
Don’t forget the conscientious vaccine mandate objectors who had their livelihoods removed permanently because they wouldn’t take a drug.
That Joseph is preposterous.
If you use weed infrequently and not that day and aint stoned looking when they nab you, and have a prescription, even though it could be gangweed, are polite and employed, you will probably be OK even if over the limit by a little.
Daily stoners who inhale and drive will mostly be screwed though going forward.
Unless you capsule it. Not saying it’s right at all, but swallowing capsules will bypass the swab test but not the blood test.
For inhaling stoners well over,, refusing the swab and wearing the demerits and fine will be an expensive out to a biased law. And a long walk home.
If your considered a danger, they may try and nab you continually as the demerits and fines grow, as well as the walks home. Till it’s buses and bicycle time.
Growing poppies is legal! A change is as good as a rest.
We really need a good lawyer to challenge this in Court, because as you correctly point out, a positive result does not mean the person is impaired, especially for substances with long half-lives such as THC. From the scientific point of view, it is not defensible.