Vic Randon Roadside Drug Tests?

[Kirks]

What's the deal with these tests? I have this friend <..ahem..> that would
like to know if one was to partake in a joint one evening, would it still
register the next morning? Are there too many variables to know for sure? I
know it stays in your system for a while, but I think they are only testing
for active THC, not residual (though I'm not 100% clear on the diff). Any
ideas?

[Mot Adv-NSW]

"Kirks" <fake@fake.com> wrote in message
news:USUrd.186$A6.3660@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> What's the deal with these tests? I have this friend <..ahem..> that
> would like to know if one was to partake in a joint one evening, would it
> still register the next morning?

YES, that substance is detectable up to 3 months - it binds to the fatty
tissue.


Are there too many variables to know for sure?

It is certainly detectable.

"So far they have managed to dispel one of the great myths about marijuana.
While it is true that marijuana drivers tend to drive more slowly, they are
not safer. Their weakness is an inability to make quick decisions when
something unusual happens on the road. Work is still in progress to see what
the equivalent of .05 would be".

(Catalyst)

Read more from ABC's Catalyst program:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s838743.htm#transcript


I
> know it stays in your system for a while, but I think they are only
> testing for active THC, not residual (though I'm not 100% clear on the
> diff). Any ideas?

Try it and find out.

NSW will go ahead with this.

Jeremy H. Pritchard
mot.adv@gotalk.net.au

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 18:48:06 +1100, Kirks wrote:

> What's the deal with these tests? I have this friend <..ahem..> that would
> like to know if one was to partake in a joint one evening, would it still
> register the next morning? Are there too many variables to know for sure? I
> know it stays in your system for a while, but I think they are only testing
> for active THC, not residual (though I'm not 100% clear on the diff). Any
> ideas?

Plenty.
But the short answer is that THC will show in tests
a_very_long_time_after_use_of_the_material_contain ing_it.

Ergo, it's more of a test to see who's a 'head' (old term, may still
be abroad) and who isn't.
Ho Ho Ho, the police will say, thank's for your time, Sir.
And all the while, this information they gather will go into a
(probably mis-used by crooked cops)database somewhere, and be
cross-checked with phone records (yes, they have them all - mapped as
to who calls whom, too) - for all we know records of sale of plant
hormones, unusual lighting and large plastic containers etc etc etc.

Add in a few informants spilling their guts after the first few local
little busts guided by the information obtained and next, guided by
the data mining and matching operation we'll get 'miracle' major busts
in rural Vic, and dickheads will think how very clever the police are.

Tell your friend <..ahem..> all this, and add the phrase "Don't say
you weren't warned".:-)

BTW, given the long term persistence of THC and a few other relevant
chemicals, has anyone begun to wonder who's gonna be left to drive the
Taxis?

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Kirks]

>
> Ergo, it's more of a test to see who's a 'head' (old term, may still
> be abroad) and who isn't.
> Ho Ho Ho, the police will say, thank's for your time, Sir.
> And all the while, this information they gather will go into a
> (probably mis-used by crooked cops)database somewhere, and be
> cross-checked with phone records (yes, they have them all - mapped as
> to who calls whom, too) - for all we know records of sale of plant
> hormones, unusual lighting and large plastic containers etc etc etc.

Sheesh, and I thought I was paranoid (-;

[Scotty]

Someone else who has waaaayyy too much time on thier hands, you wouldnt
happen to be a Chubb Security guard would you?


"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tc83mrertc7h.1px11i3xy3nn4.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 18:48:06 +1100, Kirks wrote:
>
>> What's the deal with these tests? I have this friend <..ahem..> that
>> would
>> like to know if one was to partake in a joint one evening, would it still
>> register the next morning? Are there too many variables to know for sure?
>> I
>> know it stays in your system for a while, but I think they are only
>> testing
>> for active THC, not residual (though I'm not 100% clear on the diff).
>> Any
>> ideas?
>
> Plenty.
> But the short answer is that THC will show in tests
> a_very_long_time_after_use_of_the_material_contain ing_it.
>
> Ergo, it's more of a test to see who's a 'head' (old term, may still
> be abroad) and who isn't.
> Ho Ho Ho, the police will say, thank's for your time, Sir.
> And all the while, this information they gather will go into a
> (probably mis-used by crooked cops)database somewhere, and be
> cross-checked with phone records (yes, they have them all - mapped as
> to who calls whom, too) - for all we know records of sale of plant
> hormones, unusual lighting and large plastic containers etc etc etc.
>
> Add in a few informants spilling their guts after the first few local
> little busts guided by the information obtained and next, guided by
> the data mining and matching operation we'll get 'miracle' major busts
> in rural Vic, and dickheads will think how very clever the police are.
>
> Tell your friend <..ahem..> all this, and add the phrase "Don't say
> you weren't warned".:-)
>
> BTW, given the long term persistence of THC and a few other relevant
> chemicals, has anyone begun to wonder who's gonna be left to drive the
> Taxis?
>
> --
> Toby
> quidquid latine dictum
> sit, altum viditur

[Brendon]

"Kirks" <fake@fake.com> wrote in message
news:9sVrd.189$A6.3767@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...

> Sheesh, and I thought I was paranoid (-;

....and that's a mild post :-)

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 18:46:03 +1000, Scotty wrote:

> Someone else who has waaaayyy too much time on thier hands, you wouldnt
> happen to be a Chubb Security guard would you?

Not even close. Do they let that lot loose with real 'puters?
Nice shot, though;-)
--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[John McKenzie]

Toby Ponsenby wrote:

> Add in a few informants spilling their guts after the first few local
> little busts guided by the information obtained and next, guided by
> the data mining and matching operation we'll get 'miracle' major busts
> in rural Vic, and dickheads will think how very clever the police are.

Whilst I won't argue the fact it's indeed possible, I'd have to ask
whether or not they'd go to anywhere near that much trouble - especially
just for dope. I do have some experience/interaction with people on the
'legal' side of the drug equation (i.e. those who are involved in
policing it, not those involved in producing it) and it's a stretch
imho.

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com
abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov
abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au

[Danny Rohr]

"Kirks" <fake@fake.com> wrote in message
news:USUrd.186$A6.3660@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...

> What's the deal with these tests? I have this friend <..ahem..> that
would
> like to know if one was to partake in a joint one evening, would it still
> register the next morning? Are there too many variables to know for sure?
I
> know it stays in your system for a while, but I think they are only
testing
> for active THC, not residual (though I'm not 100% clear on the diff). Any
> ideas?

These are very intersting questions. How suprising it is that this
information is basically impossible to obtain. My guess is if you have dope
in your system from a couple of months ago you likely to cop somekind of
crap from them, even if its got nothing to do with your driving skills.

Big brother has just inserted himself slightly further up your arse.

Danny

[Moses Lim]

Kirks wrote:

> What's the deal with these tests? I have this friend <..ahem..> that
> would like to know if one was to partake in a joint one evening, would it
> still register the next morning? Are there too many variables to know for
> sure? I know it stays in your system for a while, but I think they are
> only testing
> for active THC, not residual (though I'm not 100% clear on the diff). Any
> ideas?

according to tripleJ ... the tests are suppose to determine if cannabis has
been consumed/smoked within the last 4-6 hrs ... dunno much more beyond
that ... info is hard to find as the vic police seem to be putting out
conflicting intepretations ... maybe someone could provide a link to the
legislation which covers this??

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:43:34 GMT, Moses Lim wrote:

> Kirks wrote:
>
>> What's the deal with these tests? I have this friend <..ahem..> that
>> would like to know if one was to partake in a joint one evening, would it
>> still register the next morning? Are there too many variables to know for
>> sure? I know it stays in your system for a while, but I think they are
>> only testing
>> for active THC, not residual (though I'm not 100% clear on the diff). Any
>> ideas?
>
> according to tripleJ ... the tests are suppose to determine if cannabis has
> been consumed/smoked within the last 4-6 hrs ... dunno much more beyond
> that ... info is hard to find as the vic police seem to be putting out
> conflicting intepretations ... maybe someone could provide a link to the
> legislation which covers this??

Hmmm, maybe it's 'justatrial'?
--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Kirks]

> according to tripleJ ... the tests are suppose to determine if cannabis
> has
> been consumed/smoked within the last 4-6 hrs ... dunno much more beyond
> that ... info is hard to find as the vic police seem to be putting out
> conflicting intepretations ... maybe someone could provide a link to the
> legislation which covers this??
>

Found this - http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugs_faq.html#17 It
sorta answers my question.

[Moses Lim]

Toby Ponsenby wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:43:34 GMT, Moses Lim wrote:
>
>> Kirks wrote:
>>
>>> What's the deal with these tests? I have this friend <..ahem..> that
>>> would like to know if one was to partake in a joint one evening, would
>>> it still register the next morning? Are there too many variables to know
>>> for sure? I know it stays in your system for a while, but I think they
>>> are only testing
>>> for active THC, not residual (though I'm not 100% clear on the diff).
>>> Any ideas?
>>
>> according to tripleJ ... the tests are suppose to determine if cannabis
>> has been consumed/smoked within the last 4-6 hrs ... dunno much more
>> beyond that ... info is hard to find as the vic police seem to be putting
>> out conflicting intepretations ... maybe someone could provide a link to
>> the legislation which covers this??
>
> Hmmm, maybe it's 'justatrial'?

npe ... not a trial

found a link which might be useful

http://www.findlaw.com.au/Legislation/legislationhtml.asp?id=33203

the way i read it ... the coppers are looking for any use within the last 3
hrs ... and that is determined by the presence of *ANY* concentration of
drugs in the sample taken :)

given the various posts about how traces of drugs can remain in the body
long after use ... it looks like the 3-hr limit is pretty nonsensical...

[veritas]

Kirks wrote:
> What's the deal with these tests? I have this friend <..ahem..> that would
> like to know if one was to partake in a joint one evening, would it still
> register the next morning? Are there too many variables to know for sure? I
> know it stays in your system for a while, but I think they are only testing
> for active THC, not residual (though I'm not 100% clear on the diff). Any
> ideas?
>
>

Just watch this space:-

As soon as cry dies down - the lying bastards *will* legislate out any of the civil liberty components that are now included.

=========

19. Can drivers charged for drug driving also be charged for offences relating to drug possession and use?

The drug driving campaign is about increasing road safety – not drug detection. Legislation prevents the evidence of saliva
tests being used in court proceedings for non-road safety offences.


20. Does this mean that drivers who test positive to roadside drug tests will not be searched, or have their vehicles or
property searched?

Police will carry out further investigations for drug offences, which may include searches, only when there is sufficient
information to suggest that a serious drug offence is being committed


21. Will drug tests be used for DNA testing?

Legislation prevents the evidence of saliva tests being used in court proceedings for non-road safety offences. It specifically
prohibits the use of the sample for DNA profiling, and it is a serious offence for anyone to perform a DNA analysis from a
sample taken for the purpose of roadside drug screening. The sample will not be used in DNA testing.

[veritas]

YAIR!!!! Which, of course, means police won't illegally access the information either.
>
> Just watch this space:-
>
> As soon as cry dies down - the lying bastards *will* legislate out any
> of the civil liberty components that are now included.

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:20:57 +1100, Kirks wrote:

>> according to tripleJ ... the tests are suppose to determine if cannabis
>> has
>> been consumed/smoked within the last 4-6 hrs ... dunno much more beyond
>> that ... info is hard to find as the vic police seem to be putting out
>> conflicting intepretations ... maybe someone could provide a link to the
>> legislation which covers this??
>>
>
> Found this - http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugs_faq.html#17 It
> sorta answers my question.

So, you read the FAQ?
The tests are for literally anything they care to test for.
It's a serious offence to conduct DNA testing on the samples supplied
to the laboratory (or testing by anyone else for that matter).
Yeah right. This week, anyway.
Isn't it a serious offence to knock stuff off out of databases?
Duh, yes. How about take bribes? Shoot bastards for no particular
reason other than that they might be going to grass you up? You know
the rest.
In sum, if you think this new stuff won't be abused and mis-used by
those with access to the process and records, I have this bridge I'd
like to sell you.
If you read that crock of shit FAQ and failed to see between the
lines, then you need a crash course in paranoia.
It's the price of eternal vigilance.
It's also completely obvious that this is a NEW set of impositions,
and it's being *sold* as an adjunct. It isn't that. No way.
And WHERE'S THE *VOTE* in this in Vic, and upcoming NSW and QLD et al
copy-cat legislation?

EH???????

On DNA.
Like it or not, kiddies, the mongrel police in this country WILL get
their national DNA database. This is just another of their 'small
steps'.
It gets better - we have to prove they took a sample and used it for
DNA testing to nail the bastards to their perch.
Fat chance.

BTW, DNA evidence has ALREADY been discredited. Apparently it isn't as
good as fingerprints at uniquely identifying anyone, and especially
it's not flash at sorting out what can only be described as inbred
community members. Kiwis and Double-headers from South beware:-)


On the relevance to Pissed Driving:
The thin edge of the wedge.
BTW, did you notice -the magic 0.05% and it's equivalence was touted -
and that's the correct word. A stupid arbitrary limit not exceeded
that would NOT land a driver in trouble in the least not so long ago.
Now, it's less - a lot less.
BTW, driving with good-ole Influenza renders you close to pissed as a
fowl in driving impairment. Test for that? Not a hope - cause it's
LEGAL to catch the flu. And spread it about, for that matter, no
taxation revenue is foregone, either. Of course, you can imagine the
uproar is Flu ridden drivers were banned. And yes, it's possible using
the same means as this droogs initiative.

Get it yet?
No?
Go on thinking I'm paranoid while you stand about for those 30 minutes
(hah) like a stale bottle of piss after you're tested, wondering if
that cone you had three days ago will land you in the dock.
this will also be fun for the rich wankers who use speed to lose
weight, too. Perhaps they haven't twigged yet - or more likely are
unwilling to admit that's what they're up to.
Think about that. Go see your local MP. Tell it you've had enough. Get
your friends and relatives to do the same. It's your only chance short
of armed insurrection with those guns we don't have any more.

I'm paying a visit soon here in QLD, about this, the P curfew and a
few other matters to boot. NSW group readers need to consider doing
the same.

HTH.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Rainbow Warrior]

"veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:umcsd.58080$K7.29328@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Kirks wrote:
> > What's the deal with these tests? I have this friend <..ahem..> that
would
> > like to know if one was to partake in a joint one evening, would it
still
> > register the next morning? Are there too many variables to know for
sure? I
> > know it stays in your system for a while, but I think they are only
testing
> > for active THC, not residual (though I'm not 100% clear on the diff).
Any
> > ideas?
> >
> >
>
> Just watch this space:-

Ok

> As soon as cry dies down - the lying bastards *will* legislate out any of
the civil liberty components that are now included.
>
> =========
>
> 19. Can drivers charged for drug driving also be charged for offences
relating to drug possession and use?
>
> The drug driving campaign is about increasing road safety – not drug
detection. Legislation prevents the evidence of saliva
> tests being used in court proceedings for non-road safety offences.

Even if you are hyped to the max on speed or wasted heroin, the contents of
your vehicle are personal as when you get pulled up for speeding, the cops
should not be allowed to look under your bonnet for a home engineered 454
drag engine conversion.

> 20. Does this mean that drivers who test positive to roadside drug tests
will not be searched, or have their vehicles or
> property searched?
>
> Police will carry out further investigations for drug offences, which may
include searches, only when there is sufficient
> information to suggest that a serious drug offence is being committed

The small chance the person is a dealer with a large quantity of product for
school kids is irrelevant compared to the the personal trauma a car search
causes others.

> 21. Will drug tests be used for DNA testing?
>
> Legislation prevents the evidence of saliva tests being used in court
proceedings for non-road safety offences. It specifically
> prohibits the use of the sample for DNA profiling, and it is a serious
offence for anyone to perform a DNA analysis from a
> sample taken for the purpose of roadside drug screening. The sample will
not be used in DNA testing.

More blatant data gathering on the genetic modifications being tested on us
through infant milk powders.

[Rainbow Warrior]

"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1aragtrgnxwn8.z1kdn9n5ej2c$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:20:57 +1100, Kirks wrote:
>
> >> according to tripleJ ... the tests are suppose to determine if cannabis
> >> has
> >> been consumed/smoked within the last 4-6 hrs ... dunno much more beyond
> >> that ... info is hard to find as the vic police seem to be putting out
> >> conflicting intepretations ... maybe someone could provide a link to
the
> >> legislation which covers this??
> >>
> >
> > Found this - http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugs_faq.html#17 It
> > sorta answers my question.
>
> So, you read the FAQ?
> The tests are for literally anything they care to test for.
> It's a serious offence to conduct DNA testing on the samples supplied
> to the laboratory (or testing by anyone else for that matter).
> Yeah right. This week, anyway.
> Isn't it a serious offence to knock stuff off out of databases?
> Duh, yes. How about take bribes? Shoot bastards for no particular
> reason other than that they might be going to grass you up? You know
> the rest.
> In sum, if you think this new stuff won't be abused and mis-used by
> those with access to the process and records, I have this bridge I'd
> like to sell you.
> If you read that crock of shit FAQ and failed to see between the
> lines, then you need a crash course in paranoia.
> It's the price of eternal vigilance.
> It's also completely obvious that this is a NEW set of impositions,
> and it's being *sold* as an adjunct. It isn't that. No way.
> And WHERE'S THE *VOTE* in this in Vic, and upcoming NSW and QLD et al
> copy-cat legislation?
>
> EH???????
>
> On DNA.
> Like it or not, kiddies, the mongrel police in this country WILL get
> their national DNA database. This is just another of their 'small
> steps'.
> It gets better - we have to prove they took a sample and used it for
> DNA testing to nail the bastards to their perch.
> Fat chance.
>
> BTW, DNA evidence has ALREADY been discredited. Apparently it isn't as
> good as fingerprints at uniquely identifying anyone, and especially
> it's not flash at sorting out what can only be described as inbred
> community members. Kiwis and Double-headers from South beware:-)

I also heard fingerprints have been discredited too and photographic
evidence, neither of which should there fore be used any longer.

>
>
> On the relevance to Pissed Driving:
> The thin edge of the wedge.
> BTW, did you notice -the magic 0.05% and it's equivalence was touted -
> and that's the correct word. A stupid arbitrary limit not exceeded
> that would NOT land a driver in trouble in the least not so long ago.
> Now, it's less - a lot less.
> BTW, driving with good-ole Influenza renders you close to pissed as a
> fowl in driving impairment. Test for that? Not a hope - cause it's
> LEGAL to catch the flu. And spread it about, for that matter, no
> taxation revenue is foregone, either. Of course, you can imagine the
> uproar is Flu ridden drivers were banned. And yes, it's possible using
> the same means as this droogs initiative.
>
> Get it yet?
> No?
> Go on thinking I'm paranoid while you stand about for those 30 minutes
> (hah) like a stale bottle of piss after you're tested, wondering if
> that cone you had three days ago will land you in the dock.
> this will also be fun for the rich wankers who use speed to lose
> weight, too. Perhaps they haven't twigged yet - or more likely are
> unwilling to admit that's what they're up to.
> Think about that. Go see your local MP. Tell it you've had enough. Get
> your friends and relatives to do the same. It's your only chance short
> of armed insurrection with those guns we don't have any more.
>
> I'm paying a visit soon here in QLD, about this, the P curfew and a
> few other matters to boot. NSW group readers need to consider doing
> the same.
>
> HTH.
>
> --
> Toby
> quidquid latine dictum
> sit, altum viditur

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 08:45:11 +1000, Rainbow Warrior wrote:

>> BTW, DNA evidence has ALREADY been discredited. Apparently it isn't as
>> good as fingerprints at uniquely identifying anyone, and especially
>> it's not flash at sorting out what can only be described as inbred
>> community members. Kiwis and Double-headers from South beware:-)
>
> I also heard fingerprints have been discredited too and photographic
> evidence, neither of which should there fore be used any longer.

They haven't.
The *use* of fingerprint evidence has been challenged many times.
Remember, the police are the keepers of and the interpreters of FP's.
Police *experts* can hardly be considered to be impartial because the
Crown pays them, and does the prosecution too. And the devil is in the
datail. Never seen any evidence whatsoever that FP's for two people
could be identical. The same *may* be said for DNA - but we're not
there yet. With FP's though the whole thing is right there to see
unlike DNA. You see they use pattern matching, as they do with prints
and again it's the detail that really matters.
FP's are quite easy to fake and especially easy to fake if a computer
is involved in identification for the usual purposes such as entry to
buildings, databases - whatever.
Photographic evidence has always been sus. Always will be.

Insurance Shysters insist on 'film' pictures of cars we've insured,
specifically refusing digital imaging. In effect they're saying that
photographic film material can't be tampered with. Idiots.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Rainbow Warrior]

"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1u2cxp9y5n553$.18419rbqgevxl.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 08:45:11 +1000, Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>
> >> BTW, DNA evidence has ALREADY been discredited. Apparently it isn't as
> >> good as fingerprints at uniquely identifying anyone, and especially
> >> it's not flash at sorting out what can only be described as inbred
> >> community members. Kiwis and Double-headers from South beware:-)
> >
> > I also heard fingerprints have been discredited too and photographic
> > evidence, neither of which should there fore be used any longer.
>
> They haven't.
> The *use* of fingerprint evidence has been challenged many times.
> Remember, the police are the keepers of and the interpreters of FP's.
> Police *experts* can hardly be considered to be impartial because the
> Crown pays them, and does the prosecution too. And the devil is in the
> datail. Never seen any evidence whatsoever that FP's for two people
> could be identical.

Don't see why not, so many billion people, chances are small I'd admit but
no more than having a print that looks like Elvis.

> The same *may* be said for DNA - but we're not
> there yet. With FP's though the whole thing is right there to see
> unlike DNA. You see they use pattern matching, as they do with prints
> and again it's the detail that really matters.
> FP's are quite easy to fake and especially easy to fake if a computer
> is involved in identification for the usual purposes such as entry to
> buildings, databases - whatever.
> Photographic evidence has always been sus. Always will be.
>
> Insurance Shysters insist on 'film' pictures of cars we've insured,
> specifically refusing digital imaging. In effect they're saying that
> photographic film material can't be tampered with. Idiots.

Photo's are crap, I've seen photo's of aliens, yeti, flying saucers & Loch
Ness monsters.