Drugs and Driving FAQs

Posted By Drug Test Australia

1. Who will be required to submit to a roadside drug test?

Any driver, motorcycle rider or supervising licence holder on a NSW road or road related area maybe required to undertake one or more oral fluid tests for the presence of the three illicit drugs.

Vehicle passengers other than supervisors of learner licence holders will not be required to undertake an oral fluid test.

Specific NSW Police operations will target heavy vehicle drivers.
Police will also target roads around venues used for ‘rave’ and dance parties, suspected by Police to be linked to drug driving. 

2. What drugs will be detected by roadside drug testing and why have these drugs been chosen?

Roadside drug testing will detect the following three illicit drugs:

• Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active component of cannabis.
• Methylamphetamine (‘ice’, ‘speed’, ‘crystal meth’ ‘base’ etc).
• Methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA or ‘ecstasy’).

These three drugs are known to be among the most prevalent illicit drugs used by drivers. 

A recent Roads and Maritime Services (replacing Roads and Traffic Authority) study of drug driving in NSW revealed that of those who reported driving on drugs, the most common drug was cannabis at 81 per cent followed by ecstasy at 13 per cent and speed at 10 per cent.

Driving after using cannabis results in longer reaction times, alters distance and time perception, lowers concentration, coordination, alertness and ability to react, and narrows or blurs vision.

Driving after using stimulants such as ecstasy and speed/ice increases risk taking and aggressive driving, causes loss of concentration, and causes blurry or limited vision.

3. How long after using cannabis can delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) be detected?

Roadside drug testing technology will detect recent usage of cannabis by detecting delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in cannabis.

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) will be able to be detected for several hours after use of cannabis, though the exact time will vary, for example depending on the amount and potency of the cannabis used.

4. How long after consuming ecstasy or methylamphetamine (speed, ice etc) can these drugs be detected?

Roadside drug testing technology will detect recent usage of speed, ice and ecstasy. In some cases these drugs may be detected by roadside drug screening technology for up to 48 hours after use, though the exact time will vary depending for example on the amount taken, the potency of the drug (ie ice has a much higher potency than speed) and how the drugs have been taken.

5. Will delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) from passive smoking be detected in oral fluid?

No. There is no evidence to suggest that any THC in the oral fluid as a result of passive smoking will be able to be detected by the oral fluid testing technology.

6. How will roadside drug testing work?

Police will conduct a preliminary oral fluid test through the window of your vehicle.

You will be required to lick the test pad of the device. A result will be known in about five minutes.

7. How long will an oral fluid test take?

A preliminary oral fluid test will take about five minutes.  

If you test negative to this test you will be able to drive away.

However, if you test positive to the first test you will have to get out of your vehicle and go with a Police officer to provide an oral fluid sample in the Police support vehicle.

In the Police truck you will provide a sample of your oral fluid, which will be tested using a different oral fluid screening device. This second test should take about 20 minutes.

If you test positive to this test you will be prohibited from driving for 24 hours by Police, and the remaining portion of your oral fluid sample from this test will be sent to the State’s analytical laboratory, the Division of Analytical Laboratories for confirmatory analysis.

8. Will I be required to leave my vehicle to undertake an oral fluid test?

No, not for the preliminary oral fluid test.  Police will conduct this first test through the window of your car.

However, if you test positive you will have to get out of your vehicle and go with a Police officer to provide a second oral fluid sample in the Police support vehicle.

9. What will happen to a driver who tests positive to the roadside drug test?

If you test positive to the preliminary oral fluid test you will have to get out of your vehicle and go with a Police officer to provide a second oral fluid sample in the Police support vehicle. 

In the Police support vehicle you will provide a sample of your oral fluid, which will be tested using a different oral fluid screening device. This second test should take about 20 minutes.  

If you test positive to this test you will not be charged at this time, however, you will be prohibited from driving for 24 hours by Police. The remaining portion of your second oral fluid test will be sent to a laboratory for confirmatory analysis. 

If the presence of one or more of these three drugs is confirmed by the laboratory, you will receive a Court Attendance Notice within a few weeks of your roadside drug test with the charge of driving with the presence of an illicit drug.

10. Will drivers who return positive result to a roadside drug test be allowed to drive before laboratory analysis of the test is complete?

If you test positive to this test you will not be charged at this time, however, you will be prohibited from driving for 24 hours by Police.
After this 24 hour period you can resume driving.

11. For drivers who return positive results to roadside drug test, when and how will they receive results from laboratory analyses?

If the presence of one or more of an illicit drug is confirmed by the laboratory, you will receive a Court Attendance Notice within a few weeks of your roadside drug test with the charge of driving with the presence of an illicit drug.

The Court Attendance Notice will include the details of the charge as well as the time, date and location of their court attendance.  

You will have to attend court, which will be local to the location of the offence, to face the charge of drive with the presence of an illicit drug.

12. Will medications be detected by roadside drug tests? 

The oral fluid test will not detect the presence of prescription drugs including medicines with amphetamine–like substances or common over the counter medications, such as cold and flu tablets.

Oral fluid tests will only detect delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) the active component in cannabis, methylamphetamine (speed, ice, crystal meth, base) and methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA) ecstasy - substances that are not legally prescribed in Australia.

13. Why is oral fluid tested rather than blood or urine?

Collecting oral fluid from drivers at the roadside is much easier than collecting a blood or urine sample.

Oral fluid testing devices are a non-invasive, rapid and reliable way to screen for drugs at the roadside.

14. How accurate is the oral fluid drug screening technology?

The oral fluid test is a screening test only.  Oral fluid drug screening technology provides a reliable indicative result in a matter of minutes, making it ideal for use as a roadside screening device but not for an evidentiary result to be used at court.

Those who are screened as being drug positive will be required to provide a further additional oral fluid sample for further testing.

Only a positive drug result from the Government’s analytical laboratory can be used to prosecute for a drug driving offence.

15. What are the penalties if the laboratory confirms the presence of one or more of the three illicit drugs in your oral fluid sample?

The penalty for a first offence is a maximum $1,100 fine and three (minimum) to six months (maximum) licence disqualification.  

The penalty for a second or subsequent offence is a maximum $2,200 fine and licence disqualification for minimum six months up to an unlimited period.

16. What happens if a driver refuses to be tested?

If a person refuses to be tested at the roadside they can be fined $1,100. They will also have to accompany a Police officer to the Police truck where they will have to provide a sample of their oral fluid.

If they refuse to provide an oral fluid sample a maximum fine of $3,300 applies, plus licence disqualification for a minimum of six months up to an unlimited period.

A driver who refuses to be tested can also be prohibited from driving for 24 hours by Police.

17. What happens if I am unable to provide an oral fluid sample?

A person who has genuinely attempted but is unable to provide a sample of their oral fluid will be required by Police to provide a sample of blood in lieu of an oral fluid sample.

The person will be taken by Police to a hospital to have the blood sample taken. The state’s analytical laboratory will analyse the sample for the presence of any drug.

If they refuse to provide a blood sample then a maximum $3,300 fine applies. 

18. Don’t stimulants such as methylamphetamine (speed, ice, crystal meth, base) make you a more alert driver?

While methylamphetamine, in its various forms, can increase your alertness they can also cause you to: 

• Take more risks. 
• Drive aggressively. 
• Believe you drive better than you really can.
• Be overstimulated and lose concentration. 
• Have blurry or limited vision. 
• See things on the road that aren’t where you think they are. 
• Have scattered thoughts or delusions.

Driving when you’re coming down is also very dangerous.  When the effects of stimulants are wearing off your driving is still affected. You may fall asleep at the wheel.

19. Will oral fluid samples be destroyed when the evidentiary drug analysis is complete?

No, the remaining proportion will be stored at the laboratory for six months.
This is so a person can apply for a portion of their own sample to be independently analysed by another laboratory at their own expense.

20. What about other illicit drugs?

Drivers found to be impaired by any illicit drug can currently be prosecuted under existing Police powers for the drive under the influence offence.

There is also a new offence of drive with the presence of cocaine or morphine (heroin) in blood or urine; however drivers will not be randomly tested for these drugs using a roadside drug test.

21. Can drivers be charged with both drug and alcohol offences?

Yes. It will be possible for a person to be prosecuted for a prescribed concentration of alcohol offence as well as an offence of presence of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active component of cannabis, methylamphetamine (‘ice’, ‘speed’, ‘crystal meth’ ‘base’ etc) and methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA or ‘ecstasy’).

However, if a person is prosecuted for a drive under the influence offence, they cannot also be prosecuted for a prescribed concentration of alcohol offence or presence of drugs offence.

22. If a driver tests positive to drugs will they be searched, or have their vehicles or property searched?

Police already have the power to search persons and vehicles for drugs or other items if they have reasonable grounds to suspect evidence of an offence may be found there.

In most cases, no search will occur. However, there could be evidence of drug or other offences apparent to police administering the test. In these circumstances they have the power to conduct a search. 

For More Information, please contact Drug Test Australia at their website www.drugtestaustralia.com.au or call or email us at;

Email Enquiries: sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au

Phone Enquiries: 1300 660 636 or (02)49203225

Original Article; http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/alcoholdrugs/drugdriving/drugdrivingfaqs.html

Kiwi Kronic 'king' facing drug charges in Australia

New Zealand's "king" of legal cannabis faces trafficking charges in Australia after allegedly being found with a "commercial quantity" of drugs.

Matthew Wielenga was arrested about 8pm on Friday in the Melbourne suburb of Southbank. The 30-year-old is facing charges of trafficking a commercial quantity of synthetic cannabinoids and two counts of possessing a drug of dependence.

The Melbourne Magistrates Court yesterday heard he was found with more than 100kg of Kronic, a synthetic marijuana product, and 1kg of white powder said to be a synthetic cocaine sold as Diablo.

The alleged drugs are yet to be analysed and Wielenga had made no admissions, the court heard.

Defence lawyer Greg Barns said the elements of Kronic kept changing and might not fall within the substances banned by Victorian law.

Wielenga was granted bail on a A$100,000 surety and is to reappear in court on March 18.

Dressed in jeans and a dark T-shirt, he appeared to be listening intently throughout the court hearing.

The New Zealander must stay at an address in the suburb of Richmond, report to local police daily and surrender his passport.

Wielenga is a director of Lightyears Ahead, the company responsible for bringing Kronic to New Zealand. Kronic is laced with chemicals mimicking cannabis and is often much stronger than the real thing. It was banned in New Zealand in August.

Wielenga, who ran his lucrative Kronic empire from Albany on Auckland's North Shore, is understood to have travelled to Australia with about nine of his employees last week. The group were in Australia for a music festival, a source said.

Nisha Din, described as the general manager of Lightyears Ahead, said the firm strongly denied any illegal activity.

She referred the Herald to Wellington law firm Chen Palmer.

Partner Mai Chen did not return calls last night.

Wielenga describes his party pill business on his Facebook page: "I run my own company that provides products to get people high. They are sold all over the world, which gives me a great excuse to travel."

- Anna Leask, NZ Herald

APNZ

original; http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/238659/kiwi-kronic-king-facing-drug-charges-australia

For more information on Synthetic Cannabis Testing Devices visit Drug Test Australia online or;

Phone: 1300 660 636

Email enquiries to; sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au

Drug testing pits privacy against safety

Posted by Drug Test Australia

Drug testing pits privacy against safety; 

Judges to hear Suncor arguments

Original By Amanda Stephenson, Calgary Herald November 24, 2012 http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Drug+testing+pits+privacy+against+safety/7605165/story.html#ixzz2DOosEK6t

A lab technician tests samples for drugs.

A three-judge Alberta Court of Appeal panel will next week hear from Suncor Energy Inc. as the oilsands giant argues against an injunction blocking its proposed random employee drug testing program.

Next month, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case of Irving Pulp and Paper, a New Brunswick company whose plan to have its employees submit to mandatory breathalyzer tests has been fought tooth and nail by the same union that represents Suncor workers.

Both cases will be watched closely by employers, safety companies and privacy experts, as the courts try to find a balance between safety on the job and an individual's right to privacy.

Unlike the United States, where workplace drug tests are relatively common, Canada has had little experience with randomly administered on-the-job tests. But that could be about to change.

"Employers have to take action. They're responsible for maintaining a safe work environment," says Pat Atkins, administrator of Alberta's Drug and Alcohol Risk Reduction Pilot Project (DARRPP). "There are problems in the oilsands related to alcohol and drugs ... and we think it would be irresponsible for organizations not to take action, given the concerns they're seeing."
Those concerns range from drug paraphernalia found on work sites to workplace accidents caused by drunk or stoned employees.

Suncor has stated three of the seven deaths that have occurred at its Fort McMurray oilsands operation since 2000 involved workers under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
"Every day that passes, the risk increases," Suncor lawyer Tom Wakeling told the Alberta Court of Appeal last month. "The Suncor workplace is inherently a dangerous space.

The consequences of mistakes in this hazardous environment may include catastrophes."
Most oilsands companies already have some form of drug-testing policy in place - in most cases, testing occurs after an accident takes place, or if an employee exhibits behaviour that provides "just cause." In some cases, employees must pass a drug test before being hired for a certain position or before being contracted to work on a certain job site.

DARRPP is different. The two-year pilot project, led by a working group of oilsands industry employers and labour providers, aims to introduce completely random drug testing in "safety sensitive" positions at participating workplaces.

Organizers of the project point to U.S. data that indicates random testing is more likely to catch workplace drug and alcohol problems than incident-driven testing.

One of the first companies to get on board with DARRPP was Suncor, which announced in June its plan to implement mandatory random drug tests for safety sensitive employees at its oilsands facilities. However, before Suncor could implement its proposal, a grievance was filed by the Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers Union. The union, which represents 3,400 workers at the Suncor site, argued random drug testing violates its members' right to privacy.
"This is about the right to preserve their bodily integrity, quite frankly. Their privacy, their dignity," union lawyer Ritu Khullar told the appeals court last month.

Days earlier, a Court of Queen's Bench Judge issued an injunction, ruling Suncor cannot move ahead with its program until the union's grievance can be reviewed by a labour arbitration board. Suncor appealed, and that appeal is set to be heard on Wednesday.

The same union is also fighting Irving Pulp and Paper, the New Brunswick company that introduced a workplace safety policy in 2006 that included random alcohol testing for employees. That case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in December.
Atkins said DARRPP is confident it is well within its legal rights.
"We believe we have designed the project in such a way to respect privacy and human rights," Atkins said.

Ed Secondiak, president of ECS Services - which has designed drug testing programs for large and small corporations for 18 years - says there are ways to ensure employees' rights are respected while still reducing the risk of on-the-job substance abuse.

Secondiak said when he designs a program, all drug test results are reviewed by a medical review officer. If a test comes back positive, the medical review officer will speak privately to the employee in question, and if he or she can provide a medical reason for why they might have a drug in their system, they are given an all-clear without their employer ever being informed of the original test results.

Test results are kept under lock and key with limited access, and are never shared with outside agencies without the employee's permission.

Secondiak says in most cases, when a person fails a test, he or she is sent for a substance abuse assessment. An addictions counsellor will decide whether the individual can come back to work, or needs more treatment. He said in many cases, being flagged by a workplace test is exactly the push some addicts need to get treatment and turn their lives around.
"I would say there's a high success rate when you're dealing with alcohol and marijuana in terms of being able to bring people back (to the job)," he says.

Dr. Charl Els, an addictions psychiatrist with the University of Alberta, agrees substance abuse in the workplace is a serious issue. Using U.S. statistics as a base - because there are no reliable Canadian statistics - he estimates that 8.3 per cent of full-time workers use illicit drugs.
"We likely are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of the visible cases of substance use and abuse," Els says. "It's well accepted that we underestimate the prevalence and the actual impact."

Els also believes the nature of the oilsands industry means workers there are more likely to use drugs.

"It's typically a young, male population, there's a lot of excess time when they don't work, there's a lot of disposable income and cash in the pocket. They're typically not with their families, they're isolated. So there's a number of factors that make people more prone to use," he says.

However, Els says random drug testing is the wrong approach. He says a typical urine test only detects the presence of a substance in a person's system - it can't detect whether the person is impaired. That means it cannot differentiate between a person who smoked marijuana 20 minutes earlier and is stoned on the job versus a person who smoked a joint at a weekend party three days ago.

"The vast majority of people who use cannabis instead of having a beer on Friday evening may well test positive on Monday morning, and without it remotely having any impact on workplace impairment or occupational risk," Els says. "What they will detect is a whole lot of normal, recreational users with no risk to the workplace. And that I view as an invasion of privacy."

Els adds there are a lot of workers and professionals other than oil sands employees who can be considered to be doing "safety specific" work, and they aren't being subjected to random drug tests.

"You can imagine the uproar if I suggested tomorrow we need to start testing all physicians for cannabis," he said. "By this logic, any individual operating a vehicle for work should not be able to do so unless they can test negative."

Els says he has no problem with post-accident or just cause workplace drug testing, it's the random testing he opposes. He says there simply isn't enough solid evidence that random drug testing reduces the rates of workplace accidents, adding he too will be watching the Suncor case and the Irving Pulp and Paper case with interest.

"I would be surprised if random testing will actually be cleared as acceptable and not in violation," he says.

Contact us;
Website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Email; Sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636

Lack of testing leads to Kronic problem: NZ Emergency Doctor

Posted by Drug Test Australia

Original; Emma Dawe, The Southland Times; http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/5264514/Lack-of-testing-leads-to-Kronic-problem-emergency-doctor

An emergency physician believes people are using party drugs, including Kronic, under the misguided belief they have been rigorously tested by authorities.

Paul Gee, from Christchurch Hospital, said that was not the case at all and party drugs were actually in a "twilight zone" between legal and illegal drugs because they were not covered by legislation.

"They're not a named drug covered by legislation. Nor are they a food, so they escape legislation covering foods.

"They're being slickly marketed and people are buying them not realising they've never been tested before in humans."

Speaking at the winter symposium of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine held in Queenstown yesterday, Dr Gee called for the onus to be put on manufacturers to prove new psychotropic drugs were safe.

"At present we have to wait until people reach intensive care before there is any action."

The herbal ingredients in the products were mixed with unlisted synthetic Cannabinoids that had been declared illegal in some countries but were unregulated in New Zealand.

Dr Gee said he was seeing more patients affected by the drugs – those patients were showing symptoms similar to those of people using cannabis, such as drowsiness, increased heart rate and feelings of euphoria.

Those symptoms were what doctors had expected, but what was not expected were the amphetamine-type symptoms some party drug users were displaying, including seizures, he said.

"We've seen some people probably close to unconsciousness," he said.

While it was too soon to determine what the long-term effects of using the drugs were, Dr Gee said there was evidence prolonged cannabis use could lead to long-term memory loss, and there was no reason why that would not be the case for the prolonged use of party drugs.

Dr Gee said his main concern was nobody had done any scientific research on the drugs.

While any new food or medicine was stringently tested before being licensed for consumption in New Zealand, the chemicals in these substances were not.

"It basically amounts to experimentation but without the upside of gathering any information."

Meanwhile, former Central Otago District Mayor Malcolm Macpherson is calling for people to join him in a footpath demonstration outside the only shop in Alexandra selling Kronic – C&C Traders.

Mr Macpherson said there was no justification for the owner to sell Kronic, and other products that exposed the community to health risks.

C&C Traders owner Bill Clements said he was being "pushed into a corner" for no reason, as the products were not to blame for the problems parents were having with their teenagers.

Contact us at Drug Test Australia
Website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Email; Sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636

Call for drug tests to catch patient's dealing their medication

Posted by Drug Test Australia

Original; Call for drug tests to trap patient dealersSave

By Julia Medew

Nov. 18, 2012, 3 a.m.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1128078/call-for-drug-tests-to-trap-patient-dealers

PATIENTS being given powerful painkillers should be routinely drug tested to make sure they are not selling their drugs on the booming black market, doctors say.

While addicts ''doctor shopping'' for prescriptions is well known, the head of pain management at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, Penny Briscoe, said there was now evidence of ''fossil pharming'' in Australia where elderly people sell their medication to supplement their pensions.Leading pain and addiction medicine experts say there is increasing evidence of doctors being scammed for large doses of prescription drugs, particularly addictive opioids such as OxyContin.

Dr Briscoe said an elderly palliative care patient recently admitted to selling his drugs to boost his income, raising the prospect that more patients were doing the same without their doctors knowing.

''I think we should be screening a lot more patients than we are and if you're going to do it, you have to do it to everybody and tell patients about it. You can't discriminate on age, sex or the number of tattoos,'' she said.

The head of clinical services at Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Matthew Frei, said that while most people abusing prescription opioids were getting them from doctors for themselves, some were getting them from elderly relatives who were either selling them or passing them on.

''I certainly have seen people who say their source for the drug was an elderly relative,'' he said. ''I don't think it's extraordinarily common but it's possible we're not hearing about it.''

Another addiction medicine specialist, Philip Crowley, said urine testing patients on opioids should be standard treatment.

''There's a strong economic incentive to sell these drugs. You can sell one Kapanol [morphine] tablet for up to $80 so if you get a pack of 20, you can certainly make enough to pay your rent and power bill.''

It comes as doctors are increasingly falling prey to sophisticated scams to get large amounts of prescription drugs.

State health departments have advised doctors about various scams this year including fraudulent prescriptions and fake letters from doctors to get hundreds of OxyContin tablets from dozens of doctors.

Some people stole pages from GPs' prescription pads while they weren't looking.

Others created fake prescriptions using images on the internet, or posed as doctors.

In one extraordinary case, a Victorian man got prescriptions for anabolic steroids by calling a GP and successfully pretending to be a hospital specialist who was referring a patient (himself) to the GP to obtain the prescriptions.

''The same offender obtained more than 800 anabolic steroid injections by presenting forged prescriptions, and obtained enough testosterone to treat 87,000 sheep by convincing a veterinary practitioner that he was a sheep farmer,'' a Victorian health department document says.

Health authorities say prescription opioids are increasingly becoming a drug of choice on the streets because of their purity and low cost. Sydney's medically supervised injecting centre recently reported that two thirds of its 225 daily clients were now injecting prescription opiates, especially OxyContin.Another patient has been using a fraudulent letter from an interstate medical clinic that has a number on it that connects to his female accomplice.

The dangerous trend appears to be causing more deaths. An analysis by researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of NSW found 500 Australians aged 15 to 54 died of an opiate overdose in 2008, up from 360 in 2007.

Only one third were from heroin. Preliminary figures suggest there were 612 such deaths in 2009, a 22 per cent increase from 2008, and 705 in 2010, a 15 per cent increase from the year before.

Contact us at Drug Test Australia
Website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Email; Sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636