Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Friday Moral Maze - Drug Testing for Drivers

The Government is considering compulsory drug testing for anyone involved in a traffic accident. A small blood sample will be taken to test for substances likely to impair driving.

A logical move in-line with breath testing for drink or another invasion of civil liberties with numerous risks of abuse or infection.

Discuss.

Comments

  • People who post a contentious bit of news and then put "Discuss" at the end of it risk being seen as pompous arses imo.
    Present company excepted of course.
  • Was always just a matter of time.
  • Do it.

    Simple

    But who will take the sample because I won't allow anyone to go at me with a needle - they need to know what they are doing. Unless it's just a pin prick - not sure if they can glean enough info from that.

    Secondly - how would they approach this with Jehovah's witnesses? Aren't they reluctant to part with their blood?

    I guess there's a whole load of religious stuff that will make this ultimately unworkable
  • And while they are at it they could do a cholesterol and hepatitis test and save thousands more lives...
  • I think they should make it no alcohol or drugs allowed when driving, then everyone knows where they stand instead of being close to / just under or over limit.Test all driers involved in accidents for both.
  • I think they should make it no alcohol or drugs allowed when driving, then everyone knows where they stand instead of being close to / just under or over limit.Test all driers involved in accidents for both.

    Wouldn't that put hairdressing and laundry costs up though?

  • It's a no brainer . It should be done.
  • Do it
  • No qualms about giving blood at the roadside or letting the police have a bit of your body fluids/DNA?
  • I have a phobia of needles though. : (
  • Sponsored links:


  • No qualms about giving blood at the roadside or letting the police have a bit of your body fluids/DNA?

    They have mine anyway, but seriously, only if the police set up a system where all drivers found to be clean have their DNA/bloods destroyed automatically.

  • Yes, in theory but test for what drugs? Just the main recreational stuff; the effects of drinking a whole bottle of Dreamy Sleepy Nighty Snoozey Snooze; or Valium, etc etc? To do it properly sounds expensive. Who pays for the tests? Does it come out of the plod budget? Will the plod be trained properly? God knows, you can't trust most of them to cross the road by themselves.
  • what do they do with the results they glean if you are clean - This is just a simple way of building a DNA database.
  • edited March 2013
    Cant see it happening...yet! But I hope it does!

    As I understand it, unlike alcohol, some drugs like weed can stay in the system for two weeks, who's to say that if someone had a spliff on Friday had an RTA on Tuesday that they are still under the influence.
    Also what about passive smoking of a spliff, lets say your outside a pub and someone is having a crafty puff, what if you inhaled some of their smoke, hopped in you car and had a crash??
    Potential minefield this one.
  • there will always be cases where samples are mistaken. It might be the same with breath tests where they can get a positive on site test, that needs proper confirmation?

    They shouldn't need to analyse/sample the DNA
  • PL54 said:

    what do they do with the results they glean if you are clean - This is just a simple way of building a DNA database.

    This. I don't mind being tested but I object to having my DNA stored on a database if I'm innocent. Plus there's the problem of levels of drugs. Is it a simple positive/negative test or can you detect levels as you can with breathalyser tests?

  • Greenie said:
    As I understand it, unlike alcohol, some drugs like weed can stay in the system for two weeks, who's to say that if someone had a spliff on Friday had an RTA on Tuesday that they are still under the influence.
    Also what about passive smoking of a spliff, lets say your outside a pub and someone is having a crafty puff, what if you inhaled some of their smoke, hopped in you car and had a crash??
    Potential minefield this one.

    it's a point Greenie I guess there must be some sort of tolerence level in the test that takes account of accidental background inhalation. Otherwise I would say it's a good thing.
  • Why do they need blood? I am a train driver and we are tested for drink and drugs regularly which is a blow in a bag piss in a bottle job? The passive spliff smoke level is much lower or so we were told???
  • Do it, and if found with drugs in blood sample automatically give police a warrant to search their car/house and potentially arrest for possession or distribution
  • Yes, definitely but I would say that working in the body recovery business.
  • Sponsored links:


  • richie8 said:

    Why do they need blood? I am a train driver and we are tested for drink and drugs regularly which is a blow in a bag piss in a bottle job? The passive spliff smoke level is much lower or so we were told???

    I'd imagine taking a blood sample roadside would be easier than an urine sample ; - )

  • I have no issue with it tbh

    I do have an issue with the dna data base but i am on the fence with it as it is open for abuse

    Mine is held so there is little i can do about it
  • It Depends on what is envisaged as a 'blood sample'. Intrusion with a hypodermic for mere suspicion is not on, a 'finger prick' (no rude comments perleeeese) as is done for a diabetes check would be OK as far as I'm concerned.
    Also, the result of a blood test should be instantly available. It would not be right for someone to be blood tested then prevented from driving on to his/her destination if the test later showed negative. Equally it would not be right to allow a drugged driver to continue their journey if the test is later proved to be positive.
    Drug misuse of both prescription and illegal substances is rife. Driving a ton of metal at high speed whilst drugged must be 'discouraged'. If that takes new or more strict laws then so be it
  • edited March 2013
    Good point here Lincs. Assuming somebody passed the breath test, the blood test won't be instant, so what they gonna do then?
    Retrospecitively ban you for being out of your brains on crack? Needs more thought.

  • edited March 2013
    You dont need a blood test for cannabis because of the tell tale signs...

    Letting everyone out of side turnings.
    Stopping to let an ant cross the road.
    Not parking on a yellow line.
    Parking with both wheels exactly an inch from the kerb.
    Smiling at other drivers whilst sitting at the lights.
    Stopping to ask people where you are going.
    Playing Crosby Stills and Nash on the car stereo.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!