| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Roadside random drug testing introduced in Vic.; Soon to happen in your neighbourhood | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 30 2004, 07:43 AM (675 Views) | |
| somerled | Nov 30 2004, 07:43 AM Post #1 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Spun off from the Hooning Thread. Announced tonight on the news. Drivers to be randomly tested for drug use.
Essentially the police will set up mobile drug testing / booze buses and will flag down drivers' randomly and they will be required by law to submit to oral drug tests and alcohol tests. If a positive test , the driver will be arrested and compelled to undergo blood and urine tests which will be carried out in a mobile testing laboratory. It's about time ! It happens in many industries - though the tests are usually blood and urine tests, so why not compel drivers to submit to this too. The testing starts at the start of xmas school holidays and will happen for 12 months in Victoria - I wish it was something that was happening Australia wide. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 30 2004, 07:49 AM Post #2 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Admin:
! I ment to vote NO not YES.
!
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 30 2004, 08:19 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I voted no. The reason is freedom. I don't like having to prove my innocence, it is against the principals on which this nation was founded. Let the law have probable cause to stop you and a valid reason to test and then arrest you and investigate you (like: you're driving like my 94 year old grandmother). And Somerled, I don't seem to be able to change the vote talley. Good poll by the way. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 30 2004, 08:22 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Wait a minute. I just reread it. It is worded "would you oppose...". Doh, yes I would oppose. Admin, please change my vote. :lol: Perhaps since Somerled and I voted incorrectly we could reword the poll? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 30 2004, 08:25 AM Post #5 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
That might be an idea - that's what happens when you are paying attention - Voyager is on right now and I was also watching it at the same time. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 30 2004, 08:40 AM Post #6 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
I think it is against the Constitution or at the very least against the law here. You can't just stop people randomly when you have not yet seen them in the act of breaking the law. I would be surprised if Australia did not have similar protections. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| jjtrek | Nov 30 2004, 08:48 AM Post #7 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
I'm with the doc on this one. If I was breaking a driving law or just driving erratically, THEN the police would have ample reason to pull me over for testing or for at least a citation. Julia |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 30 2004, 08:56 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
The police have set up check points here on New Year's Eve and such though it was controversial. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 30 2004, 08:57 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I am not changing the question as others have voted. If you meant to vote no but voted yes and I meant to vote yes but voted no, then our votes cancel and it comes out equal. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 30 2004, 09:19 AM Post #10 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I voted Yes. The random equation doesn't work for me. If a person is committing suspicious driving behavior then by all means pull them over. If not, then the police officer really had no cause to do so. There is too much potential for abuse of this practice by law enforcement. 38957 mentioned checkpoints. I really don't consider those controversial and I don't have a problem with them. Unlike picking people at random, the checkpoints grab pretty much everyone coming through the area. I find those to be less arbitrary. I mainly only see them on major holidays when the likelihood that people are drinking and driving is so high. During those times, I consider checkpoints to be a public service and appreciate them. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 30 2004, 09:52 AM Post #11 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I wonder if anyone thinks that sobriety checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Nov 30 2004, 11:15 AM Post #12 |
|
Admiral
|
I would oppose it. But perhaps it would be okay in Australia.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Nov 30 2004, 11:35 AM Post #13 |
|
Unregistered
|
The Supreme Court does not think so. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 30 2004, 12:04 PM Post #14 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I didn't ask about the Supreme Court. I asked anyone on here. Unless one of the Justices is a member, I don't believe I addressed them. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Nov 30 2004, 12:36 PM Post #15 |
|
Unregistered
|
You asked if anyone thought sobriety check points were constitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled that they are. So, as a practical matter, they are constitutional. Nice try though. Alpha Mike Foxtrot.
|
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


! I ment to vote NO not YES.

3:19 AM Jul 11