Speed kills....

I know I know...ecstasy is not quite "speed" but...

http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19209784-5001022,00.html

"
Secret ecstasy toll


May 22, 2006

THE party drug ecstasy is killing more than one person every fortnight
nationwide, with almost a third of deaths occurring in car crashes.

The figures come as the State Government again delayed roadside drug-testing
in NSW.

In June 2005, then-acting Chief Superintendent John Lipman announced testing
would be introduced early this year -- but The Daily Telegraph understands
it has been postponed for a second time....



......"

 

Thanks for posting this...

This article could've also been about the dangers of AC powerpoints or
fishing and then it could've had much more frightening figures.

Compared to the number of people taking it (ecstacy) the death rate is
rather minor (not to belittle any specific circumstance of the tragedy
of unfortunate death). And as the first paragraph states that of these
deaths, one third are really driving fatalities (I strongly suspect that
drugs do impair a driver's ability but it is as yet unproven as tests
reveal presence, not level of impairment). On the other-hand, many
illicit drugs, especially Methylenedioxy Methamphetamine (ecstacy) and
the other amphetamines DO indeed have very concerning health effects for
many people, especially psychological effects, I'm not debating that at
all.

I am happy that NSW have delayed their testing schemes and wish Vic
would repeal theirs too until the testing regieme is more... well...
'tested' for lack of a better word. (who tests the tester's testies? .

We all know alcohol impairs driving but with the alcohol test there is a
prescribed level beyond which impairment is official. With the illegal
drug tests there is only testing for presence, not level of impairment.
Now I'm NOT advocating the use of any kind of vehicle when off ones tree
but without set official advice about for example, when it is safe to
drive after a drug experience then its little more than another revenue
raising scare campaign IMHO. How is the civically minded pothead (for
example) to know when they may again drive a vehicle without fear of
being labeled a drug driver? Or must they voluntarily not drive for a
decade or more due to lack of information about how the tests work
creating an underclass of paranoid hitchikers (a little bit of poetic
license but always good for a laugh).

I've spent a fair amount of time on the phone to the state ombudsman,
the TAC, Vic Police Media liaison and the 'Arrive Alive' crew and to me
it all stinks of a scare campaign which is sad as the idea is a good one
(I don't want people on drugs on the road while I ride). The most
detailed information I've been given is 'about three hours' from the
media liaison unit when asking about the length of effect of all drugs
tested for) but they would not put that in writing for me. There are
severe variations based on which drug, gender, body mass, metabolism,
quality of drugs, method of ingestion, size of doses etc. which
apparently makes a complete joke of the 'about three hours' statement.
It doesn't seem to be very well thought out.

When they say that X percentage people involved in road fatalities were
ON DRUGS, it looks a lot like the admittedly anecdotal rough percentage
of adult australians that regularly use drugs, not that it is at all out
of proportion with the average usage across society. You could very well
use the same flawed logic to say that the majority of people in fatal
accidents were NOT on drugs so maybe drug driving on the road is more
safe! What I'm saying is not that drug driving is good, but that the
statistics used to promote this and a great many other things is flawed
without all of the evidence and makes the attempt pointless.

By simplifying titles of road safety campaigns with statements such as
'Speed Kills' it discredits the whole idea, as I'm sure that in many
circumstances, it was actually the lack of speed which killed (driver on
train tracks for example). Oversimplification makes such statements
quite meaningless (sorry, I'm getting sidetracked).

By all means legislate against being impaired while driving but if there
is no measure of impairment then it looks like a grab for cash. Maybe
I'm just a cynic.

Now I suspect that the official argument is that because these
substances are illegal then ANY presence rates as a DRUG DRIVER. This
is counterproductive as people know that the active effect lasts for a
short period, but in reality, drugs may remain in a persons system being
metabolised for weeks or months after the occasion when they were taken.
If I'm busted at a roadside test a fortnight after smoking a joint it
brings the whole premise of these laws (road safety) into disrepute (did
someone mention revenue raising... erm, sorry, 'road safety' cameras?).

I thought we were past 1984!

bah humbug!

(sorry about the rant, its my pet topic, big brother's intervention in a
persons right to live their own life. Remember, before you flame me, I'm
NOT against any kind of impairment testing at all, just false 'evidence'
presented by not providing all of the facts.).

Joe.

 

Onya Fang. I say go ahead and finish that joint. You're not at all paranoid!

 

8<----8<----(snip-snip)----8<----8<

mega-rant truncated

8<----8<----(snip-snip)----8<----8<

Thanks Pete... I think...



just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me!

 

"Fang, the wonderdog."

reminds me of a Dave Allen joke:
Policeman to Irishman> why were you speeding up the middle of the road?
Irishman to Policeman> because it said so on my licence, officer!
Policeman to Irishman> (incredulous) It SAID WHAT on your licence?
Irishman to Policeman>it said 'tear along the dotted line, officer

boom tish

As a side note - the mythbusters all failed drug tests after eating poppy
seed
cakes. They did the test 'properly'ish too