The War on Drugs

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1162

I’m just gonna say that it makes no difference because, pragmatically speaking, the death penalty will apply across the board for lessor offenders as well as long as it exists.

Let’s not even talk about law. Let’s say a family has a loved one murdered in cold blood. The prosecution manages to satisfy all the requirements to prove guilt which would require a mandatory death sentence. This offender has not committed any past crimes.

How are you going to tell the family that this dude shouldn’t be sentenced to death while some other more evil dude should?

Now think about the public opinion and backlash.

1163

There’s the issue. Isreal has the death penalty, it can be applied in selective circumstances. That being said, they’ve only used it once. This was for adolf eichmann who was directly responsible for the deaths of millions.

I don’t believe in meeting a criteria for the death penalty, I do believe in the penalty existing thus if necessitated it can be applied on a case by case basis.

I’m not an expert on law though, perhaps this isn’t possible.

1 Like
1164

But you do know that this is also a political issue, right? What’s been done in Israel may not fly in Australia and other countries. It’s what I was saying in my last post. It’s why I don’t want to go into this since it would be a longass segway from the subject of this thread.

1165

:rofl:

FB_IMG_1603748122648
FB_IMG_1603748122648720×720 27.7 KB

Yeah…

1 Like
1166

:joy: LMFAO.

Damn.

1167

You had a very good post, and tagged me so I’ll respond. However, I’d like to return to the topic of the thread after this.

The short version is that the only concern I have is your last question: can we be assured that the guilty verdict in a death penalty case is 100% accurate?

None of the other questions concern me. In short: yes we can put someone down against their will, no it doesn’t make us as barbaric as they were. I think the moral question is straightforward. The legal questions regarding accuracy of the verdict are a very difficult bunch of questions.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming…

1 Like
1168

If we are to go back to the initial topic at hand, I a discussion that could potentially be of relevance.

Drug driving, testing for impairment and penalties associated. In certain countries a framework has been enacted akin to random breath testing wherein mouth swabbing looks to ascertain the trace presence of narcotics in ones system. Australia in particular adopts this very harshly. Those caught out incur an instant loss of license, a large fine and a police/criminal record.

These tests don’t look for impairment, rather the trace of a substance. As a matter of fact “driving under the influence” is a separate offence that incurs even harsher penalties. People get caught for cannabis here after having used a week ago or in rare instances after exposure to second hand smoke. The devices used only test for substances predominantly used in lower socioeconomic demographics and/or by teenagers (so cannabis, MDMA and methamphetamine/amphetamines), though NSW also started testing for cocaine after immense public pressure.

Under the framework of decriminalisation/legalisation surely one would advocate for a device/test that accurately detects impairment. Furthermore, how would we go about this? Cannabis isn’t similar to alcohol wherein we have a clear cut body of literature “x concentration = y level of impairment”. As a matter of fact blood/saliva/urinary concentrations of THC have little to no correlation with the level percieved impairment.

Those who use frequently might take in 10mg THC and feel nothing/legitimately not show impairment on a roadside sobriety test whereas someone who hasn’t used before might not be able to stand up.

The ACT (in Australia) has legalised cannabis, though the police in the ACT are federal police. Cannabis isn’t legal federally and roadside drug testing is at an all time high. There has been immense public pressure for the police to back off regarding these tests, but with an almost 10% positive return rate in certain areas it’s very lucrative/raises a lot of revenue. Actually in Shepparton Vic the positive rate for methamphetamine alone is above 10%, Australia has a massive problem with methamphetamine… Particularly in rural areas. Some of the poor souls hooked on methamphetamine are very scary characters. I’ve been approached a few times by those heavily under the influence.

What alternative do we have? It doesn’t appear as if legalisation significantly increases the rate of impaired driving, but pinning people for use days ago under a framework of legalisation doesn’t make sense. It is to be noted having THC in ones system and crashing doesn’t equate to impairment, or even recent use for that matter.

NZ imposed roadside testing, if one comes up positive a roadside sobriety test + blood test is performed. If the driver fails all three a guilty verdict is given. Granted this is timely and expensive. If cannabis was theoretically legal and every 10th driver came up positive it could potentially clog up the streets.

We have literature indicative that whilst driving stoned is dangerous, it isn’t as dangerous as drink driving. Should the penalties be equatable? Tougher? Lesser than penalties associated with drunk driving?

Let me know what you think.

We clearly couldn’t have a successful framework of legalisation/decriminalisation without the road situation thoroughly thought out.

@dt79 @Aragorn @SkyzykS @BrickHead @openconversationyeet

1169

What is the root of the law, as in why was it enacted in the first place?

Did they just decide to make it statutory because of certain “research” pointing to potential impairment due to the active half-life of the drug(s)? Was there a landmark case or cases with certain citable rationales by judges? Is it just serving as an additional deterrent for overall drug use?

I don’t know Australian law. This is the first question I would ask.

EDIT:

For example, certain countries only have drink driving laws. It’s based on an objective test, i,e, would the average person be sober after consuming a certain amount of alcohol, rather than a subjective one, i.e, is the individual in question sober?

If you go with the latter, when you have the guy in lockup overnight waiting for court in the morning, he’s already sober by then and you can’t prove he wasn’t when he was arrested. He can contest it. You have to waste time and resources getting the cops who arrested him as witnesses and all that stuff.

1 Like
1170

I would question that literature since I doubt you have near an equal amount of stoned drivers vs drunk drivers fucking shit up as a reference to make an accurate inference. I get that they’re probably going by percentages but I don’t think that’s sufficient.

BUT even if the literature is accurate, as long as the driver is mentally impaired through self-intoxication regardless of which drug he uses, it’s still an act of recklessness. So the penalty shouldn’t change in theory.

1 Like
1171

In the US discovery of drug use is usually incidental, which is to say that you have to have other indications before they start looking.

An example would be if you’re driving badly enough to give cause for a stop, then the cop notices slow or slurred speech, a cheech&chong cloud coming out of the car and red eyes, they’re going to look further.

Or a woman I used to date. She parked her car in the neighbors bushes then sort of dozed off. When the cops woke her up and tested her for impairment, even though she did not smell like booze, she was obviously impaired. Further blood draw showed narcotics metabolites and benzos of some sort.

It seems to be figured out well enough over here. Especially for weed. The police aren’t really looking for a whole lot of problems, but if you give them a reason to keep looking, they will.

2 Likes
1172

I think penalties should be similar or SLIGHTLY harder given that alcohol is legal to obtain and the vast majority of drugs are not legal to obtain. This isn’t a question of impairment but of the fundamental fact that a person needs to do something illegal to obtain said drug. Exception for legal weed, since it is decriminalized in ACT.

However first and foremost the roadside drug test situation needs to be 100% solid. You need an amount present that indicates very recent use and cannot be present by accident. You absolutely cannot give a person a criminal record on a false positive. Ever. Innocent until proven guilty.

And you should quit the random “stop and frisk” nature of these tests. I abhor that kind of fishing expedition. SkyzykS posted about the kind of procedure we have here, which I believe is a vastly better one than the situation you described. There is no perfect solution.

2 Likes
1173

Yeah, but that would be 2 separate charges.

Agree with the rest if your post completely. Didn’t even think about false positives for drug tests. That’s a good point to discuss.

1 Like
1174

It’s different here. The law is based on

  • drugs are illigal

It has nothing to do with percieved impairment, half lives etc. I believe it serves as a way to raise revenue as opposed to a deterrent. A large portion (around 10%) of tests come up positive, the fines associated are rather extreme despite impairment typically not being present. Driving under the influence of drugs is a separate offence alltogether over here.

Every year the number of tests conducted are bumped up exponentially, though public backlash does exist. There have been a few studies published now showcasing the flawed nature of these tests (i.e high prevalence of false positives and false negatives, no correlation with impairment etc).

What’s more, probable cause isn’t required to administer a test. The cops set up roadblocks and conduct mass testing. If you drive by these roadblocks it isn’t uncommon to see people normal being escorted out of their vehicles. Given the nature of the tests, a fairly large number of samples come up positive. In the media a headline like “Drug driving blitz catches 1000 people on cannabis, cocaine and MDMA” typically means “people caught behind the wheel three days after taking X”.

I’m not advocating for drug driving at all, rather I’m advocating penalties should be based upon the presence of impairment.

This seems fair, probable cause prior to testing for impairment.

1175

Then you’ve answered your own question. It’s a separate thing altogether. I have no idea why it’s coupled with driving. This would be an issue of drug legalization, not impaired driving.

Do you have a link to the statute covering this?

I suspect that’s the case myself lol.

1176

The problem with this style of revenue raising stems from the fact that failing one of these tests incurs a permenant police record that can/will tarnish future employment applications.

I’d be livid if I had a criminal record because I was caught driving five days after consuming a pot brownie.

Thankfully more and more of these cases are being thrown out of court.

1177

Do you have a link to the statute covering this? I’d like to see the actual wording.

1178

Yes, I’ll post it up. When applying for a job, an application will typically state “have you ever had an altercation with the police resulting in more than a minor traffic offence”.

A criminal background check (typically required depending on the position) will uncover a drug driving offence.

This is for victoria, all states are roughly similar/the same. Discrepancies exist, for instance NSW tests for cocaine, some states actually do have an “immediate suspension” wherein from the moment of a positive test you can’t drive for a designated period of time.

Queensland (immediate suspension)

1 Like
1179

Yeah. It works even for me, and for what ever reason I set off every single red flag for drugs/violence and warrants with every cop I’ve ever interacted with regardless of circumstance. Even casually and off duty.

It has been said that I have “that look”. :joy:

1 Like
1180

Read the actual statute:

"64AC. Driving with prescribed illicit drug in oral fluid or
blood

(4) If in any proceeding for an offence against this section
it is proved that a certain drug was present in the
accused’s body at any time within 4 hours after the
time of the driving or attempted driving of a motor
vehicle that gave rise to the alleged offence, the presence of that drug in the accused’s body at the time of that driving or attempted driving is taken to be
proved in the absence of proof to the contrary."

It’s basically similar to drink driving unless they’re using the kind of tests that can detect drugs for days to weeks after use.

Disclaimer:

I am not a lawyer and I’ve not read this legal shit for over a decade so I could easily be wrong.

1181

Yeah you’re quite right. I didn’t think about that and wasn’t sure what the nature of the enforcement scheme in Australia was.

Impairment should 100% be a worse penalty than obtaining the drug, assuming that we care more about catching the dealers than the addicts.

1 Like