That’s terrible(I’ve not checked). Perhaps that’s why the cases are thrown out so frequently. Are these cases from NSW and the like?
EDIT:
It’s exactly the same for drink driving in the lower ranges.
A DUI constitutes “under the influence of alcohol OR other drugs”.
Yes, drink/drug driving penalties were tightened recently. This was primarily due to a notable uptick in those testing positive for trace narcotics. I don’t believe these penalties are serving as adequate deterrents.
Having a trace of cannabis/mdma/whatever in your system absent of impairment is equatable to blowing .05 to .1
Driving under the influence of cannabis/whatever carries a harsher penalty. It’s difficult at times to prove active impairment with cannabis thus the charges (though not verdicts) can be given at an officers discretion. Blood/urinary samples aren’t indicative of impairment. Certain obvious cues like impaired reaction time, bloodshot eyes etc aren’t going to be apparent across the board regarding effects garnered via cannabis intake.
That being said, if you’ve failed a roadside sobriety test you clearly shouldn’t be driving. I’m unsure as to how an officer makes the verdict as to whether the person operating a motor vehicle is impaired or not.
Blowing .05 in quite a few states = loss of license. Though I find it amusing these deterrents/increased penalties have had little/no impact on the rates of positive test results.
More often than not roadside testing (drugs) come up positive for cannabis and the individual charged had/has little to no idea regarding how the system works or how harsh the penalties are. In regional areas a large portion of tests come up positive for methamphetamine, I highly doubt those addicted to ice would be particuarly cautious regarding roadside drug testing.
As to alcohol, I could be wrong here but… What kind of person gets behind the wheel after consuming large quantities of alcohol? Probably someone prone to making impulsive/reckless decisions. We have a rule of thumb advertised, that is two standard drinks within one hour = .05. Most adults are aware of this. Alcohol can impair judgement, I don’t harbour the opinion that someone is a bad person because they’ve driven under the influence. Rather I believe it is indicative a person is more likely to take chances (i.e “I can drive 2 kilometres down the street, I’ve only had a few and realistically what are the chances I’ll get caught”).
Then at times you’ve just got kids/young adults who drive wasted as a display of how rugged and tough they are… Fucking idiotic and selfish behaviour in my opinion. Many state they “just don’t care/don’t give a fuck”. I’d like to hear them say the same when they’re caught driving with a BAC of .2, or when they hit a kid walking across the street.
That’s why I said above some countries have done away with this altogether. It’s only drink driving.
I think it is universally recognized around the globe that not knowing something is illegal is not an admissible defense.
But, yeah, it’s stupid to include cannabis with hard drugs.
The rationale is that the self-intoxicated person is engaging in a reckless act. It’s like seatbelt laws and all.
Again, I think cannabis shouldn’t be lumped in with hard drugs and alcohol unless the person is obviously mentally impaired. It’s dumb.
A heroin addict could be driving with severe withdrawal symptoms during the time he’s tested while someone who’s smoked a bong the day before would be pretty normal.
I’m all for penalties associated with drink driving given impairment is proven, the risk associated with drink driving is substantial and drink driving puts both the driver and others around the driver at risk.
I’d be for penalties associated with stoned driving if impairment could be proven (and ascending/descending penalties existing based upon the level of impairment).
One can’t compare a drag from a cigarette with cannabis in it to eating a cookie directly brought from a dispensary. It’s like blowing 0.01 vs 0.2 (BAC).
The point of the term “drink driving” is so you don’t have to prove impairment lol. I stated the rationales above. It’s also for practicality. Imagine you had a roadblock in the middle of the night on a weekend after clubbing and the police have to go do some silly other tests for everyone who fails a breathalyzer test to prove impairment. There’d be a bloody jam and you’d be pissed cos you just wanna go home and sleep.
Ok, it’s like possessing a certain amount of drugs equates to the intent to traffic, which carries a MUCH harsher penalty than possession for self use. So if you decide to buy a year’s supply of roids from China because they’re selling it in bulk at $10 per vial of test, you’re pretty fucked if you get caught.
They literally do this… It can be irritating but cars selected for the drug testing are chosen at random as to not create too much of a backup. It’s not all that random though, if you’re on a probationary license, if you are indigenous/not caucasian chances are you’ll be “randomly selected”.
Interesting you mention this as steroid possession in the NT and QLD (absent of intent to traffic) from what I recall can carry a 20 year prison sentence.
Pharmaceutical grade testosterone supply within the country is rather tightly controlled. My TRT (on script) is handed out 3ml at a time. That’s fine though, 3ml lasts me 7.5 weeks. Hell to qualify for PBS subsidised TRT you have to have a TT (FT doesn’t matter) of below 6nmol (around 170ng/dl).
Tommorow I’ll bring up sniffer dogs/how they’re used in Australia/other countries and their impact on drug transportation, rates of possession and whether they serve to catch large scale dealers and/or small time users.
The intent is already implied if you possess a certain amount.
But yeah, different countries have different levels of tolerance for steroid use and trafficking.
Remember poor Ryan Kennelly claiming he was putting testosterone powder into “Kennelly Shakes” and drinking them post workout attempting to prove all the shit he was caught with was for personal use? Fucking laughed my ass off. Dude was obviously selling.
Anabolic steroids aside from drugs like trenbolone and/or preparations that aren’t approved for human use ought to be regulated and sold legally (as they sort of are in certain countries).
Anabolic Steroid use is supposedly fairly common amongst youth/young adults and middle aged men alike. I don’t believe AAS should be sold otc in unlimited quantities, rather medically supervised use ought to become the norm. Brand these substances as pharmacy only medications, impose a blanket, generalised age restriction… say 21+. It isn’t to say those underage won’t procure anabolic steroids, but product attained is likely to be of better quality (less chance of toxic heavy metal contamination, more certainty as to what you might be getting i.e a female using anavar that is actually winstrol).
Furthermore when being dispensed via a pharmacist pamphlets regarding risks involved can be dispensed and individualistic discussions can occur in relation to risks involved based upon patient profiling, potential interactions with medications (statins + c17aa compounds = dramatically heightened chances of hepatotoxicity induced complications etc).
If I recall back in the 1990s the FDA, WHO, DEA etc opposed the classification of anabolic steroids as controlled substances. Another option would be to de-schedule these medications, thus allowing physician assisted monitoring/prescribing in-line with how things were done during the golden era of bodybuilding
Problem is, we now have far more data regarding potential long term ramifications associated with steroid use. The cardiovascular implications are by far the most concerning, as is the subclinical neurological decline noted within those who abuse heavily. Those who still think anabolic steroids in supraphysiologic dosages don’t kill are fooling themselves. It’s a slow, at times primarily asymptomatic death, just like tobacco.
Can a doctor ethically prescribe and administer these medications to patients under the construct of “bodybuilding” dosages? Average dosages for a “cycle” have gone up so high, it isn’t unusual for a first timer to be recommended 750-1000mg testosterone per week + oral kickstart/finisher. That’s a hell of a lot considering 100mg/wk is enough to catapault the avg male towards the top of the reference range, which many a times is 1.25-1.5x what they’d naturally produce to begin with.
There was a guy on here running 700mg tren 350mg test + 350mg winny/wk. A young adult, hardly older than I if I recall correctly… this was his first cycle and he was using for pure recreation. He created one thread complaing about acne as he didn’t “want to look like he was on gear”. There was another guy running like 1-2g tren/wk for a first cycle. Patterns of use are becoming more and more extreme as use is becoming somewhat normalised within the realm of fitness. I hardly follow bodybuilding nowadays. Instead of symmetry, aesthetics and conditioning the sport seems to have become “who can tolerate more gear and look freakier”.
One needs to be aware regarding how these drugs systemically damage the body. I have a feeling many wouldn’t initiate use if they knew the full extent of the damage potentially incurred. I legitimately think prolonged AAS use (reasonable dosing) is in line with chronically smoking tobacco in terms of cardiovascular risk elevation. As a whole it’s probably on par with/marginally worse than smoking cigarettes.
I’m no doctor though, that’s just my opinion. Feel free to disagree with me.
Possession of any amount in QLD/NT incurs a very harsh penalty. It should be noted this is because steroids here have ties to bikie gangs. Unfortunately beefing up these laws in relation to possession typically effects the consumer as opposed to the distributors. As to why they didn’t beef up laws particularly confined to trafficking steroids as opposed to mere possession is beyond me.
What happened to Australia? It’s such a beautiful place, really awesome place, with mostly friendly people who walk on the wrong side of the side walk. I guess that’s because they are upside down… But I have seen some really draconian shit being done there lately. They are doing roadside cocaine tests? Like randomly stopping cars and testing people for coke? No way! Really?
That’s not always true. Plenty of people use public transportation, ride share, bicycle, etc.
I’ve had 2 dui and lost my license for 4 years but still worked the entire time, because bills need paid and I need to eat.
You don’t just go "Oh well. Lost my license. I quit life."
It depends mate, if you live rurally public transportation, biking etc may not get you far enough.
Say I live in rural NSW (I don’t) and my job is based in Sydney. The commute is 60km etc. Getting a taxi/uber out to rural Aus would be costly as hell, biking that far every day would be very difficult and there’s a decent chance no lines for public transportation exist out in the bush. You’d have to hope someone else works in Sydney, share transportation (if they’re willing to share).
The prevalence of substance abuse generally tends to be higher within rural regions (which is unfortunate), hence a higher portion of roadblocks are now being set up near nightclubs/pubs, out in the bush and within poorer neighborhoods.
Job opportunities aren’t particularly booming out within rural regions either.
Only in NSW do they test for cocaine. Elsewhere it’s mdma, cannabis and methamphetamine. They’re not testing for active impairment either, rather trace amounts of X substance.
It’s more than randomly stopping cars, they set up roadblocks.
This isn’t even particularly draconian in comparison to many, MANY other nanny state rules/regulations put in place here.
I keep hearing this lol. What if WE are on the top of the world and YOU guys are walking upside down?
Not really.
Rural or not, pretty much everybody knows, bills need paid, food, etc.
That’s part of life. You gotta do what you gotta do, and sometimes you have to hold back from what you want to do.
That’s why one should not do these things. That’s the giant overarching theme behind all of these things.
They may or may not be. Lots of skilled labor, or depending on regions, manual/low skill stuff.
I’ve known and worked with people who lost their professional licenses for periods of time and had to step away from their field for a while, but they still had to make ends meet.
All the “its not fair” 's in the world aren’t going to pay their bills or get them reinstated.
In Aus when job opportunities aren’t available one can realistically qualify to go on the dole. Under this scheme those who are unemployed (yet have/are actively seeking employment) will receive a fortnightly payment of which is just enough to scrape by.
It depends, some of these communities are seriously isolated/have very low populations. Unemployment rates within some of these communities are very high (hence government assisted living). Access to healthcare also tends to be atrocious. Imagine having a heart attack but living an hour and a half away from the nearest hospital.
Agreed
Also agreed to an extent. I don’t believe cannabis consumption on say… A Saturday significantly impedes a workers ability to work throughout the week. That being said if a job mandates drug testing and/or you live rurally and require a long commute it only seems sensible that one would abstain. Cannabis use isn’t important in the grand scheme of things (unless medically necessitated). I disagree with current laws put in place/I believe change ought to be inmplimented. But in theory I’d never risk the prospect of a stable income over something as trivial as cannabis use.
A bigger problem lies within how rampant drug use (particuarly methamphetamine addiction) is within some of these rural communities and the “police/penalise” approach appears to be failing.
Yeah. That’s a universal human condition. Dysfunction begets dysfunction. When life sucks people want to escape. Then they do things, very predictably, with disastrous legal and personal consequences. Then the loop begins again.
It’s not like the cops say “We’re gonna camp out on this town till everybody starts doing meth, then throw 'em all in jail.”.
Its more like “We’ ve gotten a big rise in reports from this region involving XYZ. We need to increase patrols and abcd.”.
Yes, however the roadblocks stem from the prospect of revenue raising. A startling majority of arrests (in NSW and QLD esp) tend to be for minor possession. NSW in particular has a scheme wherein they deploy sniffer dogs in public (on roads, at train stations, on trains/buses, near pubs, sometimes they conduct operations and storm nightclubs unnanounced with sniffer dogs).
These dogs aren’t particuarly accurate. If I recall Australian literature states only around 25% of the time are these dogs correct. A drug dog indication allows the police to strip search you (over here). Sometimes these searches are illigal, particuarly when performed on minors in public (booths are set up in public).
Arresting a drug addict under the pretense of erratic, violent behaviour and property destruction or stealing is logical as the individual presents as a threat. Stopping someone, strip searching them and finding 0.05 grams of methamphetamine and subsequently imposing a court date, criminal record etc seems extreme. Especially given the rammifications associated with having a criminal record. I don’t believe this kind of punishment increases the chance of an addict getting clean, on the contrary I believe it serves to heighten the chances of a deleterious outcome.
It’s not quite the same as America. In NSW (leaked documentation) revealed a quota for X amount of searches associated with sniffer dog indications. X amount of roadblocks set up etc. These quotes increase exponentially every year.
The public sniffer dog operations appear somewhat unique to NSW, occasionally you’ll see them at train stations elsewhere. Music festivals/concerts are where these dogs are brought out en mass just about everywhere.
Imo government resources should be more catered towards building healthcare facilities, retail outlets, hospitality venues etc within these communities as to improve employment opportunities and/or access to healthcare.
Nothing in the world actually works like that.
Not trying to be mean, it’s just that nobody with any sense just builds things where they won’t or can’t be used ie sparsely populated destitute rural hamlets.
Like, say we’re way out in the outback and the only thing for a hundred miles is a mining operation.
I’m gonna build a mine/safety supply shop right outside the gate and a bar right next to that.
Not some retail outles or a hospital. A helicopter can fly them to town if they’re really fucked up, or they can be driven. Hospitals and medical professionals are really quite expensive.
True. The issue of practicality has to be taken into account seriously when discussing theory. Sometimes we forget this.
Also, they have a sort of “quota” to hit from what my cop friends tell me. Not “quota” as in you MUST hit this number like in sales, but rather, If the number of offenders suddenly drops significantly in one week then they’re obviously slacking on the job.
Agree with this. I’ll go as far as to say maybe they should change the classifications for some of the ones “not fit for human use” too. It would increase the production price of these drugs though, so there’s a possibility of a big black market forming with cheaper animal grade stuff so I’m not too sure about this.
True story: I had friends who would break into race hose stables to steal tren lol.
I dunno about this, but IMO if you can allow tobacco to be sold freely, you can do something similar for these drugs.
I have no idea. Australia’s just weird when it comes to steroids. I don’t know any country in Asia that gives you more than a slap on the wrist for possession while they’re much tougher on other drugs. Trafficking would be a serious offense, though.
America also has fairly harsh penalties for possession. I think penalties dictated by country depends on how politicised/sensationalised the issue was in said country. QLD and NT uniquely had an issue with gangs trafficking anabolic steroids
I didn’t interpret it that way 
. You are correct, but is it particuarly out of this realm to create incentives for general practitioners to go rural? They’ve done exactly this in the Northern Territory.
This is exactly what occurs, however when a town is 200km + away from the nearest hospital the odds may still be stacked against you. It’s unfortunate, but I suppose life isn’t fair. Some are merely born disadvantaged for no good reason.
Agreed, aside from the notion tobacco/nicotine doesn’t induce substantial impairment/alterations in demeanour for most. Tobacco may be quite toxic in the grand scheme of things, but you aren’t going to have someone robbing another at gunpoint over a cigarette whereas this might occur over a crack rock. Perhaps this is due to percieved availability?
Is it true they sell them otc in Thailand? I’ve heard all sorts of stories, but then again I’ve also heard “heed caution” as the police might shake you down and force you to pay a massive bribe.