Tasmania has quietly become the second Australian state after Victoria to implement roadside drug testing of motorists, despite the scientifically proven unreliability of the mouth swab type tests. Such tests are, and remain banned in the UK at least until 2006 due to their known inaccuracy and likelihood to be successfully challenged in court.
On 13 December 2004, Victorian delivery van driver John De Jong was the first Australian driver to be drug tested at roadside and unremarkably was also the first to be victimised with a false-positive from the swab-type test. Well before De Jong was given the second, purportedly confirmatory drug test by blood sample, Victoria Police paraded De Jong in front of waiting news media- in fact, he was photographed as he exited the police roadside testing van.
De Jong was identified by name and image by police to media as testing positive to cannabis and methamphetamine use, even before the initial swab-test was confirmed by a second, more reliable test. Victoria Police had actually notified news media that they would be performing the roadside drug tests so cameras would be on hand to villify the first person to be identified by the tests as a ‘drugged driver.’
De Jong’s wife and children actually found out about his being identified by Victoria Police as a ‘drugged driver’ from the news media- not from De Jong himself!
Victorian Police have steadfastly refused to apologise to De Jong for the faulty test and the media circus which they organised, despite a police administered second test and a test organised privately by De Jong BOTH indicating he was not under the influence of cannabis nor methamphetamine when tested on 13 December 2004. Further, of the first three drivers swab-tested by Victoria, fully 66% of the tests administered were proven to be wrong.
News media (even ABC) have been totally remiss in failing to follow up on the fact that the VicRoads had taken their advice on implementing the swab tests from a salesman of the testing swabs and equipment. A Mr. Michael White identified himself to ABC as being the head of a ‘drug support group’ called "Drug-Safe Australia." In actuality, Michael White either works for or is the proprietor of "Frontline Diagnostics" which on occasion trades under the name "Drug-Safe Australia."
As I wrote last year:
A little searching reveals "Drug-Safe Australia" is in fact not a ‘drug support group’ at all, but is actually Frontline Diagnostics, a seller of drug testing equipment including mobile drug testing labs and education programs for employers. From their website:
Drug-Safe Australia Pty Ltd trading as
Frontline Diagnostics
The Penthouse
Level 5, 22 Atchison Street
Crows Nest NSW Australia 2065
Why have the news media not chased up this lead? After the high rate of false positives was revealed, White himself damned the tests as "defective" and as not being ready for use in an application where criminal charges would be laid against those who tested positive at roadside.
On 22 December 2004, ABC news quoted New South Wales traffic services commander, John Hartley as saying said the mouth swab-type tests were to be given a 12-month trial in NSW beginning "…early next year (2005), however the first 12 months are only a trial." Doubtless due to the furore surrounding the false-positives in Victoria, no news agency has to my knowledge yet reported that the swab tests have actually been pressed into service in NSW, either in a legally moot trial or in active use as a means of formally accusing motorists of driving under the influence of drugs.
The problem with mouth swab (and urine) tests is that they do not test for the actual presence of the active compounds of illicit drugs in the bloodstream, rather they test for ‘metabolites’ or the residual chemical components of drugs, which remain in the body after the metabolic processes break them down into simpler components. These metabolites can remain in the body long after the period of acute intoxication produced by the drug has worn off. The time of retention in the body varies with the type of drug, how much the person used, how often the person uses the drug, and so on. Cannabis metabolites stay in the body longer than those of most other drugs, up to 60 days in some cases. John De Jong reported that he had used cannabis about 4 weeks prior to the police swab test.
Also, metabolites of perfectly legal drugs which you probably have in your home medicine cabinet will cause false positive readings for cannabis and other drugs. Ibuprofen, the active ingredient in the brand named Advil, Nurofen, Panafen IB and other common over-the-counter pharmacy drugs used for joint inflammation and period pain, is well known for inducing false-positive metabolite results for cannabis. Unsurprisingly, De Jong reported having used two tablets of an "anti-inflammatory" medication on the evening before he tested positive to cannabis use with the police mouth swab. Tasmanian women who use ibuprofen for period pain will ostensibly be disqualified from driving several days (or more) per month if Tasmania continues to use mouth swab tests.
I’ve written extensively about this issue on my old blog, mainly due to the social justice aspect of people being falsely accused of a crime by an overbearing government, not because I think it’s okay to drive under the influence of drugs:
This is a case of the Vic government wanting to look tough on drugs and having been sold a bill of goods by some junk scientists. Victoria will learn their lessons in the courts when the drug driving charges are thrown out and their use is suspended. Most unfortunately, this miscue will make it doubly hard to get accurate tests in the hands of police should such ever be developed.
As a victim of a near fatal collision with a drink driver, I am all for sober drivers, but police can’t run about throwing people in jail using junk science.
Now Tasmania’s on board with the junk science campaign, trying to look tough on drugs for the electorate, when in fact they are victimising the electorate for their own benefit and self-perpetuation.
Further, drivers are not legally protected from a swab test sample also being used for DNA testing, which may inadvertently cause the driver to be implicated in a crime- a violation of one’s right not to self-incriminate.
Until roadside drug tests can be proven to be as reliable as the best available in a laboratory or hospital and the driver’s privacy rights as to the use of the sample are protected, the instant drug test is an instant way to huge legal bills and defamation by police in the media, for which they will not apologise- nor find themselves under any particular obligation to set straight the public record.
If you are ever confronted with a police mouth swab test, your smartest move is to refuse the test, cop the mandatory driving suspension and pay the fine. In the end, you’re miles ahead on legal fees and hopefully won’t end up with your face on the evening news.
-weez
4 Comments so far
Leave a comment
wow. This is some serious Big Brother stuff. I doubt the police can charge you for having traces of cannabis in your system, but can they charge you for admitting you have recently smoked it? If not, how long until the powers that be decide the police *can* charge you? Scary.
Comment by bombayfair 07.05.05 @ 9:58 pmAdmitting use of an illicit drug in some Australian states can get you charged with the offence of “self-administration.”
The swab tests are intended to detect cannabis use within two hours of last use. However, as John De Jong found out, a false positive test reading can appear some weeks after using the drug.
Just say no to roadside drug tests- you can’t win.
-weez
Comment by weezil 07.05.05 @ 10:24 pmAn elderly relative of mine who failed to stop at a random breath testing station (because her history leaves her terrified of men in uniforms) lost her licence for 2 years.
She registered her car in another person’s name and kept to the back streets if no one else was around to drive her.
Whatever our reasons we have the right to take the ‘consequences’ of our actions.
She was never found out.
Suki, disqualified drivers in Aus don’t even need to change the registration of the car. You need not have a driver’s license to own a car.
For the first few years I lived in Australia, I did not have an Australian driver’s license (nor was required to have one due to the nature of my travels in those days) yet my car was properly registered and insured.
The Brits however have a system which optically reads number plates and checks to see if the owner has paid road tax. It would be easy enough for them to add a check to see if the car owner is permitted to drive the vehicle. Useless here, though. Facial recognition systems are still a ways off from being reliable enough to detect a disqualified driver at the wheel, but when you start seeing drivers wearing balaclavas, you’ll know what’s going on!
One of the ‘tabloid’ TV shows ran a program around a week ago about convicted drink drivers walking out of court and getting into their own cars and driving away. It’s a bit of a joke.
Comment by weezil 07.06.05 @ 10:01 amLeave a comment
Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function show_subscription_checkbox() in /home/www/machinegunkeyboard.com/wp-content/themes/benevolence/comments.php:155 Stack trace: #0 /home/www/machinegunkeyboard.com/wp-includes/comment-template.php(1618): require() #1 /home/www/machinegunkeyboard.com/wp-content/themes/benevolence/index.php(28): comments_template() #2 /home/www/machinegunkeyboard.com/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include('/home/www/machi...') #3 /home/www/machinegunkeyboard.com/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/www/machi...') #4 /home/www/machinegunkeyboard.com/index.php(17): require('/home/www/machi...') #5 {main} thrown in /home/www/machinegunkeyboard.com/wp-content/themes/benevolence/comments.php on line 155