Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
Cyprus - When the idea of introducing Narcotests to deter people from driving under the influence of drugs was first mooted by the police some time ago, many people thought it would not be pursued, as nobody had bothered to think it through. It would have been abandoned with the same ease it had been brought up once a little thought was finally given to how it would be enforced.
But last Wednesday, we learned that the Narcotest had not been abandoned and police were planning on introducing it as soon as the relevant bill was approved by Parliament. An official from the Communications Ministry presented the bill to the House on Wednesday and in the ensuing discussion it became obvious that, on one score, people were right – very little thought had been given to how it would be used.
The State Legal Service had reservations about it as the test’s first result had a 10 per cent chance of being wrong. If there was a positive reading, a second, bigger sample of saliva would be taken from the driver and a more reliable test (only two per cent chance of being wrong) would be carried out on the spot. For the first test, 10 minutes would be required and for the second 30. A driver, who would be detained by police for 40 minutes until the result of the second test was ready, would not be happy if it was clear.
A person could take legal action against the authorities in such a case, a representative of the State Legal Service warned. People had sued the state for being detained without good cause, for shorter periods than 40 minutes, she said. Deputies also shared the reservations of the Legal Service representative and suggested that more reliable drug-testing equipment be purchased by the police, so that the risk of wrongly detaining drivers was eliminated.
But even if the police found a drug-testing kit which was absolutely reliable and accurate, its use would still be problematic, for a variety of reasons that the officials who drafted the bill never thought about. For instance, the use of certain prescribed medicine could give a positive reading for illegal drug use; cannabis can be traced in the body several days after it has been used, leading to prosecution even though it was not affecting driving ability; non-prescription medicine like cough syrup could impair driving ability also; drivers on prescribed drugs, like tranquilisers or anti-depressants, would be exempt from prosecution even though they might be more unfit to drive than someone on illegal drugs.
The law-makers’ decision to allow legal drug users to drive with impunity would suggest that the authorities have a hidden agenda – to use the Narcotest to catch illegal drug users and enter their names in police records. The Narcotest would give the police a legal excuse to set up roadside checks and test young males (the social group with the highest use of illegal drugs), irrespective of how they were driving. In other words, there is a danger of the test being abused by the police in order to harass and persecute young drug users, in the name of road safety. Police would also be able to create a database of drug users, thus tarnishing the reputation of people for the rest of their life.
If police were so concerned about improving road safety, the law would not have exempted users of prescribed drugs from prosecution, as a driver on valium, opiate pain-killers or stimulants is as likely to cause car accident as a coca*ne user. Of eight European studies of drivers killed on the road, four found benzodiazepines (a drug found in prescription medicine) to be the most common drug present. Only two found cannabis to be the most common drug; for the study in Spain, it was coca*ne and in Norway amphe*amines. Given the widespread use of prescription, psychoactive drugs in Cyprus, and the existence of studies that show users to be involved in traffic accidents, why would users in Cyprus be exempt from prosecution?
Exempting legal drug users reinforces suspicions that the introduction of the Narcotest is primarily targeted at identifying users of illegal substances and keeping their names on record, rather than for improving road safety. Some would argue that this would be no bad thing, but in practice it is a gross infringement on personal liberty and a violation of the right to privacy. If the police are so determined to reduce the number of road deaths they should speed up the process of installing traffic cameras, which markedly reduce speeding, the main cause of fatal accidents in Cyprus.
According to police data, in 2007 drugs accounted for just 3.4 per cent of road deaths, not exactly a figure that would justify another encroachment on personal liberty.
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Cyprus Mail
Copyright: 2008 Cyprus Mail
Contact: Cyprus Mail Internet Edition
Website: https://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=42118&cat_id=1
But last Wednesday, we learned that the Narcotest had not been abandoned and police were planning on introducing it as soon as the relevant bill was approved by Parliament. An official from the Communications Ministry presented the bill to the House on Wednesday and in the ensuing discussion it became obvious that, on one score, people were right – very little thought had been given to how it would be used.
The State Legal Service had reservations about it as the test’s first result had a 10 per cent chance of being wrong. If there was a positive reading, a second, bigger sample of saliva would be taken from the driver and a more reliable test (only two per cent chance of being wrong) would be carried out on the spot. For the first test, 10 minutes would be required and for the second 30. A driver, who would be detained by police for 40 minutes until the result of the second test was ready, would not be happy if it was clear.
A person could take legal action against the authorities in such a case, a representative of the State Legal Service warned. People had sued the state for being detained without good cause, for shorter periods than 40 minutes, she said. Deputies also shared the reservations of the Legal Service representative and suggested that more reliable drug-testing equipment be purchased by the police, so that the risk of wrongly detaining drivers was eliminated.
But even if the police found a drug-testing kit which was absolutely reliable and accurate, its use would still be problematic, for a variety of reasons that the officials who drafted the bill never thought about. For instance, the use of certain prescribed medicine could give a positive reading for illegal drug use; cannabis can be traced in the body several days after it has been used, leading to prosecution even though it was not affecting driving ability; non-prescription medicine like cough syrup could impair driving ability also; drivers on prescribed drugs, like tranquilisers or anti-depressants, would be exempt from prosecution even though they might be more unfit to drive than someone on illegal drugs.
The law-makers’ decision to allow legal drug users to drive with impunity would suggest that the authorities have a hidden agenda – to use the Narcotest to catch illegal drug users and enter their names in police records. The Narcotest would give the police a legal excuse to set up roadside checks and test young males (the social group with the highest use of illegal drugs), irrespective of how they were driving. In other words, there is a danger of the test being abused by the police in order to harass and persecute young drug users, in the name of road safety. Police would also be able to create a database of drug users, thus tarnishing the reputation of people for the rest of their life.
If police were so concerned about improving road safety, the law would not have exempted users of prescribed drugs from prosecution, as a driver on valium, opiate pain-killers or stimulants is as likely to cause car accident as a coca*ne user. Of eight European studies of drivers killed on the road, four found benzodiazepines (a drug found in prescription medicine) to be the most common drug present. Only two found cannabis to be the most common drug; for the study in Spain, it was coca*ne and in Norway amphe*amines. Given the widespread use of prescription, psychoactive drugs in Cyprus, and the existence of studies that show users to be involved in traffic accidents, why would users in Cyprus be exempt from prosecution?
Exempting legal drug users reinforces suspicions that the introduction of the Narcotest is primarily targeted at identifying users of illegal substances and keeping their names on record, rather than for improving road safety. Some would argue that this would be no bad thing, but in practice it is a gross infringement on personal liberty and a violation of the right to privacy. If the police are so determined to reduce the number of road deaths they should speed up the process of installing traffic cameras, which markedly reduce speeding, the main cause of fatal accidents in Cyprus.
According to police data, in 2007 drugs accounted for just 3.4 per cent of road deaths, not exactly a figure that would justify another encroachment on personal liberty.
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Cyprus Mail
Copyright: 2008 Cyprus Mail
Contact: Cyprus Mail Internet Edition
Website: https://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=42118&cat_id=1
All progress on drug legislation stopped dead with the election of the Harper reform/conservative government.It's been all down hill from then.The DEA has two offices in Canada and American law enforcement can carry weapons on our soil.They kidnap people all the time with the complicity of Harper and his draconian government.
