How's your saliva, driver?

Victoria has been the test bed for Driver Saliva testing, and NSW is basing it's program on the Victorian experience, so for all those worried about just how draconian these new laws will be, this article reproduces government information used to guide the NSW Driver Saliva testing program.

It also tells what we know of how the initial NSW Driver Saliva testing program will operate.

Saliva Testing in Victoria:
from:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Random_driver_drug_testing_to_become_permanent_in_Victoria

After the world's first-ever 12 month trial of random drug testing for automobile drivers, the Victorian government yesterday introduced legislation into parliament for the testing to become permanent starting July 1, 2006. The government tests targeted for the presence of cannabis and amphetamines by use of a saliva swab. During the trial period, the presence of ecstasy was not tested, because at the time the trial period began, there was uncertainty over the accuracy of saliva tests for that drug.

"The legislation comes in response to the discovery that one in 46 drivers tested were found positive for cannabis and/or amphetamines." (But only one in 648 for cannabis! That quote is misleading.) Victorian Assistant Commissioner of Traffic, Noel Ashby said, "It is one in 46 drivers that we're testing are prepared to take a risk and endanger the lives of other people and that's really what we're about, we're trying to prevent people endangering the lives of others". There is no proof that drivers under the influence of cannabis are endangering anyone, and that is why no impairment level, like .08, is cited. The research has not been done.

"....we're trying to prevent people endangering the lives of others" is an obviously false self justification for the Commissioners personal beliefs. There is no evidence that drivers who have smoked cannabis represent a danger. This is a "blind prejudice" from a "Ministry of Truth"..

Of 13,176 tests carried out during the trial, 199 drivers tested positive for amphetamines only, 19 for cannabis alone and 69 for both amphetamines and cannabis. Each driver who tested positive was fined at least AU$307 and lost three demerit points.

Police also conducted tests for ecstasy, despite being unable to prosecute those driving under the influence of ecstasy alone. During the trial, 25 drivers tested positive to ecstasy alone and more than 200 tested positive for both ecstasy and amphetamines.

Victorian Police Minister, Tim Holding said existing penalties – which are softer than for drink-driving offences – were inadequate and would be toughened to ensure they reflected the seriousness of the offence.

At present, a first drug-driving offence incurs a $307 fine and three demerit points; subsequent offences a $1227 fine and up to a six-month loss of license.

In comparison, a drink-driving offence attracts a fine of up to $1200 plus disqualification from driving for at least six months and up to 10 demerit points. Repeat drink-drivers face the possibility of being penalised with a fine of up to $2500 or up to three months' imprisonment, plus a minimum one-year loss of license and use of an alcohol interlock device for at least six months.
Under the random roadside drug-testing system, drivers who test positive are forced off the road for 24 hours. A second swab is then taken and sent for testing to identify the drug before penalties are issued.

Ken Ogden from the RACV said he would like to see every booze bus in Victoria be able to also operate as a drugs bus.

Information from NSW government sources:

1) Why are the tests only suppose to pick up drugs used in last four hours – what advice or research is this based on?

This is due to the fact that the active component of cannabis only stays in the system for a couple of hours at the most/ less for ‘conditioned’ smokers. http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au

‘A report on drug-impaired driving produced for the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2003 noted that cannabinoids appear to be especially difficult to detect in oral fluids, as very little drug is excreted into the saliva. A laboratory test is valuable to confirm an initial positive result in a saliva test’. Briefing Paper 15/04 NSW Parliament.

‘Drivers who may have inactive THC residue in their bodies from use in previous days/weeks will not be detected’.

In Victoria – for Cannabis – they only test for the active component in the drug and that this has a short life span within a persons system. They do not test for the non-active component – which stays in the system for much longer.

2) Did the premier announce that there would be a 12-month trial of this drug testing of motorists?

No, in December 2004 the Police Minister, Carl Scully, announced a 12-month random drug testing trial but it never went ahead.

There will not be twelve month trial of this testing.

3) Whom will look after this unit – have some police officers been trained to administer these tests, what laboratory is involved?

Initially, there will be one ‘Iemma-bago’ van to cover the whole state. A total of 20 officers will be trained for the unit.

The laboratory involved will be DAL (Division of Analytical Laboratories).

Most details will be handled by the Roads Minister and these would be covered in the 2nd reading speech in Parliament.

For answers to more "frequently asked questions": http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugs_faq.html#17

Looking at the Victorian figures, two thirds of one percent tested positive for cannabis, and three percent positive for amphetamines. Thats adding the crossover positives together, and are lower than one would expect. We have had reports from people who said they were stoned, but tested negative. There was also the heavily publicised false positive for the first person tested in Victoria. It is suggested that these tests are not very accurate, and are more valuable as a propaganda weapon than as a functional policing tool. That is why NSW has taken so long to implement it. I have heard it said that merely swilling your mouth out with mouthwash, orange juice, or the like, that the cannabis "contaminated" saliva is cleared, or by eating fatty chicken that emulsifies the "evidence", and transports it to the stomach. We will soon know if this is so.

If you have a Driver Saliva experience that is relates to the above, please let us know how it worked out. Email us at webhead@hempembassy.net. We would be grateful if you could.

Other Pages on Saliva...

Testaliva

Drugtest

Is Saliva Testing for THC accurate?

NORML on Blood, Urine, and Saliva tests.

2/2/2009 :If you test positive to the Drugwipe Twin, then a second more expensive test is applied, the "Cozart" saliva tester.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring:Volume 31(1)February 2009pp 131-134
Evaluation of the Cozart DDSV Test for Cannabis in Oral Fluid
[Short Communication]

Kintz, Pascal PhD*; Brunet, Bertrand PhD†; Muller, Jean-François BS*; Serra, Wilfried MD‡; Villain, Marion MS*; Cirimele, Vincent PhD*; Mura, Patrick PhD†

From the *Laboratoire ChemTox, Illkirch; †Laboratoire de Toxicologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, BP 577; and ‡Centre de soin, d'accompagnement et de prévention en addictologie, Le Tourniquet, Centre Hospitalier Henri Laborit, Poitiers, France.

Received for publication September 2, 2008; accepted November 10, 2008.

Correspondence: Pascal Kintz, PhD, Laboratoire ChemTox, 3, rue Grüninger, F-67400 Illkirch, France (e-mail: pascal.kintz@wanadoo.fr).
Abstract:

Saliva or oral fluid has been presented as an alternative matrix to establish drug exposure. The noninvasive collection of an oral fluid sample, which is relatively easy to perform and can be achieved under close supervision, is one of the most important benefits when testing for driving under the influence of drugs. Moreover, the detection of ?9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in oral fluid is a better indication of recent use than a positive urine test, so there is a higher probability that the subject is experiencing pharmacological effects at the time of sampling. Twenty-five subjects (5 free and 20 addicts from a heroin detoxification center) were included in a study to evaluate the potential application of a new device, the Cozart DDSV (drug detection system visual), to detect cannabis in oral fluid. The time cannabis was last smoked was recorded by the medical staff after interview with each subject. Samples were collected with the Cozart DDS Oral Swab and diluted with the Cozart DDS buffer as proposed by the manufacturer. The Cozart DDSV test was conducted on site at the time of collection, and the remainder of the sample retained for confirmation analysis by gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC/MS) after methylation of THC (limit of quantitation 0.5 ng/mL). All 25 samples were analyzed by GC/MS. On-site results were obtained within 10 minutes. The 5 drug-free subjects were negative for cannabis, irrespective of the method. From the 20 subjects declaring that they had smoked cannabis between 30 minutes and 24 hours previously, the DDSV device identified 8 positive subjects (with THC concentrations in the buffer in the range 15-219 ng/mL), whereas 18 subjects tested positive using GC/MS. THC concentrations in the Cozart buffer using GC/MS analysis ranged from 0.7 to 219 ng/mL. These concentrations represent about one third the authentic THC concentrations in oral fluid due to the dilution by the liquid of the device. Given the results, the DDSV device was considered as an acceptable tool to detect cannabis abuse in oral fluid within a period of 2-3 hours after smoking.

Saliva Testing Technology Still Unable To Consistently Detect THC

Illkirch, France: Saliva testing technology fails to detect the recent use of cannabis over 50 percent of the time, according to findings published in the February issue of the journal Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

French investigators evaluated the ability of oral fluid testing to detect the presence of THC in 20 subjects. Each of the subjects declared that they had smoked cannabis in the 30 minutes to 24 hours prior to testing.

Researchers reported that saliva testing identified THC in only eight of the 20 participants. By contrast, urinalysis testing identified 18 subjects as having previously used cannabis.

Previous evaluations of oral fluid drug testing devices have reported similar results – finding that saliva testing is rarely sensitive to THC beyond one or two hours after past use, and that false positive results are not uncommon.

Presently, several European nations and a handful of US states are testing the use of such devices in an on-going field study investigating the prevalence of motorists who drive under the influence of controlled substances.

Because saliva tests detect the presence of THC, not marijuana's inactive metabolites, and have a much more narrow window of detection compared to urinalysis, advocates of the technology believe that it is far more likely than urine testing to provide evidence regarding whether someone may be under the influence of cannabis.

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study, "Evaluation of the Cozart DDSV test for cannabis in oral fluid," appears in the journal Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

And that is with the more accurate Cozart test. The Drugwipe is even less reliable, but perhaps the symbolism of drug testing is more important than accuracy?