16 and drugged up on a trail bike

IrishPete said :

Okay,my mistake, it’s not the police who are daft, it is the legislators for using an ambiguous term… Roll on the legal challenges – it won’t be the first time that ACT legislation has been found to be wanting. Legislators need to realise that it is the public regulated by laws who need to understand them, not highly paid barristers and judges, and ambiguity undermines this. Will poorly-informed people stop taking their essential prescription medications before driving? Will this enhance road safety?

IP

I like to think people are intelligent enough to know it’s not their prescription medication that’s illegal. I don’t know how you think there will be legal challenges based on that.

IrishPete said :

Okay,my mistake, it’s not the police who are daft, it is the legislators for using an ambiguous term… Roll on the legal challenges – it won’t be the first time that ACT legislation has been found to be wanting. Legislators need to realise that it is the public regulated by laws who need to understand them, not highly paid barristers and judges, and ambiguity undermines this. Will poorly-informed people stop taking their essential prescription medications before driving? Will this enhance road safety?

IP

I guess they could say, an illicit substance prescribed by legislation etc.

If it had of been prescribed medication, they would have said that, big difference between that and a drug. In my mind at any rate.

My old man is currently on some heavy painkillers, but still able to drive while taking them, I think it might be an opioid derivative, you would think that it would come back positive, but he would not be summonsed as he has a prescription, therefore, no media release for it.

People as a whole have a pretty good understanding that when a law comes out saying “You can’t take drugs and drive” they will come to the conclusion that the spirit of the law is to stop people who are smoking the reefer, taking some happy pills, sniffing some china etc from driving their vehicles while still effected by the drug. (While we are talking about stupid words, is it effect or affect in that sentence?)

Okay,my mistake, it’s not the police who are daft, it is the legislators for using an ambiguous term… Roll on the legal challenges – it won’t be the first time that ACT legislation has been found to be wanting. Legislators need to realise that it is the public regulated by laws who need to understand them, not highly paid barristers and judges, and ambiguity undermines this. Will poorly-informed people stop taking their essential prescription medications before driving? Will this enhance road safety?

IP

There is a local family in my street that ride their unregistered trail bike through the local bush area quite regularly in Calwell. Not a youth but a man of about 40 odd. Fairly sure his sons do it too. Also another family down the road, and they are all under (around 25). These people don’t give a %^||£ about anyone but themselves, the scrub is there for their enjoyment, and if they happen on a walker, well what are you doing on their track!!!

I’d baseball bat them but the wife would be most displeased.

What is it about regulation they don’t get?

Don’t ride unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured, or not on a road and we’ll all get along just fine.

IrishPete said :

do they really mean “prescribed” which they say three times, or do they mean proscribed? There’s a big difference…

IP

Here you go, read this act,

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1977-17/default.asp

Come back and tell us if they really mean prescribed or proscribed…

IrishPete said :

do they really mean “prescribed” which they say three times, or do they mean proscribed? There’s a big difference…

IP

Read the legislation and you’ll have your answer.

I think this was covered under a previous post – its a reference to the legislation

do they really mean “prescribed” which they say three times, or do they mean proscribed? There’s a big difference…

IP