Pubdate: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 Source: Advertiser, The (Australia) Copyright: 2004 Advertiser Newspapers Ltd Contact: http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1 Author: Norrie Ross, Ben Packham and Jeremy Kelly Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?224 (Cannabis and Driving) ROADSIDE TESTS TO CONTINUE VICTORIA'S tainted roadside drug tests will continue despite a humiliating blow for the State Government and police yesterday. On the day the Herald Sun revealed an independent laboratory had cleared van driver John De Jong, a police lab confirmed the negative result. Mr De Jong was the first driver in the world to return a positive roadside saliva test and he may now sue the Government and Victoria Police for the slur on his name. The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) said the drug bus launch was a "fiasco" and that motorists had to be sure the tests were accurate. And a scientist who advised the Government on the program admitted he was warned of a legal disaster if it went ahead. But VicRoads drugs specialist Dr Philip Swann said he ignored the warnings because of the road safety benefits of saliva testing. Police Minister Andre Haermeyer yesterday tried to shore up confidence in the tests and said he had full confidence in the system. He said a wrongly accused driver faced "a little bit of inconvenience". "No one has been wrongly charged, no one has been wrongly convicted," Mr Haermeyer said. "This is a process that drivers are asked to undergo and the worst that can happen is that if the indicative screening test gets it wrong then the driver faces a little bit of inconvenience." VicRoads funded the drug testing initiative, providing $1.4 million for training, wages, deployment and equipment, including testing kits and the drug bus. Despite Mr De Jong being cleared, Assistant Commissioner for traffic Bob Hastings said Victorian Police retained confidence in the program. He saw no need to apologise to Mr De Jong, who was initially tested in a media stunt on the drug bus's first day on the road. Mr De Jong's case was part of the learning experience and would assist police as they evaluated the system, he said. Mr Hastings denied it was a black mark against the entire system. "It shows that the system is working. It shows that whatever occurs on the side of the road is either validated or not validated in the subsequent laboratory test. And that's what the system is about," he said. RACV general manager of public policy director Dr Ken Ogden said the RACV strongly supported the program but it needed to be accurate for the public to have faith in it. "The whole episode on day one and its results were a fiasco and if it continues it will be a disaster for road safety," Dr Ogden said. "Clearly something has to be sorted out in relation to operating procedures. "While the system works, in that there's been no person prosecuted for a faulty reading, nevertheless public confidence has been undermined." Mr Norman Marshall, whose company does drug testing for some of Australian's biggest corporations and sports agencies, said the drug bus should be pulled off the road. "The key issues for any drug testing program are fairness and reasonableness," said Mr Marshall, of the Australian Drug Management and Education Group. "You cannot have a program which allows for someone who is innocent to be put in a position where they are suffering anxiety and distress. This is a classic example of it." Mr Marshall said any device used on the roadside was always going to be a cheap version of laboratory tests. A toxicologist, who did not want to be named, said government experts were warned of the legal dangers of roadside saliva tests. The scientist said the issues were raised during a presentation on saliva testing by Dr Swann at an international toxicology conference in Melbourne last year. "We raised the very scenario that happened," the toxicologist said. "We said that if you use this on the roadside you will get a false positive and it will take days to get the true result. "And depending on who is being tested you are leaving yourself open to being sued for pain and suffering, defamation and psychological shock." Dr Swann confirmed these comments had been made to him but they did not change his mind. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek