Interesting news item which has people scratching their heads all over the place today and which is sure to cause a large tin of legal worms to be opened...
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/06/26/drugged-sa-driver-beats-driving-charge.html

A drugged motorist has beaten a dangerous driving charge after experts said being on ice could have a positive effect on driving ability.

Leah Lenarczyk, 39, who had a mid-level concentration of methylamphetamine in her system, was acquitted of dangerous driving in the South Australian District Court over hitting and seriously injuring a 12-year-old boy after running a red light in 2012.

She was found guilty of a lesser charge of driving without due care.

The case has raised concerns from police and road safety authorities who will study the verdict to see if laws need to be changed.

Judge Barry Beazley said the prosecution had not proved that methylamphetamine had seriously affected the woman's driving after two expert witnesses said ice, while illegal, could have positive effects on driver alertness, depending on its concentration.

Professor Jason White, from the University of South Australia, told the court that taking ice could make people aggressive and agitated but could also reduce fatigue and increase mental and physical performance.

Clinical forensic toxicologist Michael Robertson said the effects of ice included increased mental awareness and improved alertness and concentration.

Judge Beazley noted that the District Court was not a 'court of morals'.

'The fact that the accused had consumed an illicit drug is of no relevance save that it had an adverse effect upon her driving,' he said.

...cont'd...

I really worry about the way our legal system is headed if they honestly listen to and believe complete bullshit like this...you can already imagine the line up of drugged fuckwits caught driving who will now try to employ an "expert" that claims drugs make you drive better, apart from, you know, splattering a 12 year old kid...

Apparently the people in this case were unaware that amphetamines had been used to enhance awareness of Allied bomber crews during WWII. But this practice was stopped when it was discovered that long term amphetamine exposure induces psychosis.

That isn't what the experts said. What part of the experts testimony do you think is bullshit? Do you dispute the evidence they have based their opinion on? Why are they "experts", silly questions its because they don't agree with your opinion.

Also she didn't beat the charge, the prosecution failed to prove their case and she was convicted on another charge for her crime.

Indeed a case (pun) of the sentence of the charge not being appropriate to the crime. As there are lot of American cases on YouTube which get discussed, a frequent assertion is the prosecution add as many charges as they can to the charge sheet, not to prove them, but to overwhelm the defence so they cave in to a plea bargain. A problem because even the innocent now agree to guilt to avoid costs of defending against these multiple charges. Lawyers charge per hour I think?

America has nothing to do with this so why bring it up?

The point that is making the authorities worried is that they have been trying to stop wankers drink or drugged driving, with great success...it used to be "normal" to wobble home in the car after a night in the pub or after a big party using whatever drugs, but attitudes have changed greatly in Australia.
Drunk drivers are rightly shunned as dangerous morons, Over the last decade or so it's been a greater concentration on drugged drivers. The problem has been technology has had to catch up...we've had random breath tests for decades, but it's only the last couple of years that hesitant moves have been made towards methods of testing for drugs which is cheap enough to be a disposable, quick, non-invasive, and easy roadside test. Apparently it's a little like the drug testing we undergo at work...a mouth swab that shows an instant result for several common drugs.

But over the last year there has been almost a literal explosion in the use of ice...cheap, easily available, highly addictive, and as opposed to other drugs which seem to mainly affect "the big cities", ice has been ravaging country and rural areas. It's become a massive problem and the authorities are struggling to catch up and find a way to fix the problem.

So they've been spreading the word about how dangerous this drug is...and it is dangerous because of the speed with which it's spreading, with advertising making the public aware of the dangers and what to look out for.

Now a court case like this comes along...a woman who should rightly be fucking locked up for driving around drugged to the eyeballs, going through a red light, and running over a child, gets let off and only a much less serious charge placed against her because her shyster lawyer found a friendly expert to agree that taking meth while driving is just a peachy keen thing to do.

The good of the public and our right to be able to drive around free from the dangers of drugged idiots should come before the need for some bitch to get off a serious charge in court. The judge should have ignored this stupid "experts" advice and done his fucking job...take someone out of the loop for a while because of their extremely dangerous actions. The judge claimed the court doesn't sit in judgement of someones morals for taking drugs...no, they are supposed to if the drug taking is what has led to the court case in the first place. No other court case I have seen reported for drug offences has ignored the "drugs" part of the case because they "can't judge someone for taking drugs"...

Luckily there will most likely be a government appeal against this case...unfortunately they're pretty busy doing this, given the numerous soft sentences, ludicrous light penalties, and just plain stupid "let him go, no conviction recorded" results our soft-as-a-marshmallow judiciary is handing down lately. To be blunt there are many many judges who shouldn't even be judging a cake contest. They're more concerned with letting people off or giving stupidly lenient sentences for even quite serious and shocking crimes way out of line with public expectations, instead of doing as the public expects, actually put criminals away from the rest of normal society for a good goddamn long time...

DarthHelmet86 wrote:America has nothing to do with this so why bring it up?

because the only news that comes out on YouTube from down under is about buff Kangaroo's called Roger



but looking at the photo, the lack of a penis suggests this roos on 'stroids

johnbrandt wrote:
I really worry about the way our legal system is headed if they honestly listen to and believe complete bullshit like this...you can already imagine the line up of drugged fuckwits caught driving who will now try to employ an "expert" that claims drugs make you drive better, apart from, you know, splattering a 12 year old kid...

Yeah right somebody has to "stand up against the experts".

How is ignoring expert opinion on the effects of a specific concentration of a specific drug on one's ability to drive safely any different from ignoring expert opinion on any other subject?

Oh, that's right, "drugs are bad m'kay?". That clearly justifies a judge ignoring expert advice.

So the other affects of the drug are increase aggression? How was that not used to point out the driver was driving aggressively?

PoDtheElder wrote:Yeah right somebody has to "stand up against the experts".

How is ignoring expert opinion on the effects of a specific concentration of a specific drug on one's ability to drive safely any different from ignoring expert opinion on any other subject?

I would treat expert witness in court rather differently than "experts" if I was being cautious. Especially where they are called by defence/prosecution rather than by an impartial judge and especially if they receive any kind of remuneration for their time or testimony.

History is (sadly) littered with cases such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark .

That said, seeing the particular topic and the particular poster who brought it up I'd be rather sceptical that this case is along those lines. The general question as posed is answerable though.

Meth is a less pure form of the stimulants used to treat adhd. I have had several clients with adhd self medicate with illegal stimulants, and most self medicate with caffeine, energy drinks, and cigarettes. Research is showing that men's driving improves with treatment for adhd, but that doesn't pan out for women. We're not sure why that is though. Stimulants can cause psychosis, usually at higher doses, but at the levels used to treat adhd, they are amongst the safest drugs on the market, far safer than Tylenol or aspirin.