17.1 C
Byron Shire
June 4, 2023

Lick my (drug-test) stick? No thanks

Latest News

Why are white Australians even being asked to vote on the Voice?

The fast-approaching Voice referendum is a complete clusterf**k for all Australians. It stinks of failure at each and every...

Other News

Call for rails on the steep slope of Tweed rail trail after cyclist’s fall

On Sunday a 75 year-old man fell down the steep side of the Tweed section of the Northern Rivers Rail Trail near Crabbes Creek and breaking his hip. 


Congratulations to Chris Minns for bringing in the new regulations about so-called VIP rooms in clubs and pubs. It’s...

Tweed Council to start nappy rebate scheme but defer Cudgen Creek Masterplan

The last Tweed Shire Council meeting (18 May, 2023) saw the Reusable Nappy Rebate Scheme adopted by councillors, the...

3.8ML earthquake hits Melbourne’s northern suburbs

Residents in Melbourne and the northern suburbs were woken in the middle of the night as a magnitude 3.8 earthquake shook the darkness radiating out from the town of Sunbury, about 41 kilometres north west of the city.

A deer in the headlights

The Tweed Shire, Byron Shire, and Kyogle councils have joined forces to find out just what is happening with feral deer in the region.

Backlash Stan Grant

Extraordinary negative and callous statements regarding Stan Grant in the recent edition’s Backlash section. Grant was a terrible host?...

Hear we go again: ‘Mobile drug testing, there is no escaping it’. But there’s a very large defect in this statement by the NSW Police Force.

When someone wants to buy a product that involves chemicals it is required by law that the product for sale lists what the chemicals are and the safety measures to be taken.

If someone happens to be stopped for a roadside drug test, there is a very sound reason to ask the police officer what are the chemicals that are present on the stick they want you to lick.

When this happened to me I was told it was nothing and to proceed with the testing. This is the defect that exists with the drug testing.

Being chemical sensitive the only option I have is to refuse the test and put my case before the court.

I have this information from the ombudsman as I inquired about the chemicals involved in the drug test and as it stands by law I am breaking The Law if I refuse the drug test.

From my own research, the chemicals impregnated on the drug test stick are not suitable for human consumption and there are no indications from the police or the testing device what the chemicals are, that they want me to ingest.

If I am stopped again for the drug test I will be facing court to put my case. It is very reasonable to expect a full disclosure from the police of the chemicals involved in the test, that they want me to ingest.

They are classifying me as a law breaker if I say no to the test.

Something is wrong with the drug testing laws. Say no to the test and ask the court for a full disclosure of the chemicals involved in the drug test.

Then time is needed to research the implications of the effect of the chemicals on a human being.

Robert Podhajsky, Ocean Shores

Support The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.


  1. Spot on, Robert. I have been wondering how to handle being tested if it ever comes up (I’m less likely to be stopped randomly as I am old and drive a new car). I have had tongue cancer in the past and the thought of licking some filthy chemical in order to prove I don’t take drugs is a worry. I hope I will have the courage to refuse!

  2. As a cyclist and motorist who needs to share the road with people who might have taken drugs that impair driving, can I suggest that if you do not wish the take the test than do not drive a car.

  3. There are no “chemicals” on the swab – the brew in the test tube however is ‘commercial-in-confidence’ and we all know what a wonderful catch-all get out that is for bureaucracy.

  4. yeah yes its wrong that the australian laws on drug driving issues n also drink driving hve you to pull up..while not driving incorrectly n interupting your travel to .put your health at risk while .yes licking ..injesting a chemical supstance into your body thru tounge..what chemicals n rights do govermnt hve ..to put health off road uses at risk n ..harm of chemicals ..we are ..intoduced to.its a good question .what are we actually given..drugs to invest in more randome rd side ..revenue…be good question even for .sme drug users ..are we ..actually over the limits bfre road side testings .or they atributing to it..make revenue…tell me that n answer that ..question..as do we really trust govermnt .when put at risk off .chemical ..lick stickng ..as it be nice to be warned or told what we are ..intoduced to chemically when fronted with road side testing while driving..what chemicals are used..please let me [email protected] cheers


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


Congratulations to Chris Minns for bringing in the new regulations about so-called VIP rooms in clubs and pubs. It’s only a small step in...

To Mandy 

I love reading Mandy’s Soapbox, she reflects what I’m thinking, and many like me. In the 17 May column titled ‘A crown is just a...

Getting Real About The Voice

Responding to Ian Pratt in an attempt to ‘get real about the Voice’. The proposal does not challenge the historical fact of conquest i.e....

Police compassion

Mandy, you said (Echo, 17 May)]: ‘There’s not many 95-year-olds I wouldn’t be able to overpower if necessary’ and ‘to disarm a 95-year-old with...