poledriver
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 11,543
Roadside drug testing shouldn't ignore the commonly used drugs that impair driving: prescription medication
Having a motor vehicle licence isn't a right, it's a privilege. If you drive under the influence of alcohol then you lose the privilege of having a driver's licence.
There is nothing special about alcohol. If you drive a motor vehicle when you are under the influence of any drug that is impairing your driving you should also lose the privilege of having a driver's licence.
That proposition seems simple enough. It's one that pretty much everyone agrees with. It promotes driver safety and protects everyone from harm. It makes us all responsible for our actions.
But NSW Police are spending millions of dollars and countless hours of scarce police time setting up roadside drug testing that isn't even checking for some of the most commonly used drugs that impair driving, like painkillers and anti-depressants. They only look for three illegal drugs, testing for trace elements of those drugs at levels that have no connection at all to impaired driving.
NSW Police are spending more than $6 million on roadside saliva drug testing kits that they plan to use 100,000 times a year and they are only testing for the presence of ecstasy (MDMA), cannabis and amphetamines.
They just send samples off to laboratories that are looking for the smallest detectable trace element of the drugs and then using a positive result to take licences away for up to a year. Case after case is being brought before the courts with people saying they smoked a joint a day or two before getting behind the wheel but were still found positive by the police. Magistrates are then forced to disqualify these drivers and impose fines of up to $1100 dollars without any evidence the driver was impaired.
Meanwhile, police at roadside tests are routinely waving through drivers who are highly medicated on prescription drugs that they don't even bother to check for. Some of these drivers will be on doses of drugs that are severely impairing their driving ability. In short, what we have in NSW is an evidence-free mess.
There is a straightforward solution to this. It's called evidence-based policing. In March 2013 the British government was handed the Wolff Report on Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. This was the report of an expert panel that looked at drug driving to establish world's best practice tests for drug impaired driving.
The Wolff Report found that cannabis impairs driving at a blood concentration level of 5 micrograms per litre. Because cannabis and alcohol interact to increase impairment they also found that when both drugs are present the safe level of cannabis reduces to 3 micrograms per litre. The safe level of alcohol also reduces when in combination with cannabis from a blood alcohol level of 0.05 to 0.02.
The Wolff report found that benzodiazepines, such as diazepam (valium), are the most common medicines detected in drivers involved in motor accidents and, where the driver died in the accident, the second most commonly detected drug after alcohol. The report set a threshold level for impairment from diazepam at 550 micrograms per litre. This was halved when alcohol was present, and they again recommended the blood alcohol limit be reduced to 0.02 when any benzodiazepine was also present.
The report went through this same process for pretty much every commonly known drug from ecstasy to heroin, amphetamines to morphine. It used peer-reviewed scientific papers and epidemiological studies to set rational limits for the presence of drugs that directly relate to driver impairment. It applied evidence and rational thought to a difficult social problem and in doing so it came up with a sensible solution that squarely addressed driver safety.
Of course this is the exact opposite of what we have in NSW where ideology and a failed "zero tolerance" approach to a handful of illegal drugs is seriously skewing the police effort.
What we should be doing is testing drivers for drugs, all drugs, and testing for impairment. In a break from most law and order responses in this state we could also try using actual evidence in setting our laws. We know from the Wolff report what levels of drugs impair drivers and the law should reflect this. Policing and road safety deserve intellectual rigour because, at the end of the day, people's lives are at stake.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/roads...medication-20151019-gkcfex.html#ixzz3pL6lh4Wj
Having a motor vehicle licence isn't a right, it's a privilege. If you drive under the influence of alcohol then you lose the privilege of having a driver's licence.
There is nothing special about alcohol. If you drive a motor vehicle when you are under the influence of any drug that is impairing your driving you should also lose the privilege of having a driver's licence.
That proposition seems simple enough. It's one that pretty much everyone agrees with. It promotes driver safety and protects everyone from harm. It makes us all responsible for our actions.
But NSW Police are spending millions of dollars and countless hours of scarce police time setting up roadside drug testing that isn't even checking for some of the most commonly used drugs that impair driving, like painkillers and anti-depressants. They only look for three illegal drugs, testing for trace elements of those drugs at levels that have no connection at all to impaired driving.
NSW Police are spending more than $6 million on roadside saliva drug testing kits that they plan to use 100,000 times a year and they are only testing for the presence of ecstasy (MDMA), cannabis and amphetamines.
They just send samples off to laboratories that are looking for the smallest detectable trace element of the drugs and then using a positive result to take licences away for up to a year. Case after case is being brought before the courts with people saying they smoked a joint a day or two before getting behind the wheel but were still found positive by the police. Magistrates are then forced to disqualify these drivers and impose fines of up to $1100 dollars without any evidence the driver was impaired.
Meanwhile, police at roadside tests are routinely waving through drivers who are highly medicated on prescription drugs that they don't even bother to check for. Some of these drivers will be on doses of drugs that are severely impairing their driving ability. In short, what we have in NSW is an evidence-free mess.
There is a straightforward solution to this. It's called evidence-based policing. In March 2013 the British government was handed the Wolff Report on Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. This was the report of an expert panel that looked at drug driving to establish world's best practice tests for drug impaired driving.
The Wolff Report found that cannabis impairs driving at a blood concentration level of 5 micrograms per litre. Because cannabis and alcohol interact to increase impairment they also found that when both drugs are present the safe level of cannabis reduces to 3 micrograms per litre. The safe level of alcohol also reduces when in combination with cannabis from a blood alcohol level of 0.05 to 0.02.
The Wolff report found that benzodiazepines, such as diazepam (valium), are the most common medicines detected in drivers involved in motor accidents and, where the driver died in the accident, the second most commonly detected drug after alcohol. The report set a threshold level for impairment from diazepam at 550 micrograms per litre. This was halved when alcohol was present, and they again recommended the blood alcohol limit be reduced to 0.02 when any benzodiazepine was also present.
The report went through this same process for pretty much every commonly known drug from ecstasy to heroin, amphetamines to morphine. It used peer-reviewed scientific papers and epidemiological studies to set rational limits for the presence of drugs that directly relate to driver impairment. It applied evidence and rational thought to a difficult social problem and in doing so it came up with a sensible solution that squarely addressed driver safety.
Of course this is the exact opposite of what we have in NSW where ideology and a failed "zero tolerance" approach to a handful of illegal drugs is seriously skewing the police effort.
What we should be doing is testing drivers for drugs, all drugs, and testing for impairment. In a break from most law and order responses in this state we could also try using actual evidence in setting our laws. We know from the Wolff report what levels of drugs impair drivers and the law should reflect this. Policing and road safety deserve intellectual rigour because, at the end of the day, people's lives are at stake.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/roads...medication-20151019-gkcfex.html#ixzz3pL6lh4Wj
