A look at drug testing on our roads

www.inthemix.com.au

About the Author

www.inthemix.com.au

NCYLC

  • 6
  • 1
  • 1412

According to Professor Olaf Drummer of Monash University, there has been an increase in illicit drugs detected in dead drivers. His 1990-1999 study found that 8% of fatal crashes were a result of the driver having drugs in their system; in 2000-2001 that figure was approximately 16%. This provides support for the view that the dangers of drug driving are not being sufficiently addressed.

The Commonwealth Government’s National Road Safety Strategy (NRSS) for 2000-2010 aims to “reduce road fatalities by 40%”. The NRSS is currently focusing on alcohol and drug driving as a way to reach this target. Random Drug testing (RDT) was first introduced in Victoria with trials carried out in 2003. RDT was legalised on the 1st of July 2006 in Victoria. It gave the police powers to randomly check drivers via a saliva test which can detect THC (cannabis), methyl amphetamine (ice) and MDMA (ecstasy). All states except the ACT have now legalised Random Drug testing in their road and traffic legislation.

Drug testing is still in its early stages of development as there is not yet a consensus among scientists as to the full effects of each drug on driving and the concentration of that drug that affects driving. In Melbourne, Swinburne University conducted a study where volunteers smoked a joint then got behind the wheel of a simulated vehicle to record the impact of different concentrations of cannabis. The aim of this study was to establish a standardised measure much like the Blood Alcohol Content reading of 0.05 for this specific drug.

As studies like this one are still in infancy, current law provides that a driver may face two charges: driving with the presence of any amount of drugs in their system as well as driving under the influence of drugs. What does it mean to be charged with driving with drugs in your system as opposed to driving under the influence of drugs? Driving with drugs in your system means that drugs are present in your system. This does not necessarily mean that the drugs are affecting your driving abilities.

On the other hand driving under the influence of drugs is a more serious crime where it is clear that drugs in your system are impacting on your driving abilities. Police differentiate between the two using visual cues that you’re driving under the influence. In Victoria if you are convicted of having drugs in your system the penalty is a $330 fine and 10 demerit points. On the other hand if you are convicted of driving under the influence of drugs the penalty is approximately $1320 and 12 months loss of license.

Drug driving is a difficult issue to address as illicit drugs are not created in a standardised, regulated way. This means that the concentration within each substance differs from one to another. The saliva tests can detect drugs in someone’s system hours, days or even a week later. This raises the risk to any driver when taking an illicit drug or a mixture of drugs, both the risk of being charged with a criminal offence and the unknown risk on driving skills. It may be dangerous not only to the drivers themselves but to passengers and other road users. Drivers that take drugs should be aware that the governments have displayed a serious attitude to this matter and are determined to prosecute.

Social

  • DJ Voucher

Comments

www.inthemix.com.au arrow left
Comment Added
ellaplane

ellaplane said on the 17th Mar, 2010

How does it stand up in court? if I have it in my system 3 or 4 days later? I guess there is not much, if any, precedent in Australia. How about overseas? I do worry about this one.

cstead

cstead said on the 17th Mar, 2010

This should not be in effect. How stupid is it that you might get done for drug driving a week after having a joint. PLEASE! And how do they differentiate between you smoking, and you being in a room of smokers and passively taking it in. Furthermore, th

Euphorian

Euphorian said on the 17th Mar, 2010

According to a friend of mine who is a cop. NONE of it holds up in court, within Perth. Also what about people with ADD? Time to carry some cold and flue tablets, that contain pseudoephedrine, in your glove box. "sorry officer i got the flue and took s

bat_country

bat_country said on the 18th Mar, 2010

random testing is intrusive and violates personal liberty. bring back old fashioned sobriety tests. they were non-intrusive, and are by far the most reliable way to test a persons actual impairment.

renaejf

renaejf said on the 18th Mar, 2010

I have spoken with a criminal lawyer this morning who researched this and the Prosecution will still have to prove that you are under the influence, NOT just have some in your system from a while ago. For example, under teh Roche Diagnostics Chart, Ecsta

ellaplane

ellaplane said on the 18th Mar, 2010

"Drivers that take drugs should be aware that the governments have displayed a serious attitude to this matter and are determined to prosecute." - there's an election approaching - easy win. But actually, it's a relatively important issue and I expect t