Safe Speed Forums

Motorists who take drugs face 'zero-tolerance' policy

By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent
Published: 07 October 2006

A policy of "zero-tolerance" towards motorists who take drugs and drive is being considered by the Home Office.

Drivers caught with traces of drugs in their bodies, even if their driving is unaffected by the illegal substances, would be punished, under the tough proposals by police chiefs.

The controversial plans could mean that motorists who had taken drugs several days before they were tested will be penalised because many illegal substances, such as cannabis, remain in the blood stream for weeks. A recent survey revealed that one in seven motorists admits driving under the influence of illegal drugs. A quarter of drug users said they had driven after taking cannabis and 10 per cent after cocaine or ecstasy.

The Department for Transport has also found that almost a fifth of those killed on the roads in 2004 were driving with drugs in their system, compared with 3 per cent in 1989.

Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers' on roads policing, said: "My start point is to say if you take drugs you can't drive a car. If you want to take illegal drugs, catch a bus."

The Acpo proposals are being discussed by the Home Office-led drink and drug driving working group, which includes representatives from the Department for Transport, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

At present, it is difficult to convict motorists of drug-driving because the police need evidence not just that the driver has taken drugs but that his or her driving has been impaired as a result. Officers have to use unreliable "field impairment tests", which assess mental and physical co-ordination, to decide whether a motorist is under the influence of drugs, before blood tests.

Mr Hughes said: "I want to remove the impairment element of the existing law so it becomes an offence to drive a motor vehicle on the road while under the influence of an illegal drug. It is a substantial change. It lays down a marker, saying if you take drugs you can't drive a car. That is my start point.

"We need to look at the retention levels of the drug in the body and a scale of penalties for different drugs. The use of a motor vehicle on a road is a privilege, not an absolute right. With illegal drugs, it is almost impossible to always identify the true scale of how drugs impair driving.

At present, it is difficult to convict motorists of drug-driving because the police need evidence not just that the driver has taken drugs but that his or her driving has been impaired as a result. Officers have to use unreliable "field impairment tests", which assess mental and physical co-ordination, to decide whether a motorist is under the influence of drugs, before blood tests.

Mr Hughes said: "I want to remove the impairment element of the existing law so it becomes an offence to drive a motor vehicle on the road while under the influence of an illegal drug. It is a substantial change. It lays down a marker, saying if you take drugs you can't drive a car. That is my start point.

"We need to look at the retention levels of the drug in the body and a scale of penalties for different drugs. The use of a motor vehicle on a road is a privilege, not an absolute right. With illegal drugs, it is almost impossible to always identify the true scale of how drugs impair driving.

So if you lived in a shared house with a cannabis smoker, say, you'd probably have passively inhaled a fair bit, and therefore get a trace reading, so would you get punished?

This aspect worries me (although not personally ) - I can see people inhaling "passively" at parties etc as well. I suspect this is all much more dangerous than it sounds at first take.

Or if you attend a rock concert...

And of course this underlines the absurdity of the "any alcohol at all should be illegal" advocates.

Why on earth should it be illegal to drive with a concentration of any substance in your system unless it can be objectively shown that that concentration is significantly dangerous?

Whether it is illegal or not is irrelevant.

As you ask( and mention me in your answer) - my view also includes any substance legal or illegal which can prevent someone safely doing their job --whether driving or not.My life or yours might depend on it.

OK, let's look at cannabis. That can show up in the metabolism up to 14 days after consuming it. However, there is plenty of evidence it does not impair mental or physical ability beyond maybe six hours after consumption.

Yes, it is illegal, but it is very widely used.

Would you really want to ban people from driving for consuming cannabis a week earlier?

As i said -Peter - your choice - you have a joint /good drink and drive - etc --my choice as i said is no( i respect your opinion - please just respect mine) . I never have and never will touch drugs - i have seen the effects of just a small amount of alcohol the next day - the bloke was lucky he did not have to ask himself if he was 100% sober - etc etc - and it hit me hard.

So you would be happy to regard it as unlawful if someone drove after smoking cannabis 7 days before?

Yes or No?

="PeterE"]


OK, let's look at cannabis. That can show up in the metabolism up to 14 days after consuming it.

And if showing up it could (YES OR NO) constitute a danger to other road users.

If it showed up in a blood sample (and it could in a regular user ,as traces of drugs can be detected weeks after use) ----

two choices for CPS - use of cannabis or driving under influence.

I actually read Botach's reply as a shorthand version of

IF (test) shows level that constituted a danger then
YES
Else
NO
Endif