Page 447 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
well-tested methods for determining the level of alcohol that is in the bloodstream of drivers. We also have very clear statistics in respect of the way in which different levels of alcohol impact on people’s driving ability. This testing is based on science and has been refined over years of application.
Questions need to be asked when we start looking more broadly at the many different drugs that a person could be using. First of all, we have to decide which drugs we will be testing for. Will it just be black market drugs like heroin, cannabis and methamphetamines—and I realise those are just a few? What about legal benzodiazepine drugs like Rohypnol, Valium, Mogadon and Serepax? Laboratory studies have generally found that benzodiazepines decrease performance in visual and speed perception, information processing, coordination, reaction time, memory and attention.
Then there is the question of how the drug tests correlate with driver impairment. A testing regime should not be introduced if it merely shows the presence of drugs in the body when we lack firm medical evidence that this is an indication of incapacity. For instance, the most widely used illicit drug, cannabis, can be detected for weeks after use although it affects driving capacity for just a few short hours. The President of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Cameron Murphy, has expressed concern about the accuracy of the saliva tests being used in Victoria and has advocated that the New South Wales government delay conducting a trial until the technology is of a standard equivalent to breath testing for alcohol.
To quote from research conducted by the New South Wales Parliamentary Library on the issue of measurement of impairment:
… some drugs, depending on the dosage, may actually improve driving. Prescription drugs can obviously help people with medical conditions to function. Even prohibited drugs like amphetamines can increase energy levels and alertness, but they can also encourage risk-taking behaviour. Similarly, not all people will be equally impaired by the same dose of a drug. Factors affecting impairment include a person’s drug history, their level of tolerance or sensitivity, the dosage of drug, the interval between ingesting the drug and being tested, the combination of drugs in their system, and so on. Furthermore, even if drugs are detected in a person’s system, the source of any driving impairment might be something else, such as fatigue, illness or lack of skill.
If we implement random drug testing, are we implementing a zero tolerance approach? This is quite different to how we deal with drink driving, for instance, for zero tolerance would penalise driving with any amount of a prohibited drug present in the system. Of course, penalties for alcohol are based on the level of alcohol in the system. This is a nuance that is lacking in Mr Pratt’s bill.
When it comes to the penalties, should we take a punitive or a rehabilitative approach? Whether the punitive or the rehabilitative approach has the most impact on drink driving offenders is still a matter of research and debate. And how do we store information about people who test positive? The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties opposed the introduction of random drug testing in New South Wales on the basis that it is an invasion of privacy. The first driver to test positive to drugs in the roadside operation conducted by Victoria Police on 13 December 2004 sought legal advice on suing the police for defamation and breach of privacy after his identity became public. This is just
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .