Drug driving law welcomed
Candor Trust

All parties voting in support of the Land Transport Amendment Bill number 4 are to be commended for their thoughtful contributions to polishing a law capable of saving a dozen or so lives, if well resourced.

Labour made significant and highly useful amendments which enable testing of drink drivers suspected to have multiple impairment, and in some cases of injured drivers blood in the absence of a prior field test. The Maori party is to be congratulated for firm adherence to the parties founding principles, perhaps even against popular opinion.

The Greens must also be credited for fighting a last minute battle to ensure the bill was strengthened by inclusion of sedative prescription drugs, drugs of major concern perall evidence that tricky wording and fancy footwork cross references to 2 other Acts made a concealed exemption for. Fitzsimmons comments regarding the educational milieu were bold and enlightened and should prompt debate.

Candor notes that Canadian drug drive law incentivises drug free driving, by having simultaneously altered their personal possession law for drivers so that small quantities of Class C drugs may be transported to a final destination, not inhaled before driving as a means to evade search losses.

But sometimes too many cooks can spoil the broth. While the new law is fundamentally sound, bar a few teething problems that can be predicted to later result in tweaking, it stops well short of having the strong deterrent effect and impact on injuries that a parallel random drug testing program could have produced.

Random testing could be expected to save 60 lives - a far more humane target than 12. Excuses given for the bills gappy teeth, part of an apparent major party accord in order to avoid upsetting cannabino-philic voters, stretch credibility and wouldn't wash in Nations more issue savvy.

Stalling tactic one was a cited desire for more in depth research. No more studies are needed to clarify whether or not the risk is a major toll factor needing a sledgehammer more than a "blunt hammer" as the bill was described by the Greens.

Stalling tactic two. There is no need to wait for better screening or evidential technology for road side drugalyser tests. They have long been used in Germany, Australia and some States of the USA to excellent effect.
The claim was made that a roadside test of evidential quality is needed.

Well best we discard breathalysers then as these are not considered such under the US constitution, and only find compatibility with our BORA due to suspects having the right to a blood test that they can waive.

Stalling tactic three. There is no need to review the wisdom of random drug tests as part of the Misuse of Drugs Act review. We are already a decade behind other countries in addressing this road safety threat. The way to do this is through transport safety laws like the one just passed. The majority of foreign such laws have no linkage to their drug control act. It is to address classifications based upon harm.

The evidence is already clear about what the main traffic risk drugs are, there are only 4 classes worthy of targeting, and they do not "evolve" much as an MP stated they may - all being classic hits. The Politicians were not a great credit to their confused Advisors in showing considerable confusion themselves over this. They clearly lacked expert advice.

They had spoken to medical experts according to Mr Joyce, when they ought to have consulted specialist traffic scientists and toxicologists, who are the only reliable sources. And more closely read submissions. This low grade advice from the sector most likely to be romanced by Pharmaceutical companies is reported to have resulted in sedatives like valium being excluded. If this isn't changed by Joyce as mooted NZ's drug driving law will be a laughing stock.

The "hold up" excuse of awaiting the Misuse of Drugs Act review is a sinister nonsense. Whatever would we think if drink drive laws were suddenly put on hold or into holiday mode, because some misguided soul thought the Sale of Liquor Act and alcohol policy review was the right place to mull them over.

It would not be OK, and it especially is not OK to move forward on the drug drive issue in low gear pending findings of the MDA review when this is a few years out. This constitutes double jeopardy. and it is really cruel if victims and other submitters are to be required to present evidence again. Knowing as we all do that every day more innocent and other victims are being grievously hurt than need be.

ENDS

© Scoop Media