Drug-driving law set to be introduced

[davieG]

BBC

Drug-driving in England and Wales could become a specific offence, with a potential jail term and fine, under a new law expected in the Queen's Speech.

Under the plans, it will automatically be an offence to drive with certain controlled drugs in your body in excess of specified limits.

Currently police have to show that driving had been impaired by drugs in order to prosecute.

Ministers had asked experts to consider the scientific case for a new offence.

The panel was looking at the effect of individual drugs, such as cocaine and cannabis on driving.

The government believes the law change will make it easier to prosecute.

The proposed law is to be included in the Crime, Communications and Court Bill.

'Deadly menace'

Offenders could face a jail term and fine of up to £5,000 as well as an automatic driving ban of at least 12 months.

Police will carry a hand-held drug detection devices, which will take a saliva sample, as well as a breathalyser to test erratic drivers.

The Home Office is expected to approve the devices by the end of this year.

Road Safety Minister Mike Penning said: "Drug-drivers are a deadly menace - they must be stopped and that is exactly what I intend to do.

"The new offence sends out a clear message that if you drive whilst under the influence of drugs you will not get away with it.

"This measure will help to rid our roads of the irresponsible minority who would risk the lives of innocent motorists and pedestrians."

The exact drugs covered by the offence and the specified limits for each will be decided following advice from the expert panel and public consultation.

'Drugalysers' rolled out

Prime Minister David Cameron said: "We want to do for drug-driving what drink-driving laws have done for driving under the influence of alcohol.

"That's why we're doing what we can to get drugalysers rolled out more quickly."

Last year the prime minister met the family of 14-year-old Lillian Groves, from Croydon, south London, who was run over outside her home by a driver who admitted taking drugs before the accident.

"As they said at the time, it simply can't be right that a schoolgirl like Lillian can lose her life and then we discover we don't have the laws or the technology to punish drug-drivers properly," he said on Monday.

"Lillian Groves's family should be congratulated for their brave campaign. I hope now that something good can come out of their tragic loss."

[SOCCERROO FOX]

We've had these laws for ages, i've had a roadside drub test once. Just a quick swab in the mouth and they stick it in a machine.

[ozleicester]

We've had these laws for ages, i've had a roadside drub test once. Just a quick swab in the mouth and they stick it in a machine.

That wasnt a drug test...but i must say i did enjoy it

[The Year Of The Fox]

They need to come up with details on how long which substance stays in the body for. I thought cannabis was weeks

[Zingari]

A few years ago I saw a bloke on telly that had come up with this brilliant idea of a mobile reaction tester cum simulator device for checking drivers.

Basically his idea was to do away with the drink, drugs or just old age incompetence roadside tests etc and just to check that person’s ability to respond.

If it was obvious that a person had been drinking the police would still have the breathalyser.

I think he said everyone should be checked yearly to make sure they were up to speed with their reaction time, and then police given authority to check drivers at the roadside.

If they failed this test they were then tested for drugs or drink etc.

I don’t know if this idea was ever followed up to any degree .

[pSinatra]

You're right Stu. Cannabis stays in the system for many weeks, but cocaine is just a few days.

I can't help thinking that this is tokenism.....pandering to the high levels of prejudice & misinformation (but that is another argument - one that has been had many times on here). They want to appear to be 'tough on drugs' because they know it will please the large masses - who see anyone who has taken anything more than an aspirin as a toothless junkie. If they are as tough on driving under the influence of drugs as they are on mobile phone users.......I see there being little difference.

The case of Lillian Groves is sad & unfortunate, but it is only one example of someone dying due to the negligence of a motorist. How many accidents have been caused by people on their mobile phone, changing a CD on their stereo, looking for their cigarette lighter, tucking into a Big Mac, checking out the tight ass on that decent bird, etc, etc. Are they going to ban music in your car, smoking in your car, eating in your car, perving at young women in your car???

I have driven under the influence of drugs (Cannabis).......many, many times. I may not have been 100%, but I was certainly paying more attention to my surroundings than someone updating their Facebook profile whilst driving.

Ban everything!!!

[pSinatra]

A few years ago I saw a bloke on telly that had come up with this brilliant idea of a mobile reaction tester cum simulator device for checking drivers.

Basically his idea was to do away with the drink, drugs or just old age incompetence roadside tests etc and just to check that person’s ability to respond.

If it was obvious that a person had been drinking the police would still have the breathalyser.

I think he said everyone should be checked yearly to make sure they were up to speed with their reaction time, and then police given authority to check drivers at the roadside.

If they failed this test they were then tested for drugs or drink etc.

I don’t know if this idea was ever followed up to any degree .

Great idea. I'm not claiming to be the world's greatest driver, but there are simply too many people who should not be on the roads.........for various reasons.

[sphericalfox]

An unenforceable law, made impossible by the varied lengths of time illicit drugs or otherwise stay in the human body.

What if you have been on a course of amphetamine based drugs for a week or so by prescription? Two weeks later having not swallowed a horse pill you are pulled over for a standard random test by Mr. Policeman. I don't know what the duration for phets are in the body's system, but I'd be very wary of the variety of indiscretion that will be taking place should this become fully fledged in law.

I think there are plenty of idiots out there who do drive after a night out mashing pills down their drug holes, and plenty of those who think it's alreet to go driving after chongin a fatty. These people are irresponsible and dangerous, and should be rightly punished for driving a vehicle with sensory inhibiting substances in their system. But if there is no true proof, and no indication of erratic driving, and a positive test which in court is simply black and white guilty, then there's going to be much higher number of false prosecutions and unnecessary criminal convictions.

Cameron is doing the normal government bandwagon jumping to enhance is waning reputation. If he thinks this can win him some favour he'll give his backing to anything, which will no doubt get worse come the general election.

This clearly hasn't been thought through, and the accuracy of roadside tests for drugs is not the same as drink.

It is noted that a fair percentage of those who are caught drink driving, have had some drugs in their system too. They only get prosecuted for the drink. I'm all for the inclusion of the punishment to include the drugs too, but using a method that is fair and not interpretive.

[ozleicester]

What amazes me is that the generations that are now in power those in the 40+ age bracket, were all doing drugs in their yoof... so why are we still cracking down on the irrelevant drugs eg "pot"

[pSinatra]

What amazes me is that the generations that are now in power those in the 40+ age bracket, were all doing drugs in their yoof... so why are we still cracking down on the irrelevant drugs eg "pot"

Can you imagine some of the frightfully, jolly capers this lot got up to?

[ozleicester]

Can you imagine some of the frightfully, jolly capers this lot got up to?

Oh cmon.. you HAVE to be completely wasted to dress up like that... dont you?

[sphericalfox]

Jessop, jessop, jessop

[Rincewind]

Like others have said this seems to be a way of Cameron trying to gain brownie points from Joe Public. Some of the Sun and Mail readers may take it in but maybe not as many as they hoped.

There are many things that causes accidents and the biggest cause is not paying attention. How many people actually drug-drive? I think the number is very small compared to mobile-sandwich-bottle water-driving. Even messing about with a radio or CD player is more common. Then there is reaching into a glove compartment for a cloth to wipe a misted up window in order to see whilst traveling 60-70 mph (if they should be doing that speed is another matter)

There are pills and drugs that are not classed as illegal that could make a difference to driving. Even aspirin or painkillers which would make you sleepy. Would these show up on tests? Can they distinguish between illegal and legal drugs?

If you have been on the sick for instance and on a course of tablets would they show if stopped on your first time back in your car? Not good if your job involves driving and you have not used a car because of the pills whilst being on the sick.

The reaction test is a good idea although I would probably fail which is why I am reluctant to learn to drive.

[Vacamion]

I have driven under the influence of drugs (Cannabis).......many, many times. I may not have been 100%, but I was certainly paying more attention to my surroundings than someone updating their Facebook profile whilst driving.

At 17 mph???

[Captain...]

The first thing I thought is about legal drugs, quite a lot of prescription drugs advise you not to drive after taking them, if you do can you be prosecuted under this law?

In my opinion they only thing that matters is that when you drive you are in a fit enough state to drive safely, regardless of whether your activities are legal or illegal, in some cases, for example if you are tired, a stimulant could improve your driving capabilities (I'm thinking more caffeine than speed). Likewise a pint may relax a highly strung person and make them drive better, obviously being smashed off your tits you should't drive, but all of this action is retroactive, if there was a way of stopping people driving in this state rather than punishing them afterwards then it would be preferable. All this talk of scanners and inbuilt breathalysers could work, but actually if there was decent public transport, during thre day and late at night, or taxis were of a reasonable price then people would be much less inclined to use their cars.

[pSinatra]

At 17 mph???

I was taking in the scenery & enjoying the magnificent colours

[dave the caveman]

Surely the 2nd paragraph, if any of you are sober enough to get that far, deals with most of the concerns in here.

I don't understand the cynical reaction. This is not cracking down on drugs any more than drink driving laws are cracking down on alcohol. It's about safety on the road. People who have taken recreational drugs and then drive are posing a risk to others and there is no reason why that should be tolerated.

[sphericalfox]

Surely the 2nd paragraph, if any of you are sober enough to get that far, deals with most of the concerns in here.

I don't understand the cynical reaction. This is not cracking down on drugs any more than drink driving laws are cracking down on alcohol. It's about safety on the road. People who have taken recreational drugs and then drive are posing a risk to others and there is no reason why that should be tolerated.

Where's the cynicism?

[Webbo]

I have driven under the influence of drugs (Cannabis).......many, many times. I may not have been 100%, but I was certainly paying more attention to my surroundings than someone updating their Facebook profile whilst driving.

Every drink driver uses the same argument to justify their actions too but it's irrelevant anyway because driving whilst updating your facebook is also illegal.

[dave the caveman]

Where's the cynicism?

In the posts claiming this is just political pandering, or that it is part of a wider crack down on drugs, neither of which it is

[Rincewind]

I don't think anyone is saying that it should not be taken seriously, just that it is not the major cause of accidents. If some-one is stopped and found to have drugs in their car then by all means test them as they do if drink is smelt on breath or clothes. But it has to be accurate and provable that the drug had been taken in the previous 24 hours or so and that it has affected the driving ability. A lot of people will say 'Oh yeah, disgusting habit, ought to hang em.' etc without knowing the full facts.

I don't know the percentage of drug related accidents but I would say it is very small in relation to eating, diverting eyes from road for a second or two, mobile phone use etc. Some of these would not be easy to attribute to an accident. You cannot do a test for CD changing but you can for drink and drugs which will make the figures look better and whichever government is in power will take credit for implementing the laws.

[Trav Le Bleu]

In some ways, a person who is not "under the influence" who causes a bad accident is surely MORE culpable, since they don't have any ulterior excuse - they're just plain and simple bad drivers and as such should be banned from driving until they can prove otherwise.

I'm not condoning driving under the influence by the way. People don't take moving a ton of metal at 30+ mph seriously enough.

[Webbo]

In some ways, a person who is not "under the influence" who causes a bad accident is surely MORE culpable, since they don't have any ulterior excuse - they're just plain and simple bad drivers and as such should be banned from driving until they can prove otherwise.

I'm not condoning driving under the influence by the way. People don't take moving a ton of metal at 30+ mph seriously enough.

But they are culpable for being under the influence.

[Trav Le Bleu]

But they are culpable for being under the influence.

Yes, but imagine how bad these drivers would be if they were ALSO under the influence!

[dave the caveman]

I dread going out in my car on a Sunday because the standard of driving is just appalling. The amount of people (usually women and old people) who don't understand how lanes work on roundabouts is frightening. I'm in favour of regular testing (for women and old people), say every ten years. I wouldn't want to pay for it though, so I guess it's not going to happen.