So, the previous government found out with the vexing issue of people driving while under the influence of drugs — and the current government may well run into similar headwinds.
No-one disputes that drug driving is a problem.
A factor in an estimated 30% of New Zealand road deaths is that a driver’s ability behind the wheel was possibly impaired by a drug in their system, and recent coronial reports have detailed some horrific cases of driving while stoned.
Often the driver causes harm only to themselves, but a wider circle of friends and family are left behind to grieve. Sadly, innocent victims are also claimed by drug driving — seldom a week goes by without a court report of a driver appearing for causing death or injury while impaired in their car.
Once upon a time alcohol was the scourge which bedevilled our roads, drink driving being a heavy contributor to the annual road toll.
Roadside breath testing was introduced and that, combined with increased societal awareness of and stigmatisation of drunk driving, helped reduce road deaths.
Alcohol remains an issue, but it is a substance which is easily measurable in people’s systems and such a test is quick and easy.
Drug testing, however, proved much more difficult, as a simple effective testing regime was hard to find.
Despite various governments of all stripes promising over many years to crack down drug driving, the previous Labour government was the first to actually bring a testing system into effect.
However, the 2022 legislation proved problematic as no device existed which could record drug levels accurately enough to meet court evidentiary requirements.
A compromise position, of a later lab test to back up the roadside test result was introduced but the change in government sent drug driving plans back to the driving board.
The government’s new scheme was announced last week by Transport Minister Chris Bishop and Police Minister Mark Mitchell.
Set to be rolled out in Wellington initially before being introduced nationwide, police will be able to stop any vehicle at any time to screen the driver for the presence of drugs.
Should the test detect traces of any of those substances, a second test will be carried out and, if also positive, the driver will be prohibited from driving for 12 hours.
This has potential for some good to come of it but also has numerous pitfalls.
For a start, as various pro-marijuana groups have rightly pointed out, medicinal cannabis would just as equally provide a positive test as illicit cannabis would.
Also, traces of cannabis use stay in the bloodstream for several days, long after the narcotic effect has worn off.
A driver could easily test positive for presence, but that would not necessarily mean that their driving was impaired.
The saliva test is a blunt tool; it will detect traces of a drug but will not demonstrate if a driver is actually impaired.
One of the virtues of the alcohol breath testing system is that it does not penalise the responsible person who has had a single drink or a couple of low-alcohol drinks; this system runs the risk of being regarded as a drug policing measure rather than a drug driving prevention measure.
Limiting testing to four illicit substances may be practical but doing so ignores a range of other illegal drugs, as well as legal prescription or over-the-counter medications which may well also impair driving.
None of these concerns should dissuade this or subsequent governments from attempting to stamp out drug driving.
No-one wants to share the road with a driver staring at butterflies or pink elephants rather than road signs or lane markings. We entirely agree that it is a problem which needs to be addressed.
The issue is to find a way which is capable of delivering reliable results of driver impairment, by any substance.
This is a start, but one which may cause as many problems as it solves.
