Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Drug-driving test kits get green light



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 September 2007
ROADSIDE tests for drug-driving are to be given the go-ahead in a bid to crack down on reckless motorists who go on the roads having taken illegal substances.
Ministers will confirm later this month that new roadside kits capable of spotting traces of drugs will be used across the country. It follows shocking figures which found that almost 20% of drivers involved in fatal accidents had traces of drugs in their system.

Police in Australia are already using the kits - known as 'drugalysers' - which test a motorist's saliva. Police here would be able to charge guilty motorists under drink-driving laws, if the test was brought in.

The Home Office will publish guidance in the next two weeks setting out strict standards for the kits. Scottish ministers have now made it clear that, once they are available, they hope to roll them out across Scotland.

The move follows a campaign by the Conservative Party north and south of the Border to make drug-driving as socially unacceptable as drink-driving.

Surveys have shown that as many as one in five youngsters take to the wheel having taken drugs. However, punishing somebody for the offence has so far proven near impossible because of the lack of reliable tests. Police have been forced to rely on 'common-sense tests' such as asking motorists to walk in a straight line.

Consequently, it emerged last year that 1,705 drivers had escaped prosecution for drink or drug-driving over the past four years because of insufficient and unreliable evidence. It is hoped the new kits will be able to prove quickly and conclusively whether drugs have been taken.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill confirmed his wish to press ahead with the kits in a letter sent last week to Scots Tory MSP Bill Aitken.

In the letter he wrote: "We have now been advised by the Home Office that they hope to publish a guide which will set down a tight and exacting specification for the types of devices that would meet... approval. I have asked my officials to make clear to the Home Office our wish for the approval process to be completed as swiftly as possible."

Officials in Scotland have contacted the Home Office to urge them to roll out their guidance as soon as possible, to enable the kits to be used.

Aitken said: "We know that 7% of young people admit driving under the influence of illegal drugs and that one in three has been a passenger in a car driven by a driver on drink or drugs. At long last we are making progress. In January, Vernon Coaker MP said guidance was to be unveiled shortly, and nine months later it finally looks like arriving. I would urge both our Governments to ensure the implementation of this scheme is a priority."

Chief Constable John Vine of Tayside Police, who has complained previously that a lack of reliable testing equipment has hampered his force's work, said: "More accurate testing technology or processes for motorists stopped for drink or drug-driving will enable us to reduce deaths and injury on our roads and make Scotland safer."

A spokesman for the RAC foundation said: "This is good news because the problem at the moment is that if the police suspect someone of drug-driving the procedures are too cumbersome. This will hopefully act as a deterrent."

The full article contains 572 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 September 2007 10:02 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Motoring issues
 
1

Charles1234,

09/09/2007 01:06:00

Heartily disapprove. A bad picture, Mr MacAskill.

2

Sr Sanchez,

la costa brava. 09/09/2007 02:45:55

I feel safe now.

3

Guga II,

Rockall 09/09/2007 03:35:36

I just fell off my chair! AM Squared has actually approved of an action by an SNP member of the Scottish government! This is definitely one for the record books. Hope you've got this duly noted down in your extensive filing system AM Squared.

Here's another one for the record books. I actually agree with a comment by AM Squared.

Apart from that, it is not before time that some action was taken in this area; especially when, according to some figures, the incidence of driving under the influence of drugs is more like 40% in some of the bigger towns and cities.

4

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 09/09/2007 06:39:10

Good move!!! But it still doesn't address the issue that 6 out of 7 (85%) of fatal accidents are caused by people who have not been drinking or taking drugs!!!!

If you had a problem in your business or your family would you really focus all your energies on fixing 15% of it?

5

Biker,

Ayr 09/09/2007 06:42:14

Yep, agree with all the post above. Its about time this behaviour was addressed.

6

an interested party,

09/09/2007 06:53:59

yup now it can be measured it is the new scourge of society.

i wonder what the impairment level is?
trace amounts or realistic levels.

sorry M'lud i sat in a room next to someone smoking a joint 3 days ago...

7

Boy Wonder,

09/09/2007 06:56:13

What I'd like to know is, if these "drugs" that drivers have allegedly taken are always of the illegal variety?

The advice you often get with painkillers or medicine is "don't drive" ... but how many do without thinking about it. Should you drive after taking aspirin for instance. How long will it remain in your system?

I'm concerned that drivers are going to be classified as criminals for taking nothing more than a headache pill or antacid.

Maybe it's because I refuse to believe one in three people are junkies of some description. Surely the perceived problem of illegal drugs isn't that widespread?

If we are condemning a third of Scots as drug addicts ... where's the proof! What drugs are we talking about here. Clarification before vilification please!

8

Bill C,

09/09/2007 07:48:20

#8 You are absolutely right. There have been crashes caused because of prescribed drugs or over the counter flu remedies. So it is correct to point out that this is not all about "junkies" or recreational drugs.
Equally, it is important that NOT taking correct medication can have an effect on driving .....diabetes sufferers for example. It is a far more complex subject than just political posturing by either the politicians or senior police officers.

9

Conan,

Here 09/09/2007 07:57:56

A good start - but it would be more useful if the kit included a humane cattle killer so that these idiots can be disposed of permanently after they fail the test.

10

Douglas,

Bathgate 09/09/2007 08:12:34

Boy Wonder, when did you become a social worker?
Information on medication leaflets (that I've seen) generally state IF AFFECTED don't drive. You seem to be arguing for the sake of argument. Unless you live on top of a pole you must have seen the evidence for yourself, i.e. Ned & co toking the bush while at the wheel never mind before setting off. There may well be a problem with some legal and/or prescription drugs but this is trying to deal with substances, already illegal, and the known impairment they cause.

11

Paul Voltaire,

09/09/2007 08:20:10

It's all a bit of fudge really.

12

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 09/09/2007 08:24:06

Hmmm

'Drugs' - that covers a lot of different substances!

Some hard and fast evidence that 'drugs' decrease your driving ability would be good, also benchmarking them against alcohol would be interesting.

13

Barry Trotter,

Engalund 09/09/2007 08:38:21

"Police here would be able to charge guilty motorists under drink-driving laws, if the test was brought in".

PATHETIC

14

Dr Katharine Morrison,

Ayrshire 09/09/2007 09:14:08

Well, they certainly had to do something after the Californian Field Sobriety Tests fiasco. 29 out of 30 sober driving patients aged 18-80 failed at least one of them when I tested them out.

Simple yes or no as to whether a person has a particular drug in their system is helpful but it doesn't on its own detect that impaired driving is going on and that the drug is the cause.

All sorts of legal issues need to be overcome. Will taking certain drugs simply be considered an offence in their own right eg cannabis? Will there be threshold levels that need to be reached? How will the phenomenon of tolerance be dealt with? How are poly drug use and use of prescription drugs going to be dealt with?

I suspect the legislation is just one piece of the jigsaw. On their own simple drug roadside tests won't have the deterent effect that road users may hope for.

15

ACM,

Glasgow 09/09/2007 10:26:20

Boy Wonder. Does it make any difference if the drugs are legal or not. If driving under the influence of any drug causes death then the dead person is not any less dead because the drugs were legal!!

16

Walkerman,

09/09/2007 10:38:04

It's a great idea... to a point. In order to know how good an idea it is, we would have to know how good the tests are. It is possible to have traces of substances in the body, but not be impaired by them. Cannabis users for example can have traces of cannabis in their system for weeks after use. It doesn't mean they are stoned at the time, or that their ability to drive is impaired. I also wonder what other charges this might lead to, as there is no actual charge of being under the influence of a drug, except when the user is driving. All in all though, anything that reduces harm on our roads has to be a good thing, if it is used sensibly.

17

Jay Kay,

Burntisland 09/09/2007 12:48:09

Maybe we should be using these things in more places ie the work place as well as dishing them out to the Cops.

They can swab me anythime they damn well like.

More random stops for motorists especially late on a friday or saturday night.

But the punishment should fit the crime.

Said it before we need at least two new super prisons which hold 20,000 inmates and get the drugs issue sorted in Scotland.

For a nation of about 6 million we could be world leaders in drug enforcement.

SO then why cant it be done?

Why cant we wage a war on the dealers and improrters, bring back the troops and get them deployed to help the police chase down these people and jail them for life.

As for motorists driving inder the influence, manidory 5 year jail sentence no trial just bang them up.

18

Devidas,

09/09/2007 14:35:08

Yes, good decision from kenny macaskill and well done to the tories and everyone else who campaigned for this. Lets see what the Home Office does now

19

mick3,

USA 09/09/2007 17:29:27

All the drug-related motor vehicle accidents put together wouldn't touch those due to drink, but as long as people approve of drunkenness while demonizing all other types of mood-altering substances, we'll have masses of unnecessary deaths and disabling injuries, as usual.

20

,

09/09/2007 18:23:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 951326, Article id was mapped to record!
21

allymax,

upvinesass, scotland. 09/09/2007 18:55:03

Why is it any opportunity vine, the wayside copper gets, he's always preaching his own sermon?
He states HIS police force will save lives if HIS coppers get the drug kit. What's it like to play god IGOTTAGONGFROMTONY?

22

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 09/09/2007 19:17:29

Rushing to work on Monday morning is by far the worst disaster to befall humanity. There's this general road carnage mitigated only by congestion seeping in which results in only scrapes and prangs. And it gets worse. The genius of town planners brings traffic to complete standstill every Inverness tea time. It's a misconception that sitting on your bum going nowhere constitues work. No doubt this was inculcated by Primary School where mentally you likely still are.

I typically start late on Saturday night into Sunday morning to get the heavy jobs completed or at least started. Flailing away at a job first thing on Monday morning is not the approach to precision engineering. At the concrete mixer end where I've been too, bursting your gut at start up is utterly silly when the whole week is ahead of you.

Listen to Sarah Morepeachy's breakfast programmeand be uplifted by the greatness of say Beethoven and Anton Dvorak.

The housemartins have flitted, no longer delightfully around my garden yet other things are sure to captivate me.

Give it a try.

23

freedomfries,

09/09/2007 19:32:05

Agree with #8 Boy Wonder. When is a drug an "illegal" drug.

#11 Douglas. What are you on about social workers for? If a person needs to be somewhere (i.e work) and their meds are legal, most will get behind the wheel. Do you really think the small print ass-covering warning does anything?

Plus--are the police educated enough to see this as anything else than another opportunity to nick people? Symptoms not cause as usual.

24

Allan(handofgod137),

09/09/2007 19:33:15

Perhaps some of you advocating hanging and flogging should watch this,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLmHL7YznUI

Now try telling me this proposal isn't some piece of posturing bullsh*t!

25

Allan(handofgod137),

09/09/2007 19:35:39

Shoul also add that Ibuprofan gives same results in these tests as weed, and poppy seeds on bread ect will give a posative for heroin/opiates.

26

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 09/09/2007 19:46:17

Hello All,

I'd like to note, after having read the entire thread, that the "open minded" and "tolerant" crowd (read PC/Social Progressives), are once again up to their same old tricks: tsk, tsk, tsk, MUSTN'T have drug testing, WE like our drugs, or OUR FRIENDS/FAMILIES like drugs, so let NO ONE condemn (much less arrest) anyone taking said drugs.

Mind you, the same PC/SP Lot don't mind (according to many comments in the above posts) if "ONLY" 15% of people on the road DIE as a result of drug related traffic deaths.

My, my, my, how truly "compassionate" they are in their open mindedness and tolerance!

The one question none of the anti-drug testing crowd has bothered to address, is the Real World FACT, that BEFORE a driver can be tested, the driver MUST have clearly indicated IMPAIRMENT while driving!

A cop MUST be convinced that a driver IN PARTICULAR from the rest of the drivers on the road, is NOT in full control of his/her vehicle.

Contrary to the PC/SP dogmas, cops do NOT want to waste their time and effort, on picking people out willy-nilly, just for some arbitrary jolly.

Cops TARGET certain individuals because of SPECIFIC BEHAVIOURS: ie, a driver MUST be acting in such a manner, as to raise suspicion in a cop's mind, as to whether or not that driver is currently competent to be behind the wheel.

Over here in the USA, cops have LITERALLY saved the lives (the driver's lives and those around them as well) of people they've stopped, because some drivers were diabetic and had a SUDDEN drop/rise in blood sugar-causing them to become mentally and physically impaired.

Having stopped the driver suspecting alcohol or drug impairment, the officers have found a diabetic ready to go into diabetic shock and thereafter COMA.

So how about you PC/SP folks put your relativist doctrines and dogmas on hold, at least long enough to actually engage some grey matter on the issue, hm

27

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 09/09/2007 19:57:32

Hello All,

I'd like to also point out that a poster noted something well and truly accurate: if you end up being killed by someone who was driving impaired, it really doesn't matter if the substances ingested were legal or illegal: the victim is just as dead, correct?

The traffic laws prohibiting driving under impairment do NOT center upon which substance was used, they center upon IMPAIRMENT!!!

Leave it to a bunch of relativist theorists to try and shift the argument to a total absurdity: which drugs you take, when you took them, if they were legal or illegal, are the questions the PC/SP Lot are trying to use, and get as far away from the issue of IMPAIRMENT as their little PC dogmatic legs will scurry them!

What hogwash to try and bait and switch the whole issue around! Just another facet of blaming the victims and glorifying the perpetrators!!

Poor drug/drunk drivers, THEIR rights are being violated by the nasty cops/public for wanting to get them off the road.

Why didn't you know that if ANYONE wants to drive impaired on their drug/drink of choice, it shouldn't be anyone's business!!!!

To say that the Stoners deserve the SAME kind of punishment as the Drunks, is to be JUDGMENTAL and INTOLERANT!

Just think how judgmental and intolerant we folks on the side of saving lives are!: trying to keep our families, friends, neighbors, and ourselves, alive and out of fatal traffic accidents. You'd think we actually had a right to NOT be hit and killed by impaired drivers!!!

Shame on us! What are we thinking!!!

Cheers from th Rockies.

28

freedomfries,

09/09/2007 19:58:28

Er...Neandethal..we're not talking about the Rockies dude. I think it's wonderful that the US police save so many diabetics (who knew?)

The Scottish traffic cop and the US one are different animals son. We know...we live here.

Or alternatively, we're all bleeding heart liberals (as you say) I must say though, living in your world does sound like fun.

29

Jay Kay,

Burntisland 09/09/2007 21:58:22

#22 rorie,

Im from the country that basically thinks that shovin sh*t laods of illicit substances into your body wether is be alchohol or serious drugs like speed, crack or extacy then jumping behind the wheel of a motor is bad if you disagree with that then you are a f*cking moron who obviously needs to be dragged into an autopsy and shown what the effects of this idiotic and selfish behaviour does to the poor innocent b*stard who gets killed when one of these idiots looses control and kills someone.

Basically mate you can go f*ck yourelf.

30

Jay Kay,

Burntisland 09/09/2007 22:01:36

Basically mate I aint gona stop you taking this sh*t your an adult so damn well act like one and DO NOT get behind the wheel of a motor whilst under the influence of anything that seriously impared jusgment it is a well documented case that reaction time and judgment are severly impared whilst under the influence, if you had lost someone to this kind of behavious close to you then Im pretty god damn sure you would agree that the only sense these f*cking ar*e holes see if jail time.

31

Alphonzo,

Southland, USA 09/09/2007 22:26:29

Interesting article. I would applaud our police using this technology, within reason. For instance, I take a decongestant/allergy OTC med every day. It does make most people drowsy but has no such effect on me, and a friend can't use it because to him it's like taking speed. Go figure.

I no longer drink but used to almost always have a beer between my legs while driving, sipping as descretion permitted. Not drunk, but in my state an open container can get you busted. During such 'drinking & driving' periods I was extra careful to mind the speed limits and drive even more carefully than usual, especially if I didn't think I could pass a breath test. If some fool talking on his cell phone pulled out in front of my van I'd slam on the brakes to avoid hitting him. Under other circumstances I'd probably have just rammed him, hoping to break him of the habit. I don't know how many times some Honda or Toyota didn't get plowed under only because I was having a beer at the time.

I don't recommend this approach to driving or driving impaired at all (alcohol or drugs, legal or illegal) but to those who are going to do it anyway, for God's sake (& your fellow motorists & your own) be extra careful!

32

Dumb Eye @,

09/09/2007 22:53:22

I didn't see any details in the article of what type of testing would be carried out - in my work, I can be subjected to random drug/alcohol testing, but any positive test using the broad, non-specific methods must be backed up by an accurate blood analysis, ie the generalised broad-spectrum tests are merely indicators, and cannot be used as evidence of any substance abuse - a positive initial test would not be reported or recorded unless backed up by a proper laboratory analysis, with full sample custody procedures followed.
I work abroad at present, but the same guidelines applied when I worked in the UK (in the offshore oil & gas industry).

33

This country sucks,

10/09/2007 08:47:39

Marijuana takes four weeks to leave your system, potentially more for regular users. So techniacally at any given moment a dope user will have large amounts of THC coursing through their veins!! Obvioulsy it is an illegal substance but still people are going to use it (last I saw, a quarter of the population allegedly smoke blow) How are they going to possibly determine what can be classed as a driving impairment?

I have met people that drive better after a joint, Ive also known people that have never touched drugs and are a severe danger on the road!!

For example if I were involved in an accident I would much rather have someone behind me who had had a few doobies than some elderly fella that doesnt even half the strenghth let alone the reactions to get his foot on the brake in time!!

Personally I find alcohol to be a far worse and damaging drug than marijuana and I strongly believe that if one is legal then the other should be too!

34

Mr Bob Dobolina,

Edimbra.........FREEEEEEEEEEEE THA WEEEEEED! 10/09/2007 12:17:05

Just watched the video , interesting stuff. probably cause your more paranoid you go slower and take more care.

Ask the tories how they would treat and executive with alchohol related liver disease , versus a smoker with a bit of a burnt finger from plastic hash?

I bet the smokers cops it. While the drunk is free to cause a couple of assaults on the way home, the odd racist inncident at the take away and then a healthy walloping of the wife for good measure. And a police assault.

They need to get their heads outta their arses on this. Meanwhile their illegality stance is costing kids and adults their lungs!

Great logic!

35

Mr Bob Dobolina,

AM" NEEDS A FEW BIG GREEN DOOBOLINAS! 10/09/2007 12:22:23

AM2 seriously needs to get skunked, he way too uptight. Probably gets the dutch courage up for his bare faced rants by downing a bottle of glenfiddich.

Smoke dope and chillax. It will help yer career also, You might sacked from the labour chimps and @rselickers selection list. As labour wont be elected again for a long long time. It may help his career and he'll be forced to join the tories as the nearest to his agenda. or UKIP.

If so many people smoke , their should be smokers party. But the problem is if you are a smoker could you be @rsed going to vote?

36

Mr Bob Dobolina,

AM2 NEEDS A FEW BIG GREENYDOOBOLINAS! 10/09/2007 12:25:27

The only time you see someone going out of control on weed is when theyve had a skinful of beer too, making the beers effect a lot stronger.

Look at charles clarke circa 1974. You triyng to tell me he didnt like a smoke?

University loans , even though they benefited from grants.

Ban smoking cos we cant get away with since we sold our souls to the political beast? Yeah right!

37

freedomfries,

10/09/2007 16:33:43

Oops, Jay Kay needs his nappy changed


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.