One law for all dangerous drivers
Todays article in the Dom Post about a bill to set up a ‘drugged driving’ regime had an interesting fact in it.
“One police study of 245 dead drivers found that 129 had drugs in their system. Of those, 80 had drugs and alcohol in their systems, 29 had cannabis only and 20 had prescription drugs.”
This strengthens the Greens view that any legislation that is designed to get dangerous drivers off the road should not target a small subset of such drivers. Clearly prescription drugs are implicated in accidents and driver deaths. Tiredness has also been implicated in other studies. The fact is, if you are physically unable to drive safely you should be off the road - full stop.
When the bill was first mooted I was extremely concerned about it. It is not evidence-based, in that there is no requirement to prove that X drug caused the impairment, only that it was present at the time. I am suspicious of the physical impairment test as it could be very subjective. That only illegal drugs were targeted is simply an attack on cannabis users and gives the police a backdoor way to cannabis convictions. And legal drugs, like diet pills, methodone, heart medication, anti-depressants and motion sickness medication can cause drowsiness, impaired judgement and even delirium.
For public safety reasons, we can live with some of the subjective parts of the bill. A provision in the bill that says that any evidence collected cannot be used for an MDA conviction is one way to protect cannabis users from abuses of the law. But prescription medicines must be included. The research shows they are implicated in accidents and deaths. It is not good enough for the law to pick on only a small subset of people, especially those that the law already treats as second class citizens.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Just to clarify then, Meyt, the Greens will be voting against this bill? I guess you’d be hypocrites if you didn’t.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
September 24th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
no bryce..this is the spin/justification for the greens supporting/voting for it..
on ‘public safety reasons’..didn’tyaknow..?
big on ’saving’ us..aren’t they..?
first they ’save’ us from the exclusive brethren..
now they are ’saving’ us from pot smokers who drive,..
and of course..this further exercise in repression..totally ignores the results of that research in aussie..
that showed/proved drivers stoned on pot..drove more carefully/safer..than those who were straight..
but..hey..!..you don’t want to hear that evidence.?…do you metiria..?
i mean..that would fly in the face of your assertions..eh..?
that pot smokers are dangerous drivers..
who need to be..in your words..’got off the road’..
believe me..!..i am not the only one watching this all unfold..who is looking at the green party as some formerly benign creature..
now ripping its’ mask off..
to show the realities of the monster underneath..
you all deserve to be driven from parliament..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 24th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
she’s a lawyer..didn’tyaknow..?
you know how carefully you have to read their words..eh..?
as this pile of weasel-words clearly demonstrates..
a superficial reading gives you totally the wrong impression..eh..?
but be sure of one thing..
this attempt at murmering/soothing words by turei to one side..
metiria turei/the greens are fully supporting this legislation..
and will vote for it..
( i have been casting around to see who i will/can vote for now..
and it looks like the maori party will be getting at least one more vote than they might have thought..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 24th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Here we go again greens. What has discriminating against genuinely ill got to do with green policies? And you can bet your bottom dollar that the greens would not support the legislation if it included quack remedies!
September 24th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Hi all,
Our position is to oppose the bill unless the changes we want, as i have set out, are included in it.
I am interested in your views on one issue. If the bill did not include prescription drugs but DID say that any evidence collected could not be used for a Misuse of Drugs Act conviction, would it be worth voting for? I would be interested in your comments.
And Phil, the maori party oppose decriminalisation and will vote against my Medpot bill when it comes up. This is one of the reasons we dont yet have the numbers.
Cheers
September 24th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
yes meyt..but as yet..
they haven’t sold out on core beliefs/principles..
twice..
have they..
(and a doubly condescending) cheers back at you..
September 24th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
btw..your partners’ name is worik..?
he was at my site today..
defending poxy-legislation part two..
i asked if he was he..
he ran away..
(interesting..!)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 24th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Meyt,
Firstly I have no interest in protecting cannabis users whether they are driving or not. This is because on balance the scientific evidence indicates that cannabis is a dangerous drug both in the short and long term.
Specifically, I believe that there are definitely two different categories here.
1. One are people who are driving illegally after having taken drugs that society considers are contraindicated in driving - this includes all illegal drug users and those on prescription drugs where, as a condition of taking those drugs they are not allowed to drive. Under those circumstances I am happy for the information to be collected, for it to be used in attributing fault, or to be used in obtaining a conviction under either “drugged driving” laws or MDA.
2. The other category are the people taking drugs for which society and/or the medical profession believes there is no contraindication to driving. (eg I can see scenarios where there is an accident and a child passenger in the car in the wrong is killed or maimed. The other driver is taking antidepressants and there is a public outcry that that person should not have been driving, in order to secure more compensation for the child or their family even though a family member - the driver - was at fault). For these people I find it difficult to trust the current legal system will always deal with them fairly. hence I would favour that these people do not come under the present law change pending further investigation into the best way of dealing with it.
Alternatively, under those circumstances the situation is assessed under a genuine “no fault” ACC type system in order to determine the rehabilitation, but not compensation, needs of the people involved.
I realise this does not fit green philosophy but consider it the fairest way under the current legal system.
Cheers.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
“One police study of 245 dead drivers found that 129 had drugs in their system. Of those, 80 had DRUGS AND ALCOHOL in their systems, 29 had cannabis only and 20 had prescription drugs.�
Slightly off the main point of discussion here, but I’m fed up with the media constantly reporting the old line “DRUGS AND ALCOHOL” - the implication being that alcohol isn’t a drug…. We all know it is and, when in the wrong hands, a very dangerous one at that, continuing to cause more social & economic carnage than any other drug, legal or illegal, used in NZ, actually make that planet earth. It’s about time the media made Joe Public think a bit more about this by using alternative lines such as “illegal drugs and alcohol” or “drugs, including alcohol”.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:53 am
phil, there is a good reason to ..totally ignores the results of that research in aussie..
“There have been two recent Australian studies that have analysed the relationship between THC (tetrahydrocannabinol - the psychoactive
component of cannabis) measured in the blood and crash culpability. These two studies produced contradictory results. In summary, the risk of crash involvement associated with driving under the influence of cannabis remains to be determined.”
http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/reports/CASR010.pdf
If you’ve got time you can find the abstracts of most cannabis/driver safety research here
http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/searchinput.do
September 25th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Meyt, On what basis do you conclude that “Clearly prescription drugs are implicated in accidents and driver deaths.”? The study you mention found that just under 10% of dead drivers had prescription drugs in their system. There is no mention of the percentage of live drivers who have prescription drugs in their system therefore no conclusion can be drawn as to whether precription drugs elevate or depress risk levels.
Instead of making new laws why not get the existing ones enforced, for instance…
7(2)A person may not drive a motor vehicle …, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven …, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.
That has been on the books since 1906 and seems to cover the effects of fatigue, hay-fever, the flu, cannabis, eye-drops, etc. But then again, common-sense and the legal fraternity seem to be mutually exclusive, particularly when it comes to road safety.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Could you guys seek to add a provision that if a dead body is found in the boot, during a stop for a breath test, the evidence cannot be used against them? Just to keep things clear.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:44 am
The major reason so many on medication cause accidents is the tacit agreement amongst the medical industry that if they told their (predominantly male) patients they would have to give up driving while on their heart medication, there would be no acceptance of the drug prescribed, since red-blooded NZ males (the kind with high blood pressure…) would not submit to giving up their wheels.
Hell, they’re already suffering impotence from their blood pressure problems.
Can’t take their licence away as well.
There are other categories of drugs that cause an inability to focus well enough to perform driving acurately, but since many of these medications are more predominantly prescribed to women, who don’t see car-driving as an identity issue, the patient acts more responsibly about choosing a safer behaviour option.
The sooner we make all adults responsible for the consequences of their driving behaviour (that includes the prescribing doctors as well as their medicated patients!), the greater the likelihood that drug-related deaths on highways will reduce.
Of course, there will always be that minority who regards vehicular suicide as an option to which they have a right to exercise, no matter who else it inconveniences/maims/kills.
Ok, I’m done. Flame away!
September 25th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Oh yes thanks I for reminding me that the medical professsion is the root of all evil - I had forgotten.
Although you forgot the car industry - for selling the nasty man who might one day end up on heart medication a car.
How about this legislation instead: each time there is an accident on our roads we the whole country must have a group hug and say its all our fault.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
“red-blooded NZ males (the kind with high blood pressure…) ”
is that what they teach you in feminist school?
September 25th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
fwog yous got to pull youself together,
people do have things in thweir system,
some them people have chromasomes in their system,
send them to jail fwog,
September 25th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Of course andrew - you can always tell an exploitataive capatalist child molester because they are white anglo saxon middle aged overweight balding males. where have you been?
September 26th, 2007 at 3:26 am
katie, the only objectionable part of your post is the implicit assumption that drivers are the only road users who need to improve their behaviour. What about Telecom’s nasty habit of sticking dead trees in the road instead of at the property boudary where the law says they’re suposed to be.
Oh.. and cyclists who think they own the road and kamikaze pedestrians. If they could be fined $400 for not producing photo ID the police might actually be able to enforce the cyclist and pedestrian road rules. As it is, a false name and address is the usual outcome when the police ticket cyclists and pedestrians. No wonder they focus on drivers.