Drug-impaired driving
This is similar to the "per se" DUI/DWI laws that presume a driver is impaired when their blood alcohol content is above a certain level (currently 0.08% in most of the United States and 0.05% in Utah).
[6] The following states have drug statutes enacted: Alaska – Statute 28.35.030 – "(a) A person commits the crime of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance if the person operates or drives a motor vehicle or operates an aircraft or a watercraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, intoxicating liquor, inhalant, or any controlled substance, singly or in combination"[7] Arizona – "A.
"[9] DUI-D cases often involve these two police tools: (1) a voluntary Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) which is similar to a field sobriety test and allows police officers to draw conclusions about a drivers impairment, and (2) a blood test to screen and confirm traces of drug use in a defendant's system.
A chemical test indicating .08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) or greater, or the presence of any drug, prescription or illegal, substance is sufficient for a DUI conviction.
Driving with any schedule I or II substance as defined by IC 25-48-2 (such as marijuana, methamphetamine or cocaine) or its metabolite in his/her body commits a Class C Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in prison and up to a $500 fine.
If a charge is tried summarily, the accused faces the following sentences if convicted:[32] If a charge is tried by indictment, the penalties upon conviction are more severe: If the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a motorist's ability to drive is impaired by a drug, they can make a demand for samples of oral fluids, urine or blood for analysis.
In addition to the driving prohibitions as part of the sentence for the criminal offence, the provinces can impose licence suspensions under provincial law.
It is believed that the remaining ones are carrying more risk than their blood alcohol levels should strictly impart - due to the frequent addition of other drugs.
If the historic assumptions about formulae to setting alcohol limits at particular levels to reduce harm (by anticipated degrees) in the target demographic are defunct, the implications for impaired driving reduction policy are major.
As of 2014, the Road Safety Authority conducts roadside impairment testing of those who are believed to be under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and many others.
Recent UK legislation effective 2 March 2015 has introduced a series of new offences into the realm of road traffic law.
[42] The government has sought to tackle the belated increased number of drivers operating vehicles with a high measure of proscribed and prescribed drugs in their system.
[47] The law prohibits driving with any concentration of illicit drugs: heroin, cocaine, ketamine, methamphetamine, cannabis and MDMA.
[51] This controversy is reduced by reducing the potential for wrongful convictions in two ways; firstly, if blood tests are used to obtain convictions, most legal frameworks outside the United States require corroborating evidence of impairment to support that the blood test result represents impairment.
Secondly, when saliva tests are used (Australia), a cut off threshold is calibrated in fitting with U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration standards, at such a level that countries other than the United States have erroneously assumed that the average person would be impaired by the drug detected to a degree that crash risk is significantly raised.
The original levels stated by SAMHSA were determined and established simply to detect any drug use; these data were promulgated for testing for individuals in sensitive employment positions regarding public safety and/or national security.
So unless there has been injury caused there is no criminal charge, but only an administrative one of driving with drugs present, which does not infer impairment or lack of it.
Genuine zero tolerance jurisdictions (ones not applying rational cut offs) are generally failing to substantially reducing drugged driving, where it has been a problem originally.
However, in Australia where the use of calibrated devices create de facto limits for common impairing illicit substances, roadside detections and self reporting of drug driving in national telephone surveys have reduced by 25% over the last 3–4 years.
Varying DUID laws have been passed over the last 15 years in response to both increasing roles of drug driving in road tolls, and the fact prosecutors have found it difficult to prove that a driver was impaired from using a controlled substance.
These laws can make their cases much easier to win if they only have to prove the presence of a controlled substance in the blood or urine, without a prescription.
