What s the drug driving problem represented to be?

Transcription

1 What s the drug driving problem represented to be? Image courtesy of Bill Longshaw at FreeDigitalPhotos.net David McDonald Visiting Fellow National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health The Australian National University ATODA Annual Conference 24 September 2014

2 1. What s the drug driving problem represented to be? The need to reduce crash incidence, hence $ costs, injuries and deaths, through drug driving interventions, especially roadside oral fluid testing (ROFT) Road safety cf drug law enforcement. Image courtesy of Bill Longshaw at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

3 Road safety cf drug law enforcement Victorian Gov t Arrive Alive Fact Sheets: This testing is aimed at making Victoria s roads safer by reducing the incidence of drug driving. Mr John Hargreaves MLA, ACT Minister for Transport & Municipal Services, 8 April 2008: I needed to be certain that the testing was about road safety and not about catching drug users and punishing them for using drugs rather than endangering other road users. As a Minister, I will do whatever I can to improve road safety but I am not going to be involved in punishing ACT drug users for their addiction.

4 Dennis Jarvis/Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0

5 2. What are the underlying assumptions? Some people use illegal drugs Some of them drive after doing so Some of the drivers will be impaired by the drugs to the extent that the impairment will cause a crash RDT will reduce the prevalence of drug-impaired driving through general deterrence and specific deterrence This will reduce the incidence of crashes to such an extent as to improve road safety at the population level.

6 Assumption: Only need to test for three drugs Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net

7 Assumption: Don t need to demonstrate impairment Karl-Ludwig Poggemann/Flickr CC BY 2.0

8 Assumption: It is valid to breach human rights

9

10 3. How has this representation of the problem come about? Technology Public image

11 4 (a) What is left unproblematic in this representation of the drug driving problem? Convicting people who may not be impaired Human rights impacts Lack of knowledge re the RDT/road safety nexus: Efficacy Cost-effectiveness and relative cost-effectiveness No research-based publicity on the driving time windows Unintended adverse consequences.

12 Human rights consideration: ignored? Testing people without reasonable suspicion that the person is impaired is the big human rights issue Five key human rights considerations need attention here: 1. the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest 2. the right not to have medical treatment without consent 3. arbitrary interference with privacy 4 the right to a fair trial 5. the potential impacts on children People's rights to liberty is relevant Proportionality test: the need to weigh the individuals' rights with community rights: determine if the proposed intervention is in the public interest determine if the intervention is rationally connected to the objective determine to what extent the intervention impairs people [s rights to freedom (Watchirs 2008)

13

14 Deterrence? Kong, F, Dietze, P & McElwee, P 2010 ; Papanastasiou, C, Dietze, P & Lloyd, B 2014 Drove soon after taking a drug, regular psychostimulant users, Victoria, (EDRS), per cent

15 Deterrence? EDRS ACT 2013

16 IDRS ACT 2013 Source: Butler & Burns 2014

17 IDRS ACT 2013 Question: Has RDT changed your driving behaviour? Answer: yes (41%): Wait a few hours before driving Not drive after using drugs Question: Out of the next 100 people who drive after taking drugs, how many do you think will be caught? Median = 5 More than 10% stated that none would be caught The majority (61%) indicated that they would drive after taking drugs in the next six months. Source: Butler & Burns 2013

18 Unintended adverse consequences? Failure to implements other interventions that are more efficacious and cost-effective? Fewer RBTs for alcohol? The drain on policing resources? Loss of community confidence in the legitimacy of law enforcement? To the extent that scarce traffic enforcement resources may be used to identify and prosecute drug-using drivers who pose little safety risk, traffic safety may actually be harmed a net negative effect on traffic safety might result. (Stewart 2006)

19 Deterrence of drug driving: the impact of the ACT drug driving legislation and detection techniques 36 % (n = 290) reported having used one of the listed illicit drugs in the past 11 % ever driven a vehicle within 24 hours of using an illicit drug Younger and older participants were equally likely to have driven within 24 hours of using an illicit drug 42 % of those who had ever driven within 24 hours of taking an illicit drug, had done so since the introduction of RDT in the ACT 5% of participants reported they intended to drive after using one of the listed illicit drugs in the next six months. (Armstrong, Watling & Davey 2014)

20 4 (b) Can the problem be thought about differently? Yes Focus on the outcome desired: improved road safety Rather than have policy driven by the availability of technology And the desire of governments and police to be seen to be doing something.

21 5. What effects are produced by this representation of the problem? Great publicity for governments and police High opportunity costs (?) Perception that unfair Convicted without necessarily being a risk on the roads Targets only three drugs and not some that have the highest impairment potential Builds even more stigma against people who use drugs.

22 6. How could this representation of the problem be questioned, disrupted and replaced? No RDT in USA or Canada as breaches human rights standards re stop and test without a well-founded suspicion that an offence has been committed Quantification of drug impairment thresholds

23

24 6. How could this representation of the problem be questioned, disrupted and replaced? No RDT in USA or Canada as breaches human rights standards re stop and test without a well-founded suspicion that an offence has been committed Quantification of drug impairment thresholds Focus road traffic safety on the desired outcomes, not the implementation steps Focus on all impairing psychoactive substances Research and apply what we know about deterrence.

25 Bacchi, CL 2009, Analysing policy: what's the problem represented to be?, Pearson, Frenchs Forest, N.S.W. What's the problem represented to be?: An approach to policy analysis 1. What's the 'problem' represented to be in a specific policy? 2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the 'problem'? 3. How has this representation of the 'problem' come about? 4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the 'problem' be thought about differently? 5. What effects are produced by this representation of the 'problem'? 6. How/where has this representation of the 'problem' been produced, disseminated and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?

26 Sources cited Armstrong, K, Watling, CN & Davey, J 2014, Deterrence of drug driving: the impact of the ACT drug driving legislation and detection techniques, Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety Queensland, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Butler, K & Burns, L 2013, ACT drug trends 2013: findings from the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS), National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW , ACT trends in ecstasy and related drug markets 2012: findings from the ecstasy and related drugs reporting system (EDRS), National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW. Goodwill, R 2014, Media release: public approval for driving limits for 16 drugs, UK Department for Transport, < International Symposium on Drugs and Driving 2012, 'Summary report', International Symposium on Drugs and Driving, Montreal, July 2011, < Kong, F, Dietze, P & McElwee, P 2010, Victorian trends in ecstasy and related drug markets 2009: findings from the Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS), Australian Drug Trends Series no. 49, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney. Papanastasiou, C, Dietze, P & Lloyd, B 2014, Victorian trends in ecstasy and related drug markets 2013: findings from the Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS), Australian Drug Trend Series No. 121, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney. Stewart, K 2006, 'Overview and summary', in Transportation Research Board (USA) (ed.), Transportation Research Circular E-C096: Drugs and traffic: a symposium, Woods Hole, MA, June 2005, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp Watchirs, H 2010, Roadside drug driving testing (advice), Human Rights Commission, Canberra, Wolff, K et al. 2013, Driving under the influence of drugs: report from the Expert Panel on Drug Driving, Department for Transport (UK), London.

27 David McDonald s contact details Director Social Research & Evaluation Pty Ltd 1004 Norton Road, Wamboin NSW 2620 Phone: (02) Mobile: Facsimile: (02) david.mcdonald@socialresearch.com.au Online: Visiting Fellow National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health The Australian National University Canberra ACT david.mcdonald@anu.edu.au