Linkoping, Sweden: Laws prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle by drivers with any detectable level of a controlled substance or inactive drug metabolite in their blood or urine do not deter incidences of drugged driving or reduce recidivism by chronic offenders, according to data published in the March issue of the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Investigators at Sweden’s National Board of Forensic Medicine examined the impact of the nation’s decade-old zero tolerance per se law on incidences of DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) arrests and re-arrests over a four-year period (2001-2004).
Of those motorists prosecuted for DUID, they reported that 68 percent were re-arrested. “Zero tolerance laws do not deter people from impaired driving judging by the high re-arrest rates,” authors concluded.
Under Swedish law, motorists face criminal sanctions if they operate a vehicle with any detectable of an illicit drug in their blood. Evidence of driver impairment is not necessary to convict a person under the federal DUID statute.
Motorists who are determined to have negligible levels of inactive drug metabolites in their urine may be charged with “use of a banned substance,” but not DUID.
Prior studies reported that the passage of Sweden’s zero tolerance law has led to a ten-fold increase in the number of cases submitted by police for toxicological analysis, but has had no impact on reducing incidences of drugged driving. Among those drivers charged under Sweden’s DUID law, nearly 60 percent tested positive for the presence of amphetamines. Less than five percent of drivers tested positive for the presence of THC alone.
In recent years, several US states have enacted similar zero tolerance laws. Critics of these laws argue that the statutes inappropriately classify sober drivers as ‘impaired’ and may criminally punish non-impaired drivers for their previous, non-driving related activities.
“While we all support the goal of keeping impaired motorists off the road – regardless of whether they are impaired from alcohol, prescription drugs, or illicit substances – the enactment of so-called zero tolerance per se legislation is inappropriate, illogical, and does nothing to deter individuals from driving under the influence of illicit substances,” NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “At best, these laws are an inflexible response to a complex social problem. At worst, they are a cynical attempt to misuse the traffic safety laws to prosecute illicit drug consumers per se.”
For more information, please contact Paul Armentanio, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study, “High re-arrest rates among drug-impaired drivers despite zero-tolerance legislation,” appears in Accident Analysis and Prevention. Additional information regarding marijuana use and on-road accident risk is available in the NORML report “Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review,” available online at: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459.