ing problem with a comprehensive research and legal response that has zero tolerance for illegal drug use for all drivers. Known as the per se standard, this means that any driver who tests positive for an illegal drug is in violation of the law and subject to loss of license and criminal prosecution. Tird, it is useful to recognize that for
Known as the per se standard, this means that any driver who tests positive for an illegal drug is in violation of the law and subject to loss of license and
criminal prosecution.
drivers under the legal drinking age of 21 in the United States, there is a standard of zero tolerance for alcohol. In other words, because underage drinking is illegal for underage drivers, the 0.08 g/dL BAC stan- dard is not applicable and any evidence of alcohol use is a criminal violation. How does the per se standard apply to
marijuana-impaired driving? It uses the same approach used for more than two decades for the 10 million commercial drivers in the United States and that is used widely in Western Europe. Tis is the stan- dard used in safety-sensitive workplaces. Any evidence of marijuana use detected in a urine, blood, or oral fluid drug test is a violation of the per se law. Tose who reject the per se standard for marijuana use by all drivers need to explain why they do not object to the current per se standard of zero tolerance used for commercial drivers, pilots, and train engineers. A promising enforcement response
to drugged driving that relies on effec- tive drug testing technology is the use of Administrative License Revocation (ALR) for drivers who test positive for drugs on screening tests. Such drivers who are ar- rested for impairment and test positive for drugs, like drivers who test for 0.08 g/dL BAC or higher or who refuse to be tested, lose their licenses for up to a year. Tis noncriminal penalty system is widely used to get drunk drivers off the road immedi- ately while preserving the presumption of their innocence for later adjudication of the criminal charge of drunk driving by a judge. Te ALR process can be used for drugged driving by using available drug testing technology in affordable ways at the police
40 datia focus
station. Te ALR process provides a model for rapid and widespread implementation of per se drugged driving laws under which confirmatory testing results of the ALR screening tests would result in charges for violation of the per se law. How can medical marijuana be handled
in highway traffic safety now that 18 states and the District of Columbia have approved it? Te best option is to use the standard now applied to every commer- cial driver in the country: any evidence of recent marijuana use is a violation, even for medical marijuana users, because marijuana use remains illegal under federal law. Because enforcement of highway traffic safety is a state role, states that have legalized medical marijuana have a choice of treating drivers who test positive for marijuana, and who have permission to use it for medical purposes, in the same fashion as drivers using prescription medicines. If these drivers test positive for marijuana use, they are not found guilty of drugged driving under the per se standard but they can be charged and prosecuted under the impairment provisions of state laws. It is not legal to drive impaired by a prescription drug, and in parallel, it is not legal to drive impaired by medical marijuana. Reducing drugged driving requires more
than just the adoption of the per se standard. It can only be achieved when drug testing is as common in law enforcement as alcohol testing is today. Te technology of drug test- ing continues to improve rapidly. Both blood and oral fluid testing are ready for prime time in highway traffic safety. Te drug test- ing industry has a major role to play in the development and widespread adoption of drug testing. Te drug testing industry can support innovative demonstration projects that show how to integrate drug testing into all levels of highway traffic safety. In addi- tion, the drug testing industry can promote beter understanding of drugged driving and the effective strategies now available to reduce this major highway safety threat.
winter 2013
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50