UK report calls for toughening of drink/drug-driving legislation

The UK government has commissioned a new report calling for the toughening of the current drink driving legislation as well as developing the current drug-driving legislation which the report deems ineffective in combating drivers under the influence of drugs.

The report calls for drink-driving legislation to cut the maximum legal limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg. This would mean that for some people, a pint of beer or a glass of wine could result in a 12-month driving ban and would align the British drink-driving policy with the rest of Europe where in many countries; drink-driving is banned altogether. In terms of drug-driving, the report also recommends the strengthening of the UK’s current legislation, calling for a development of roadside saliva testing for those suspected of drug-driving and the mandatory drugs testing in all road deaths.

Drivers groups have generally supported the outcome and recommendations of Sir Peter North’s report. The president of the AA, Edmund King said, “Our members want action on drug-driving and also support a reduction in the drink-drive limit, together with a 12-month ban."

While the case for amending the drink-driving legislation to a slightly lower limit will have a marginal impact, the amendments suggested for the drug-driving raise many more problematic issues. Unlike alcohol which only remains in the blood for a very short period of time, some drugs will remain in the blood for a much longer period. The most notable example is cannabis, which by most scientific accounts will remain in the bloodstream from anything from 7 days to 100 days. Cannabis metabolites are rather curious molecules as they don’t leave the blood in any predictable fashion. The speed and extent to which they leave the body are of course dependent on a number of variables, however, this will mean that someone who has smoked a cannabis joint, for example 2 weeks ago, will be able to be charged with drug-driving although they are not under the influence of the drug.

There are methods through which to test the THC levels in the bloodstream and as such, would be a more accurate measure of whether someone is under the influence of cannabis, but again, it is dependent on the individual, their weight, tolerance and so on. The most accurate form of testing for THC levels in the blood would require police forces to carry out blood-testing on those suspected to be under the influence, which the cost would be extremely large and taking into consideration the budget cuts across all government departments, it can be assumed that these tests wouldn’t be sanctioned. Saliva testing is far less accurate and would still mean that those with cannabis in their system from previous weeks would still be liable for prosecution.

It is also worth bearing in mind that for almost every other drug, the amount of time that the drug can be found in the bloodstream is far shorter. Opiates, Cocaine and amphetamines for example would stay in the blood for no longer than 3 days. Therefore, the proposals outlined in the report would still fail to accurately measure intoxication levels and as regularly happens in the United States, would see people prosecuted for driving under the influence of drugs and face the subsequent criminal convictions for having miniscule amounts of thc in their system