INQUIRY INTO THE EFFECTS OF DRUGS (OTHER THAN ALCOHOL) ON ROAD SAFETY IN VICTORIA

INTRODUCTION

The Victorian Council for Civil Liberties is a voluntary organisation which is commited to
protecting the legitimate rights and freedoms of individual Victorians against the incursion of
more powerful organisations such as Government, large corporations and the media. In
determining its policy position on proposed safety measures, the Council must necessarily
balance their demonstrated potential to reduce injury and death in the general community
against their potential intrusion into the privacy, freedom of movement and work capacity of
individuals.

For example, legislative drink-driving countermeasures give police the power to require drivers to
submit to breath testing procedures when they are suspected of impairment. These laws
interfere with drivers' privacy and freedom of movement. The mandatory penalties imposed on
convicted drink-drivers by the courts do not take into account the extra penalty associated with
some drivers' inability to work while their licence is disqualified. However, despite their
demonstrable potential to arbitrarily interfere with driversí fundamental rights, the Council has a
long history of supporting most drink-driving countermeasures because road safety is a
countervailing community issue and because objective research has shown that alcohol use
significantly increases the risk of road crashes. Consistent with this rationale, the Council was
divided in some cases, such as Random Breath Testing, on the issue of whether the potential
safety benefits could justify the random screening of drivers or the power that the legislation
gave to police. On balance, the Council reached a policy decision not to object to Random
Breath Test legislation. For similar reasons, the Council opposes other drink-driving legislation,
such as zero BAC for novice drivers, because no significant road safety benefit could be
attributed to justify arbitrary interference by the criminal justice system with individual privacy,
freedom of movement and capacity to work. At the same time, it acknowledges that educational
and other less intrusive measures may be appropriate to deter some novice drivers who are
affected by low blood alcohol levels.

The Council has determined its policy in relation to drug-driving countermeasures by balancing
the potential for drug driving countermeasures to reduce road crashes against their potential to
intrude on individual privacy, including use of medication, freedom of movement, and ability to
work. In reaching its position, the Council has relied on information published by the Road
Safety Committee of the Parliament of Victoria in its useful First Report of the Inquiry into The
Effects of Drugs (Other than Alcohol) on Road Safety and other published research .

On balance, the Council does not support legislative drug-driving measures because their
potential road safety benefit does not justify which provide police with the power to require
individual drivers to submit to urine or blood tests for legal or illegal drugs because their potential
road safety benefit does not justify . However, the Council strongly supports and offers to
cooperate with Government and other institutions in education programmes directed at road
users and the medical and pharmacy professions which increase their awareness of the danger
of driving when they begin a new course of medication or when they use several drugs together
or combine their use of drugs with alcohol consumption.

PRIVACY - FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
The modern economy and individualsí ability to find work depend on freedom of movement
andeasy road transport.

USE OF MEDICATION AND OTHER DRUGS

There are many thousands of individual drugs which are available in the community, each of
which has a different pharmacological effect. Most of these substances are used for medical
reasons. Therefore, the Council is concerned that controls on drugs and driving do not interfere
with individualís health unjustifiably.

Further, several of the drugs which are used socially in Australia are illegal. In view of the
frequency of their use, there is substantive debate about whether the criminal law is the most
appropriate means of controlling use of these drugs. Therefore, the Council is concerned that
controls on drugs and driving do not become a tool which inaapropriately aids enforcement of the
criminal law when no road safety benefits can be demonstrated.

The Council could not find any research which indicates that any particular drug, other than
alcohol, increases road crash risk. Further, the Council could not find evidence of which
characteristics of drug use are associated with statistically significant increase in liability for road
crashes. On the contrary, the Council accepts the evidence presented by Associate Professor
Drummer and others, that cannabis users involved in fatal crashes are less likely than other
drivers to be liable for the collision in which they were killed.

In the absence of demonstrable increases in road crashes or liability for road crashes, the
Council opposes any drug driving countermeasures which could encroach on road usersí health,
privacy and freedom of movement.