Upload
opunite
View
1.624
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CLAAD & Safe BTW National Dialogue on
Drug-Impaired Driving
April 10-12, 2012 Walt Disney World Swan Resort
• Identifying Drug-Impaired Drivers
• Distinguishing mere medication use from actual cognitive impairment.
Policy Goals
Drug-impaired driving can have fatal consequences:
• In 2009, 13,801 drivers who died in car crashes tested positive for drugs.
• 63% of all tested drivers who died in car crashes tested positive for drug use.
• A California study found 1 in every 10 people killed in car crashes was drug-impaired.
Statistics
• Drivers ignore labels warning against operating heavy machinery.
• Driving after taking medication affects the brain.
• Medications can impair judgment, motor skills, perception, and memory.
• Drivers, passengers, and others on the road are at risk.
Dangers of Drug-Impaired Driving
All states have DUID statutes. Most states use one of three types of drugged-driving laws: 1. Statutes requiring driver to be “incapable” of driving safely (14 states);
2. Statutes requiring driver to be “under the influence or affected by an intoxicating drug (8 states);” and
3. Per se or zero tolerance statutes. (17 states)
5 states prohibit any addicted person or habitual user to drive at all.
Prevention: DUID Laws
• 20 states: valid prescription is not legal defense.
• 5 states: valid prescription as long as used as directed is legal defense.
• Maryland: valid prescription is legal defense if defendant was unaware of drug’s effect.
DUID Law Defenses
DUID Statutes contain subjective standards: • “Incapacity”: connection between drug ingestion and
the incapacity of the driver
• “Under the influence”: impairment is directly related to drug ingestion
• “Per se”: drug is in the driver’s system.
• Determination of drug use based on blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily fluid tests.
Statutes with Subjective Standards
States have also developed common law doctrines to prevent drug-impaired driving.
– Massachusetts: liability for physicians for failure to warn against driving if such failure results in third-party death.
– Alabama: imposed liability on a Methadone Clinic for administering methadone and releasing a patient who killed a third party while driving.
Prevention: Common Law
• Florida: Judge will suspend drivers’ licenses for using oxycodone.
• Patients are responsible for obtaining a doctor’s letter.
• Prescribers are at a greater risk for liability.
Prevention: Common Law
• Drugged-driving laws lag behind alcohol-impaired driving law.
• Why?
– Technological limitations in testing.
– No agreed-upon impairment limit.
– Drugs linger in the body.
Drug-Impaired Laws Lag Behind Alcohol-Impaired Laws
Drug Recognition and Classification Programs (DEC)
• 49 states and D.C. have Drug Evaluation and Classification Programs.
• DREs receive training to identify drug-impaired drivers and determine the drug category.
• Programs rely on observations.
• Categories are based on signs and symptoms.
Current Methods of Identifying Impaired Drivers
Blood and Urine Testing • 34 states test blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily
substances.
• 8 states allow blood only.
• 6 states permit saliva.
• 8 states permit “other bodily substances.”
Current Methods of Identifying Impaired Drivers
• Drug Evaluation and Classification Programs lack scientific precision.
• Blood and urine tests cannot determine whether drivers were actually impaired while driving.
Problems with Drug Evaluation and Classification Programs
• Encourage states to adopt clearer standards for Per Se laws;
• Collect additional data on drug-impaired driving;
• Prevent drug-impaired driving by educating communities and professionals;
• Provide increased training to law enforcement on identifying drug-impaired drivers; and
• Develop standard methodologies for drug-testing labs to use in detecting the presence of drugs.
• Encourage prescribers to help by recognizing patients with substance-abuse problems and developing strategies with their patients to overcome such problems.
What can we do?
What preventative strategies do you think would help with the following issue? • Identify impaired drivers.
• Distinguish mere medication use from actual cognitive impairment.
• Incentivize individuals to refrain from driving while drug-impaired.
Suggestions?
Contact:
Paul Scott O’Neill, CLAAD Policy Advisor (703) 527-4550 [email protected] www.claad.org
Stacey Sklaver, Safe BTW Policy Advisor (703) 527-8800 [email protected] www.safebtw.org
For More Information on Drug-Impaired Driving