Several EU member states have recently introduced or are preparing ‘per se’ laws on driving under the influence of drugs. In most of these countries, driving under the influence of a drug will be proven by the presence of certain analytes in the blood of the driver. One of the key elements in the enforcement process is the possibility to take immediate administrative measures (short-term driving ban) and the selection of the drivers that will have to undergo venipuncture. An important step to improve the detection of “impaired drivers” has been the extensive training programme for police officers in some countries. A second complementary approach is the use of an acceptable screening device at the roadside to provide the police officer with additional evidence of recent drug use. In march 1999, the Belgian parliament adopted a new law on driving under the influence of illicit drugs. A driver is sanctioned if THC, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, morphine, amphetamine, MDMA, MDEA or MBDB are detected in blood in concentrations exceeding the cut-off values mentioned in the law. Similar « per se » laws were introduced in Germany and Sweden. An initial suspicion of impairment is established using a limited drug recognition test battery, partially based on the German and the American DRE programmes. If there is a suspicion of impairment, a urine test (cannabis, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, metamphetamines) is performed on-site. A positive test result for at least one parameter leads to immediate withdrawal of the driving licence (usually for 12 hours) and blood sampling by an independent physician. An inventory of state-of-the-art drug testing screening devices and an extensive laboratory evaluation of seven on-site urine devices has been published earlier this year. The presence of certain drugs of abuse or their metabolites in urine can be interpreted as evidence of relatively recent exposure, except for cannabis. However, this does not necessarily mean that the subject was under the influence at the time of sampling. When the drug is detected in blood, there is a higher probability that the subject is experiencing pharmacological effects. Saliva is probably the only body fluid that might parallel blood in some regards and that may be related to behavioral performance. Kidwell et al. also consider sweat testing as a possible part of a roadside sobriety program to reduce driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). Although it has long been known that drugs are excreted in sweat, this has not been extensively used as a drug detection medium. Recently, due to the development of the sweat patch technology, sweat analysis has been proposed as a means for evaluating drug exposure e.g. in detoxification centers, rather than for roadside testing purposes. When testing for drugs in subjects suspected of impaired driving, some practical aspects should be considered. As for alcohol, police officers with a minimum scientific background must regularly carry out roadside tests that require immediate results. Saliva and sweat sampling is easy, non-invasive, without the intrusion of privacy and with very little chance of adulteration. Securetec (Ottobrunn, Germany) introduced Drugwipe, a non-instrumental immunodiagnostic assay for the detection of drugs on surfaces. The use of Drugwipe for saliva and sweat is currently being investigated in several countries. (Author/publisher) For more information see http://www.rosita.org/
Abstract