This study provides an overview of the legal regulations against drugs in road traffic in twelve selected European countries. It also analyses the enforcement difficulties of these regulations and the efforts a made to date in the field of prevention. The present project involved three phases within each of the twelve participating Member States: (1) identification of drug and alcohol specialists in agencies of justice, police, public health, and transportation, as well as research organizations; (2) data gathering via questionnaire; and (3) follow-up with round table discussions in each of the selected countries. The level of participation differed significantly among the selected countries. Therefore, the information available for this report is quite heterogeneous. On the one hand, very complete information was provided by some countries, whereas information from other countries was quite limited. This situation reflects the different degrees to which the problem of illicit drugs and driving is approached in the various countries. The economic resources of the individual countries constitute the most significant influence in the attention given to the problem. The review shows that there is general agreement among the participating countries on the need to combat the problem of illicit drugs. All of the participating countries agreed to three relevant United Nations conventions and have incorporated those principles into their national laws. All of the countries thereby have agreed unanimously with the statement that road traffic without drugs is better than road traffic in which drug users are present. The first issue concerning drug driving is the lack of knowledge about the magnitude of the problem. This basic lack of knowledge is documented in the report by DeGier (1998) for the Pompidou Group. The review of legal regulations concerning drug driving reveals that most countries provide sanctions for drug driving only in the case of actual impairment. In contrast to alcohol cases, the mere analytical presence of drugs is not subject to punishment in these countries. The necessity of subsuming the drug-driving problem under the general impairment approach (which prohibits the driver from operating a vehicle in any state of compromised fitness) leads to problems in law enforcement: Evidence of reduced fitness as a consequence of drug consumption is difficult to obtain and to prove. The same problems hold true for medications with psychoactive effects. In recognition of this difficulty, and due to the lack of defined limits for the variety of drugs, some countries have decided to introduce an analytical zero limit. Germany has already implemented such a regulation; other countries, such as Switzerland, are expected to follow. Most of the participating countries experience further difficulty relating to appropriate police powers for detecting drug drivers and obtaining sufficient evidence. In general, physical testing (blood and urine samples) can only be ordered if there is suspicion of an actual drug influence. Most countries do not allow biological testing without the person's consent; but in order to prevent the undermining of law enforcement, refusing biological testing is often subject to punishment. Thus, the effectiveness of drug-driving enforcement depends not only on unequivocal regulations about which drugs are prohibited at what concentrations, but also on clear-cut regulations for the police regarding proper procedures for obtaining evidence. Two important ways to improve the effectiveness of enforcement appear to be possible. The first is to introduce screening devices for drug consumption (analogous to breath analysers); the second is to implement drug recognition programs for police. Most of the current screening devices sample saliva, but some use urine or sweat. The most reliable screening results are obtained from urine tests, but they impose interpretation limits on the assessment of the actual state of impairment. In addition, the urine sampling procedure does not seem to be appropriate for field use. Saliva and sweat testing devices are still under development and have not yet reached an acceptable level of validity. Thus, there is currently no rapid, valid, feasible screening device. However, in lieu of such a device in the meantime, an interim aid is available: drug recognition programs for police. Although the need for drug recognition programs is widely accepted in the participating countries, it is clear that significant differences will arise in how they would be developed and implemented. The modification and adaptation of programs already in place in the United States, where they were first developed and implemented, would be costly and subject to legal constraints if they were transferred wholesale for use in Europe. Therefore, the drug recognition program is still only just beginning in some countries. Nevertheless, there is a clear, recognized need and a unanimous willingness throughout all of the participating countries to cooperate in the development of an appropriate European version of the drug recognition program. Relatively little is known about effective countermeasures against drugs and driving. All of the participating countries perceive prevention programs to be necessary and important adjuncts to controlling drug dealing and providing therapeutic programs for drug addicts. The differences among the countries are to be found less in the basic principles of those programs than in the design of special programs and in the degree to which they are implemented. In fact, the strength and success of these programs usually mirror the financial resources of the different countries. Further, prevention efforts have to confront the divided popular attitudes toward drugs and the various political approaches to drug problems. Beyond targeting drug use prevention, little effort has been expended to date to create special prevention programs targeting drug driving. In some countries, deterrence measures have shifted from criminal or traffic law to the administrative regulations of driver license suspension and regranting. In all participating countries, drug driving can lead to license suspension. Regranting is often linked with far-reaching consequences for drivers, who have to prove their abstinence for longer periods of time and be subject to educational and / or therapeutic treatment. In some countries, the potentiality of administrative regulations for license suspension and regranting is used as an additional tool for combatting drug consumption. Even if the drug use is not linked with actual road traffic activity, some countries nevertheless use the consumption or possession of drugs as an opportunity to re-examine the fitness of the user to drive. This practice is a clear and deliberate instrumentalisation of traffic legislation for drug control. Despite different legal codifications, all of the participating countries show a very similar position against drugs. The formal elements of drug offenses are the same in all countries. Unanimously, drug trafficking and dealing are subject to severe penalties. Special emphasis is also given to combatting organized crime. On the basis of these observations, it is not possible to differentiate between more and less liberal countries. Inter-country differences can be found only in the way in which individual countries treat consumption and possession of small amounts of drugs. Some countries focus more on harm reduction and therapy, while others stress deterrence. These different attitudes regarding the drug consumer and / or addict are independent of the way a country handles its problem of drug driving. All countries have demonstrated the political will to put the potential right of the individual to consume drugs behind the public's right to safe road traffic. Therefore, all countries show a clear tendency to protect traffic safety by prohibiting any drug driving. There are no differences in the goal of drug-free traffic, but only in the actual efforts in practice to reach this goal. (A)
Abstract