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 pso@claad.org www.claad.org

Stacey Sklaver, Safe BTW Policy Advisor (703) 527-8800 sls@safebtw.org www.safebtw.org

For More Information on Drug-Impaired Driving