Early in Red Alert’s history I blogged on drug driving. The feedback was taken on board as caucus discussed its position.
We will support the legislation subject to two amendments.
- Mandating the police to apply the impairment test and subsequent blood test notwithstanding the fact that someone has also failed a alcohol breath test. This means if someone has both been drinking over the limit and taking drugs they will face two driving charges.
- Making +ve tests for Class A drugs taken from injured drivers available for prosecution evidence in the way similar alcohol tests are used.
Draft amendments are available here for people to examine. [Draft amendments are available via the link below].
The Nats have been advised they are coming. The select committee chair gave an assurance that parliamentary counsel help would be available in drafting the amendments but eith the A-G or the Minister of Transport withdrew that offer so any comments welcome.
Frankly I can’t see any rational person voting against them. To do so would be to support drugged people driving.
UPDATE (17/06/09): Here’s an updated version of the SOP.
What, no thresholds of drug impairment? One nanogram of prescription medicine or illegal substance makes you a sudden driving risk? We don’t do that for alcohol intoxication, and we shouldn’t with other substances either.
The only time there is no threshold of impairment will be when someone drives with Class A drugs and is injured – blood is already taken and tested for research purposes – this allows it to be used for Transport Act but not Misuse of Drugs Act prosecution purposes.
It is my view that there is no level of methamphetamine (inc P) with which we should risk allowing people to drive.
There are clear and fair defences for driving with prescribed medicines in the bill as reported back, these amendments don’t change those.
What it allows and encourages is that the driver is given an impairment test if they are obviously more impaired than one would expect from the breath test result. eg just fail but slurring heavily or major inabilty to focus.
I’m with Trevor on this.
Meth use is the scourge of our society.
I hope the Nats come to the party on this and I will certainly be encouraging them to do so.
I guess its another law we might need, but what mystifies me is why drugs are such a large part of society today. Its almost as if its a necessary ingredient of the socialist paradigm.
What’s changed that NZers are so widely and desperately and commonly in need of mind altering substances, and why does the use of these substances seem to correspond with the country’s incremental slide into socialism.??
With ammendment 1 you may run into a problem with double jeopardy. I am no expert but i am sure that lawyers and the courts would have a field day with this one. Personally I support any legislation that keeps me and my family safer but the police and courts need simple effective legislation to work with.
I’ll take the bait- but then lets get back to substance.
Drugs are a problem right around the western world, the type of government appears to make no difference although the Thatcher Reagan periods seemed to be when harder drugs took off in the UK and US.
Redbaiter your socialist paradigm theory is nonsense, unless those heroes of the right are socialists.
Is NZ more ’socialist’ now, in an economic sense, than it was in the 70s under Muldoon? I don’t think so. Redbaiter, given taxes are much lower and the government is less involved in the economy, shouldn’t this mean that, on your theory, drug use would be lower?
A couple of matters:
1. The amendments you propose don’t make a whole lot of legislative sense; you talk about “subsections” when you mean clauses, and sometimes, “subsections” when you mean paragraphs. “The” is spelled with an R, and you’re also missing an “or” which may render your change meaningless. I think I figured what you intended, but the PCO would hate you
2. Your proposed amendments in no way limit their scope to class A drugs.
“Drugs are a problem right around the western world,”
Not so much in Singapore, where self responsibility is encouraged by government, not eroded.
For all that meth use is a scourge, what you’re proposing isn’t in pursuit of road safety. A trace of methamphetamine is likely to produce less impairment that even moderate consumption of alcohol, or any number of legal prescription drugs.
By all means, pursue reform to illicit drug policy. But don’t dress it up as a road safety measure.
Otherwise, you’re adopting the law of Singapore, which Redbaiter likes so much, where blood can be forcibly taken and tested from any citizen.
Next draft of the SOP here, http://blog.labour.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/land-transport-amendment-bill-no-4.pdf Thanks for comments both direct and through the blog. Oh to have parliamentary counsel – they always seemed a bit pedantic but they certainly help drafting and explaining.
Better, but not quite there yet
New section 57A(1), as reported, contains two paragraphs – a person commits an offence against 57A(1) if they meet the requirements of both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). I anticipate that your new paragraph (c) is intended as an alternative to the combination of the two.
That is, you intend that someone commits the offence by: 1) fulfilling the requirements of both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b); or 2) fulfilling the requirements of paragraph (c).
This is not how your proposal is currently drafted. First, you lack a connector (“and” or “or”) at the end of paragraph (b) – it is not technically clear on the language as drafted whether your change should be read as additional to; or in alternative to the preceding paragraphs.
Second, even if you were to add the connector “or” at the end of paragraph (b) it still wouldn’t be entirely clear – there would still be confusion as to whether your paragraph (c) was an alternative to the combination of paragraph (a) and paragraph (b), or just to paragraph (b). Lists of paragraphs in legislation (or the English language generally) cannot work with mixed connectors.
Even if you put an “or” at the end of paragraph (b) it would not be clear whether your amendment:
(1) changes the requirements so that offence is committed when:
(i) both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) are fulfilled; or
(ii) paragraph (c) is fulfilled; or
(2) changes the requirements so that offence is committed when:
(i) both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) are fulfilled; or
(ii) both paragraph (a) and paragraph (c) are fulfilled.
To achieve your end, you need to either:
(1) use a further set on insets (e.g. section 57A(1)(a)(i)(A)); or
(2) separate your new offence into a subsection of its own (changing it to section 57A(1A), repeating the language creating the offence) and amending subsections (2) and (3) to include reference to “… offence against subsection (1) or subsection (2), …”
As an aside, have you a scientific basis to exclude thalidomide? Is there a study that suggests that people with thalidomide in their systems are safe drivers? As you note in the comments above, the only time this offence would arise is in situations where the offender has actually been injured.
Thanks Graeme – will put your comment into the mix.
Thalidomide is excluded in the rest of the bill – just being consistent, it was one of the issues decided before i became a member of the committee and I didn’t seek to question it.
No problem … I really need to get someone to start paying me for this
And My apologies that it was so dense.
I would note a typo in my suggestion, however. The second to last paragraph should end “include reference to “… offence against subsection (1) or subsection (1A), …”. Hoist with my own petard…
“Otherwise, you’re adopting the law of Singapore, which Redbaiter likes so much, where blood can be forcibly taken and tested from any citizen.”
Not any different in principle to stopping (at Eastern European style road blocks), law abiding people and forcing them to blow into an alcohol detector. (air from lungs, blood from veins- what’s the real diff?)
I’m all for stopping people and testing them if there is a reason, but these road blocks where completely innocent people just going about their business are stopped and tested are a disgrace.
[...] Joyce has indicated that the government will take on my amendments outlined in a previous post. Good parliamentary process. Congratulations to David Bennett and Nathan Guy who helped me convince [...]