About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

19 Griffith L. Rev. 330 (2010)
Detouring Civil Liberties? Drug-Driving Laws in Australia

handle is hein.journals/griffith19 and id is 332 raw text is: DETOURING CIVIL LIBERTIES? Drug-Driving Laws in Australia Jeremy Prichard, Allison Matthews, Raimondo Bruno, Katherine Rayment and Helen James This article provides an overview of the new drug-driving laws that exist in Australia. It explains that, like drink-driving offences, the drug-driving laws prima facie infringe civil liberties. Yet these infringements are permissible, providing the laws promote road safety and thereby the civil liberty of the right to life. The article then analyses empirical evidence concerning the effects of different illicit drugs on driving skills. It is argued that it is not practical or necessary to require this evidence base to match the standard reached with respect to alcohol. However, suggestions are made as to how drug- driving legislation could better promote road safety, including by recognising the interrelationships between drug-driving, drug-dependency and unemployment. The final section of the article critically examines aspects of Tasmanian law, which appear to focus more upon drug law enforcement than the enhancement of road safety. Introduction This article discusses new powers that have been enacted nationally to regulate drivers' consumption of illicit drugs. The first section explains that these so-called 'drug-driving' laws essentially extend police powers that were originally granted to govern alcohol and drink-driving. The infringements that these laws make upon civil liberties are justifiable, it is argued, providing their objective is to promote road safety. However, the article explains that while the evidence base concerning alcohol and traffic accidents is well established, there is less certainty about the effects of the various illicit drugs. The article suggests that it is not practical or necessary for research to determine precise safety cut-off levels, similar to the 0.05g%/IOOmL limit for alcohol. Notwithstanding this, there is a need for debate on what constitutes credible empirical evidence linking each drug type to driving impairment. * Dr Jeremy Prichard, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania; Dr Allison Matthews, School of Psychology and Discipline of Psychiatry, University of Tasmania; Dr Raimondo Bruno, School of Psychology, University of Tasmania; Katherine Rayment, PhD candidate, Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies; Helen James, PhD candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most