Kiwiblog

Ben Heather at Stuff reports:

Hundreds of people are locked up for petty drug offences every year – many for crimes our top legal body says should not exist.

Justice Ministry figures show a significant amount of court time is taken up by minor drug cases, with nearly as many people imprisoned for possessing a small quantity of cannabis as for dealing.

Among these offenders are hundreds imprisoned for possessing a pipe or a needle, an offence the Law Commission recommended legalising last year.

I wonder if those imprisoned for possession of a pipe or needle only convicted for that offence?

The figures also show fewer than one in three minor drug offenders is offered diversion, allowing them to avoid a criminal record.

How many were eligible for diversion? It is only available for first time offenders.

In the past six years, possession of small amounts of cannabis or smoking utensils, such as a pipe, made up about half of all drug charges laid by police.

While most offenders received a fine or community work, more than 2800 were imprisoned on minor drug offences.

These included possession of needles, pipes, and small amounts of cannabis or methamphetamine.

I note that proportions going to prison were:

• Cannabis possession 6.8%
• Cannabis utensil 9.7%
• P possession 22.4%
• P utensil 19.8%

Rather than dealing with people through the criminal justice system, the Government could introduce a mandatory cautioning scheme, he said.

“For a drug like cannabis you could get three cautions before being diverted to a treatment programme. We are not talking about decriminalising or legalising, it’s about a more pragmatic way to get help for people that need it.”

However, Ms Collins said the justice system was the right place for all drug offenders.

“The Government relies on enforcement agencies such as police to make appropriate decisions on how to charge someone for their offending, and the judiciary to make appropriate sentencing decisions based on the circumstances of individual cases.”

Personally I think the Law Commission proposal of a mandatory cautioning scheme is a sensible initiative, and would like to see it implemented. And I am not sure that the justice system is the right place for all drug offenders.

The Herald reports:

A Northland headmaster has written to Prime Minister John Key expressing his concerns about banning drug sniffer dogs from schools, saying it is “short-sighted nonsense” and proposed new legislation was “nuts”.

The Education Amendment Bill, which was introduced to Parliament this month, aims to abolish the use of drug sniffer dogs and drug testing in schools.

The Ministry of Education says the changes will encourage safe learning environments without invasive methods.

Whangarei Boys’ High School headmaster Al Kirk has outlined his concerns to politicians Hekia Parata, Phil Heatley, Mike Sabin, Hone Harawira and John Key.

“I can tell you that WBHS is not supportive of the two amendments relating to drug tests and drug dogs. We are strongly opposed to these suggested changes. Schools will be left to pick up the pieces,” Mr Kirk said in his letter.

“I urge common sense and ask you think long and hard before supporting such retrograde changes.” 

He said safety of students would be compromised under the new regulations in some cases.

The school regularly had a drug sniffer dog go through the school and hostels.

“Surely to goodness, schools should be drug-free,” Mr Kirk said.

I have no idea why the Government is looking to ban these.

Of course you’d rather not have any drug testing or drug sniffer dogs at schools. But if a school thinks such measures are necessary to keep their school drug free, then they should be able to make those decisions.

I thought National was about more flexibility at school level?

UDATE: I’ve been sent some details about the rationale behind the bill. Basically is it that teachers are experts in teaching, not in drug detecting and enforcement. The legal situation has been unclear, hence the requirements in the bill. Teachers themselves will not be able to search bags (unless left in a locker), demand urine tests or use drug dogs.

However teachers can search school property such as lockers and desks. And if they have reasonable grounds to believe a student has an item which can endanger others or detrimentally affect the learning environment, they can demand it is given over (unclear if they can search for it if not given).

Drug dogs can be used, but not when students are present. Schools can bring the Police in to investigate if they think a student is under the influence. Also a Board can still require a suspended student to take a drug test to return to school – so long as the requirement is “reasonable”.

Okay I now understand the rationale behind the bill. I still have to say though that overall I still share the headmaster’s concern. In most schools this law will be fine. But there will be some schools with some pretty hardened drug sellers, and they will be able to evade detection if you can’t do random searches of bags at school.

This bill has just been introduced. The best thing is that people can submit to the select committee. So schools that feel this is too restrictive should say so, as Whangarei Boys’ has.

Paula Bennett has announced:

Beneficiaries with work expectations will face sanctions if they refuse to apply for drug-tested jobs, says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett. 

“Welfare reforms are resetting expectations and obligations and recreational drug use is simply not an acceptable excuse for avoiding available work.”

Under the current welfare system an unemployment beneficiary can decline to apply for an available drug-tested job, because they won’t pass the test, without consequence.

This seem reasonable and over-due. It is not random drug testing of all beneficiaries. It is merely saying you can’t refuse to apply for a job which requires drug testing.

“People will be given a warning and reasonable period of time to stop using drugs before having to take another drug test. But further failures will result in benefit reduction and possible cancellation,” says Mrs Bennett.

Where people fail a drug test or refuse to apply for a drug tested job, they must agree to stop using drugs or their benefit will be cut by 50 percent. They will be given 30 days to allow any drugs they have taken to leave their system.

Where they fail a test or refuse a second time, they will have their benefit suspended until they agree that they will provide a ‘clean’ drug test within 30 days. If they do not do this their benefit will be cancelled.

People with addiction will be supported to get help with their dependency while those on some prescribed medications will be exempt.

Some will argue against this, but I ask what their alternate policy is? That someone can remain indefinitely on the benefit refusing to apply for jobs that they could do if they were drug free?

The Herald reports:

More than half the drivers taken to hospital after causing a crash were found to have drugs in their system, a study has found.

The Ministry of Transport study used blood samples taken from 453 drivers who caused crashes.

Drugs were detected in the systems of 258 drivers, analysis by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) found.

Of that group, 156 were found to be on drugs not administered by a medical professional

Ninety people sent to hospital had both cannabis and alcohol in their system.

Yesterday, the Automobile Association renewed its calls for random roadside saliva tests to be used to target drug drivers.

I support this.

The data above indicates a much much higher presence of drugs in drivers who have crashed than in the normal population. Now there are issues around drug testing, as the presence doesn’t mean a current impairment (unlike alcohol). But I have long thought that drugged driving is as big an issue as drunk driving – and we need to reduce the prevalence of both to make our roads safer.

An interesting article in the Guardian:

Some 7,700 UK drug users and 4,000 from the US and Canada took part in the detailed survey, carried out online in November. Respondents were asked a range of questions including what drugs they took, how often, and what the health and legal consequences were. It was conducted by the independent drug use data exchange Global Drug Survey, in association with the Guardian and Mixmag, the clubbing magazine and website.

One of the strongest underlying messages is that this group of drug users report as happy, healthy and educated, and feel at ease with their recreational consumption of a range of illicit substances from cannabis to ecstasy to cocaine. They are not in rehab, prison or in trouble with the law and do not take heroin or crack.

The mean age of UK respondents was 28. Nine out of 10 were white, three-quarters were in work and earning between £10,000 and £40,000. Some 55% were educated to degree level or above.

A key conclusion being:

Dr Adam Winstock, a consultant addictions psychiatrist and director ofGlobal Drug Survey, said: “This is the largest assessment of current drug use ever conducted. What is overwhelmingly tells us is that people are not defined by their drug use, but that the harms that drugs can have are defined by the way people choose to use them.

“The challenge for government and policy makers will be how to regulate and craft a public health response which remains credible and respects individual choice.”

Absolutely. Demonising all drug users as criminals is not good policy.

Michelle Duff at Stuff reports:

Dreamy, clammy, drooling or overemotional – the tell-tale signs of a drugged driver have led to hundreds of people being netted since the new laws were introduced.

Figures released to The Dominion Post under the Official Information Act show 514 people appeared sufficiently out of it for police to perform a compulsory impairment test on them since the Land Transport Amendment Act was introduced in November 2009.

Of these, 455 struggled to walk nine steps and turn without wandering off the line – stopping, miscounting the number of steps, not understanding the instructions or having to use their arms for balance.

Under the law, a police officer who suspects a driver of being impaired can require the driver to carry out a compulsory impairment test. This measures co-ordination, physiological reactions and markers for drug impairment such as pupil dilation.

As well as requiring them to walk in a straight line, police must check the driver’s behaviour against a list of possible signs of drug use – including slurred or incoherent speech, dilated pupils, and flushed or clammy skin.

They might also be making jerky movements, drooling, scratching, or appear dreamy or anxious.

A driver who fails must undergo a blood test and can then be charged with driving while impaired, which carries similar penalties to those for drink-driving.

Of the 455 drivers who failed the impairment test since 2009, 429 tested positive for one or more drugs.

I was a long time advocate that the Police should check drivers not just for excess alcohol, but for drugs which impair driving ability. It is good to see that the law change has produced results. Driving while stoned is a very very stupid thing to do, as responses are so slowed.

Last week the release of a report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy made news around the world as it declared the war on drugs a costly failure. Part of the reason it got so much publicity was that the Commissioners included:

• Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil
• César Gaviria, former President of Colombia
• Ernesto Zedillo, former President of México
• George Shultz, former Secretary of State
• Richard Branson, entrepreneur
• Kofi Annan, former Un Secretary-General

Now I don’t necessairly disagree with the conclusion that the war on drugs has been a failure. Having said that, I’m not sure better alternatives have been articulated.

Anyway I got curious about this Global Commission that made headlines around the world. I wondered who actually established the group? Was it the UN? Was it a country? An NGO?

And then I wondered who selected the Commissioners? Did they select people known to share a common view that the war on drugs has failed? Did they advertise for Commissioners?

And finally I wondered who was paying the bills?

The interesting thing is that none of these questions can be found on the Commission’s website, or in their report. They seems to have had a virgin birth, just declaring their own existence.

So who can find out answers to the questions – who established the commission, who appointed the commissioners and who is paying the bills?

As far as I can tell no mainstream media outlet has asked these questions, or more importantly included them in their reporting. If this was a group hand picked for their known opposition to current drug policy, that is a relevant piece of information.

Kate Chapman reports at Stuff:

Offenders with serious drug and alcohol problems could get a chance to go to rehab instead of jail if a new drug court pilot goes ahead.

The Law Commission recommended the establishment of a drug court pilot that would see sentencing delayed while offenders underwent rehabilitation and detoxification treatment.

A spokesman for Justice Minister Simon Power said the Justice Ministry was working with other government agencies, including the Health Ministry, and would report back on the cost effectiveness and funding availability for the programme.

“The Minister thinks the idea of drug courts is a really interesting idea,” he said.

If the pilot court goes ahead it is likely to be housed at the Waitakere District Court.

This is a promising development. I don’t think the status quo is working that well. Rehabilitation and treatment is preferable to criminal sanctions.

The Law Commission has completed its report reviewing our drug laws. Their key proposals include:

• A mandatory cautioning scheme for all personal possession and use offences that come to the attention of the police
• Removing minor drug offenders from the criminal justice system and providing greater opportunities for those in need of treatment to access it.
• A full scale review of the current drug classification system which is used to determine restrictiveness of controls and severity of penalties, addressing existing inconsistencies and focusing solely on assessing a drug’s risk of harm, including social harm.
• Making separate funding available for the treatment of offenders through the justice sector to support courts when they impose rehabilitative sentences to address alcohol and drug dependence problems;
• Consideration of a pilot drug court, allowing the government to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of deferring sentencing of  some  offenders until they had undergone court-imposed alcohol and/or drug treatment

I think the Law Commission’s proposals are very sound, and they are not a “soft line on drugs“, as Stuff says.

Giving people a criminal record over a one time possession of small amounts of cannabis is silly, considering arund half the adult population have smoked cannabis. I’m not one of them incidentially.

I hope the Government does not reject this report knee-jerk, and doesn’t rule out any changes which might lead to better outcomes for New Zealand and New Zealanders. The proposed warning system for drug use provides good incentives for people to stop.

The HoS reports:

A drug dealing 12-year-old took a kilogram of cannabis to sell to his mates at an intermediate school.

The kid with the stash, worth about $7000, was busted when his friends at Auckland’s Manurewa Intermediate were caught smoking some of the cannabis.

The 12-year-old had been given the drugs by a family member to sell at school.

I hope that family member is now in jail.

Labour’s education spokesman, Trevor Mallard, said police and Child, Youth and Family (CYF) should be told of every drugs case in primary and intermediate schools.

“The sharing of this information could well help the kid in the long run. It might be that CYF and police decide to do nothing but they should have that information.

“That’s something that the minister should look at.”

But Education Minister Anne Tolley indicated on Friday that was unlikely. “This issue should be of concern to everyone – parents, communities, boards of trustees and teachers,” she said.

“Boards manage schools and develop their own policies – and most would notify the police or CYF in the event of a drugs issue. That’s a commonsense approach – and schools shouldn’t need the Government to tell them that.”

I’m basically with Trevor on this one. If we are talking kids not yet at secondary school, then I think there must be mandatory notification. This is too important to leave to school discretion. Sure you don’t want schools having to report every 17 year old who is caught with some pot, but hell if a kid is into drugs at age 10 or 12, then they are at serious risk of a life of dysfunctionality.

David Garrett blogs:

have just had the pleasure of listening to retired California Judge Peggy Hora speaking on Drug Courts in that state. These courts were introduced about 20 years ago, and seem to have been a resounding success on a number of fronts, particularly financial – for every dollar spent on Drug Courts, twelve dollars is saved on police and corrections budgets.

Rather than imposing prison sentences, Drug Courts suspend sentences pending the completion of drug treatment programmes that are tailored to each individual offender. If the offender successfully completes his or her programme, then the court imposes no further sentence. If they fail, they are sentenced as if the treatment programme had not been attempted. The offender does not suffer any additional penalty for attempting but failing to “get clean”.

In answer to a question from me, Judge Hora made it clear that treatment programmes in the community were not an option for violent offenders – regardless of their drug status. The Judge also observed that current thinking among addiction treatment specialists is that compulsory treatment within prisons can in fact be effective. Like most people, I had been of the view that compulsory treatment could not be effective. Her Honour noted that if compulsory treatments were to be effective, offenders had to “engage” with them – and apparently most do – and there has to be more intensive monitoring of those persons when they are back in the community.

Treatment rather than punishment sounds a worthwhile idea to me. A pity the Government ruled out any change to the drug laws.

The NZ Herald talks city transport:

Unlike the present agency, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, the new body will not be responsible for public transport alone, it will also take charge of roading from local councils. Thus it will oversee everything from the big picture to the small details of where to put footpaths and bus stops.

On the face of it, the idea of having one body co-ordinating the approach to all forms of transport in the city looks like a good thing. Unfortunately, there is a significant downside. As a council controlled organisation, Auckland Transport will not be obliged to hold public meetings or issue agendas and minutes except when making bylaws. Effectively, therefore, many of the decisions about things that directly affect ratepayers at a local level will be made in secrecy by remote officials. …

The best thing that can be said about the lack of transparency envisaged by the bill is that it is not yet set in stone. Mr Joyce acknowledged as much when he said the balance struck between administrative burden and transparency was a decision made by officials and further thought would be given to these aspects after submissions on the bill were heard.

This sounds very much like preparing the ground for some important changes. They will be most welcome if they favour more openness.

I expect the Select Committee will make changes.

The Dominion Post supports drug law reform:

The Government’s quick dismissal of the bulk of the Law Commission’s work on drug use in New Zealand is regrettable.

Its unpalatability for the Government – and, no doubt, for many others – comes in its recommendation for flexibility when dealing with small-scale dealing and personal possession for use, and for less emphasis on conviction and punishment. The flip side of that is a recommendation for a greater focus on treatment, prevention and education.

The current laws are hardly working. We have the highest use of cannabis in pretty much the western world.

The Press is enthused over electric vehicles:

The notion that petrol-driven vehicles are nearing the end of their domination of the road seems doubtful to many. They have become used to stories of geniuses with plans for water-propelled engines being done down by Big Oil, and with expectations from reputable scientists that alternative sources of unlimited energy were close to being harnessed. Scepticism about electric vehicles becoming a practical option is, therefore, understandable.

It is time for the end of those doubts. The world’s major car manufacturers are investing hugely in electric-motor research and development and have based their plans for survival on using the technology.

How about nuclear powered cars

The ODT welcomes back the scarfies:

In the wake of cruise-ship passengers crowding Dunedin streets comes the hubbub and display of an entirely different species of wild life: the university year is about to restart.

The influx of students is already evident in shops, bars and restaurants, and the second-hand furniture traders from which yet another year’s batch of scarfie flats is furnished.

Once again the streets are alive with the sound of youthful excitement, bubbling with optimism, hungry for adventure.

The city is an altogether more vibrant place when, like the godwits, these scholars migrate south to continue their studies or begin a new chapter in their lives.

Having spent a summer in Dunedin, it is a lovely place when it is more tranquil, but there is nothing like the bustle of term time.

Simon Power must have a very sore kneecap after what was an un-necessary kneejerk rejection of pretty much everything in the Law Commission’s review of drug laws.

“There’s not a single, solitary chance that as long as I’m the Minister of Justice we’ll be relaxing drug laws in New Zealand.

Though he was “interested” in submissions on regulations limiting the supply of new drugs – including party pills – he had “no intention of changing the current rules”.

“I’m happy to hear what the submissions have to say but I have advised the Law Commission that I have other things on my work agenda.”

I’m surprised and somewhat disappointed by such a response – especially that Simon is generally seen as one of the more liberal and considered Ministers.

I’ll turn to the detail of the options put out by the Law Commission, but note at this point that to categorise them all as “liberalization” is in fact incorrect. The Police Association President Greg O’Connor was quite supportive on radio of many of the ideas, as was the Drug Foundation which aims to minimise harm from drugs.

Personally I’m far from convinced our current laws are working for low level drugs like cannabis. I’m hardline and back the Govt’s initiatives when it comes to drugs like P and Heroin, but am very open to the argument that instant offence fines from Police would be better than dragging people through court for minor possession offences.

I’m one of the few people of my age that has never even tried illegal drugs, so my advocacy of a different approach is not motivated by self-interest. Cannabis could be legal and sold at New World with coupon discounts, and I still wouldn’t smoke it. But at least 46% of New Zealanders have used cannabis and I’m not sure we want to drag two million New Zealanders through court if they were all busted.

Some of the options put forward by the Law Commission are:

• Move from a three tier system (Class A, B and C) to a two tier classification system, to more clearly distinguish between the very harmful and less harmful drugs.
• Rather than have arguments over whether drugs were for purpose of use or supply, have two different possession offences with a higher maximum penalty for the higher quantity offence.
• A formal cautioning scheme, with up to three cautions for personal use offences, with requirements to undertake an intervention session and counselling
• Option of infringement notices requiring a fine and/or attend a drug education session for less serious drugs
• Prohibit any new psychoactive substance from being manufactured, produced or imported without prior approval

Now some of the options the Law Commission put up are not things I would support. I’l plead guilty to not being too worried about the Bill of Rights implications that someone found with 10 kgs of Heroin has to prove it was for personal use, reversing the normal onus of proof.

But there are some options there well worth considering. The Police already use their discretion a lot for minor drug offences. I’d rather there was a formal statutory framework around use of cautions. I also like the idea of infringement notices rather than criminal sanctions for first or second time offenders, and greater use of referrals to drug counselling sessions.

John Key has announced a wide range of measures, as part of a plan to reduce the supply of, demand for, and harm caused by P. The main measures are:

• Making pseudoephedrine a Class B2 controlled drug, making it prescription-only. (I have attached the report from Sir Peter Gluckman recommending this)
  
• Use proceeds of crime legislation to fund additional Police and Customs activities to fight gangs and organised crime plus an expansion of drug treatment services.
• Investing in additional $22 million in clinical services to fund treatment for P addiction to more than 3,000 additional patients over the next three years.
• Assigning 40 additional Customs officers to special dedicated drug-taskforce duties to help break the supply chain. Key also announced in just two weeks Customs has managed to make 26 seizures of ingredients with a street value of $13 million if they had been used to produce P.
  
• A new Police Methamphetamine Control Strategy which aims to use intelligence in new ways to target gangs, investigate drug syndicates which import P precursors illegally, target P ‘cooks’ and seize funds and assets gained through P-related activity.
• Reviewing the outdated Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966, to provide a more effective legal means to get P-addicts into compulsory assessment and treatment.
• Making chief executives of Government agencies accountable for delivering on our plans, as measured against a range of targets that will be clearly set out in the actual Action Plan to be released next week.

The status quo has obviously failed. It is good to see that the plan does not just try to target one aspect, but is a balance of measures that aim to reduce supply, reduce the demand for P, and reduce the harm caused by those addicted to it – which is far far wider than self harm.

The Gluckman report is here – Pseudoephedrine report.

A recent story on how destructive the addiction to P is, was a great story in the HoS by Carolyne Meng-Yee on Lynne Carter:

One of Auckland’s poshest hotels has turfed out a high-profile socialite, saying her erratic behaviour has scared guests and staff and claiming she has left her $600-a-night suite uninhabitable. …

The eviction of Carter, who is facing methamphetamine and fraud charges in the Auckland District Court, is the latest twist in a sad fall from grace for the businesswoman who once boasted a $6 million waterfront mansion, a Ferrari and a booming property development business.

She was set for life.

“She smokes and we don’t allow smoking, and her dog pisses everywhere,” Bourke said. “We have chucked her out many times but she keeps coming back in the middle of the night.” …

“She was smoking all the time and the dog was in the room. It was peeing everywhere.

“She would get up in the middle of the night … She was out like till 3am, running up and down the hallways calling out ‘Louis, Louis’ and we had complaints from guests saying ‘who is the woman running up and down the hallway screaming?’

“Or we would have functions on… It was horrible, it really was.”

On another occasion, Bourke said Carter sat in the Herne Bay hotel’s library, staring vacantly at the ceiling.

And if not bad enough:

Bourke said that, in her opinion, Carter had “gone from someone who was well-dressed and well-spoken… and she has turned into a country bumpkin who walks around with no shoes and dirty hair”.

Bourke said Mollies could not hire out her suite because of the stench of dog urine and stale cigarette smoke. “We have to air it a little bit longer to get rid of the smell.”

And that is just a case of self-harm, and is nothing compared to the cases of William Bell, Antonie Dixon, and others where innocent Kiwis get butchered in P fuelled rages.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key is proposing to combat the drug P by banning its main ingredient, pseudoephedrine, from use in over-the-counter cold and flu tablets.

Mr Key’s first task for his chief science adviser, Professor Peter Gluckman, is to investigate “whether it is possible for New Zealand to eliminate pseudoephedrine in the making of cold and flu tablets”.

Mr Key said he was surprised by the amount of methamphetamine – known as P – being made from locally obtained pseudoephedrine.

I’d have no idea about how important pseudoephedrine is in cold and flu tablets, but sounds like an ideal first issue for the Chief Science Adviser.

The pseudoephedrine ban Mr Key is considering would supersede the much-discussed option of a national computer register that would alert police to suspicious cold and flu tablet purchases.

Police support such a register, but no progress has been made despite almost 10 years of discussions.

But many committee meetings no doubt!

Pharmacy Guild chief executive Annabel Young said the alternatives to pseudoephedrine were not nearly as effective in dealing with cold symptoms.

She said much of the locally produced methamphetamine was made from Contac NT smuggled in from China and restricting access to over-the-counter pseudoephedrine products would not stop this.

But Gisborne pharmacist David Moore, who refuses to stock pseudoephedrine, gave the Herald a list of 11 tablets using alternative ingredients such as phenyleprine that he said were just as effective.

No surprise there is a difference in views – otherwise no need to have the CSA investigate and report on it.

Trevor Mallard at Red Alert is seeking feedback on two issues:

1. If someone fails a breath test then all action related to driving while impaired with drugs ceases.  The evidence the committee got made it very clear that using booze and other drugs together had a multiplicitive effect when it came to having accidents. In an extreme case an offender would get a lesser penalty by having a quick drink when stopped at a checkpoint while high on “P”. Doesn’t seem right to me. My view is that where someone is clearly more impaired than they should be with a given breath test reading then the Police should have the right to move down the drug testing route as well.
2. When someone is hospitalised then blood taken can be used for a drink but not a drug drive charge. In my opinion anyone who has active class A drugs in their system should be prosecuted – even if they have had an accident where they have been hospitalised.

I’ve personally long been an advocate for greater scrutiny of drug driving, not just drunk driving.

However I understand that one of the real challenges is that drugs stay in your body a lot longer than alcohol, and long after it impairs you. I’m not sure if we want people charged if they drive a car two weeks after they had a joint?

Trevor though is talking Class Drugs such as ‘P”. The schedule of Class A drugs is here. It even includes Thalidomide!

Again though – how long does Cocaine effect someone and how long does it stay in the body? Is it fair to face extra charges for having taken coke two weeks before you crash the car? Some will say yes, as coke (unlike alcohol) is illegal.

Also Trevor’s proposal does not seem to be suggesting random drug testing – only for those who have failed a breath test and/or caused a crash and been hospitalised.

Overall I would tend to be in favour of the proposals, but open to arguments against.

From Stuff:

Transport Minister Steven Joyce has made the introduction of drug tests for drivers his “top priority”.

A bill, which would give police the power to stop and make drivers have a roadside test for drug impairment, is before Parliament’s select committee.

Drafted by the previous Labour Government, the bill failed to get through the select committee stage in 2007.

Mr Joyce has now put the bill forward again and believes it will be passed by the middle of the year.

It certainly is a serious problem:

An ESR study between 2004 and 2008 found 52 per cent of drivers that died in accidents were under the influence or alcohol or drugs.

What I don’t know if how any testing will determine if the drug use was recent (ie is currently impairing the driver) or historical. Off memory cannabis can remain in your bloodstream for weeks or longer.

An amazing drugs bust in Australia – the world’s largest ever bust of Ecstasy or E – 4.4 tonnes worth over NZ$500 million. They were transported in 3,000 tins of tomatos.

I wonder what has been our biggest drugs bust in NZ?