AN UNWELCOME ENCROACHMENT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES

WHEN THE IDEA of introducing Narcotests to deter people from driving
under the influence of drugs was first mooted by the police some time
ago, many people thought it would not be pursued, as nobody had
bothered to think it through. It would have been abandoned with the
same ease it had been brought up once a little thought was finally
given to how it would be enforced.

But last Wednesday, we learned that the Narcotest had not been
abandoned and police were planning on introducing it as soon as the
relevant bill was approved by Parliament. An official from the
Communications Ministry presented the bill to the House on Wednesday
and in the ensuing discussion it became obvious that, on one score,
people were right - very little thought had been given to how it would be used.

The State Legal Service had reservations about it as the test's first
result had a 10 per cent chance of being wrong.

If there was a positive reading, a second, bigger sample of saliva
would be taken from the driver and a more reliable test (only two per
cent chance of being wrong) would be carried out on the spot. For the
first test, 10 minutes would be required and for the second 30. A
driver, who would be detained by police for 40 minutes until the
result of the second test was ready, would not be happy if it was clear.

A person could take legal action against the authorities in such a
case, a representative of the State Legal Service warned.

People had sued the state for being detained without good cause, for
shorter periods than 40 minutes, she said. Deputies also shared the
reservations of the Legal Service representative and suggested that
more reliable drug-testing equipment be purchased by the police, so
that the risk of wrongly detaining drivers was eliminated.

But even if the police found a drug-testing kit which was absolutely
reliable and accurate, its use would still be problematic, for a
variety of reasons that the officials who drafted the bill never thought about.

For instance, the use of certain prescribed medicine could give a
positive reading for illegal drug use; cannabis can be traced in the
body several days after it has been used, leading to prosecution even
though it was not affecting driving ability; non-prescription
medicine like cough syrup could impair driving ability also; drivers
on prescribed drugs, like tranquilisers or anti-depressants, would be
exempt from prosecution even though they might be more unfit to drive
than someone on illegal drugs.

The law-makers' decision to allow legal drug users to drive with
impunity would suggest that the authorities have a hidden agenda - to
use the Narcotest to catch illegal drug users and enter their names
in police records. The Narcotest would give the police a legal excuse
to set up roadside checks and test young males (the social group with
the highest use of illegal drugs), irrespective of how they were driving.

In other words, there is a danger of the test being abused by the
police in order to harass and persecute young drug users, in the name
of road safety.

Police would also be able to create a database of drug users, thus
tarnishing the reputation of people for the rest of their life.

If police were so concerned about improving road safety, the law
would not have exempted users of prescribed drugs from prosecution,
as a driver on valium, opiate pain-killers or stimulants is as likely
to cause car accident as a cocaine user. Of eight European studies of
drivers killed on the road, four found benzodiazepines (a drug found
in prescription medicine) to be the most common drug present.

Only two found cannabis to be the most common drug; for the study in
Spain, it was cocaine and in Norway amphetamines. Given the
widespread use of prescription, psychoactive drugs in Cyprus, and the
existence of studies that show users to be involved in traffic
accidents, why would users in Cyprus be exempt from prosecution?

Exempting legal drug users reinforces suspicions that the
introduction of the Narcotest is primarily targeted at identifying
users of illegal substances and keeping their names on record, rather
than for improving road safety. Some would argue that this would be
no bad thing, but in practice it is a gross infringement on personal
liberty and a violation of the right to privacy. If the police are so
determined to reduce the number of road deaths they should speed up
the process of installing traffic cameras, which markedly reduce
speeding, the main cause of fatal accidents in Cyprus.

According to police data, in 2007 drugs accounted for just 3.4 per
cent of road deaths, not exactly a figure that would justify another
encroachment on personal liberty.