News (Media Awareness Project) - New Zealand: Editorial: Drugs Plan Is Sound |
Title: | New Zealand: Editorial: Drugs Plan Is Sound |
Published On: | 2007-10-05 |
Source: | Timaru Herald (New Zealand) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-11 21:25:04 |
DRUGS PLAN IS SOUND
Drugs and alcohol. They're often found side by side, or mentioned in
the same breath, and can have largely the same effect on people;
though the exact effects of different narcotics do vary; so it's
entirely appropriate that their use, when combined with driving a
motor vehicle, should be subject to similar restrictions.
The Land Transport Amendment Bill, which Transport Minister Annette
King has introduced to Parliament this week, provides for penalties
for driving under the influence of illegal drugs which will be the
same as for drink-driving, including a minimum six-month
disqualification for a first offence.
It's good, old-fashioned common sense. The only real question is why
it has taken so long to get to the point where we may be on the verge
of such a measure becoming law, remembering that a bill must go
through three readings in Parliament and that is likely to take
several months, at least. It certainly seems discussion around the
issue has been going on for some time.
Drink-driving is an issue we're confronted with on a daily basis in
one form or another, through news stories, advertising or perhaps even
in having to front up to a police roadblock. There's no arguing with
the fact that it is a major problem. Despite hard-hitting advertising
campaigns - "If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot" is about
as blunt as advertising slogans get - there are currently 29,000
drink-driving prosecutions annually, according to national road
policing manager Superintendent Dave Cliff.
By contrast, police expect to prosecute around 400 cases a year for
driving under the influence of drugs. Granted, that's only 1.37 per
cent of the drink-driving cases, but that shouldn't mean this is any
less important. That still represents a minimum of 400 occasions in
any given year - and let's face it, the number of prosecutions will be
nowhere near the actual number of offences, because police simply
can't be everywhere - when a genuine threat to public safety exists
because someone impaired by drugs is behind the wheel.
An interesting adjunct to this bill, though, is that it's not just
those using illegal drugs who could be nabbed. Those who turn out to
be impaired because they have failed to properly read the guidelines
received with their prescription drugs could also find themselves in
trouble.
Though that may spark some howls of outrage about being grouped
alongside those consuming illegal substances, again, it's simple
common sense. The fact is alcohol is also legal. It's the misuse of it
that gets people into trouble and the same would apply to those taking
excessive doses of prescription drugs or taking them in conjunction
with even minor alcohol consumption, contrary to pharmaceutical advice.
After all, there's no way anyone considered fit to drive a motor
vehicle should be unable to properly follow a drug prescription.
Drugs and alcohol. They're often found side by side, or mentioned in
the same breath, and can have largely the same effect on people;
though the exact effects of different narcotics do vary; so it's
entirely appropriate that their use, when combined with driving a
motor vehicle, should be subject to similar restrictions.
The Land Transport Amendment Bill, which Transport Minister Annette
King has introduced to Parliament this week, provides for penalties
for driving under the influence of illegal drugs which will be the
same as for drink-driving, including a minimum six-month
disqualification for a first offence.
It's good, old-fashioned common sense. The only real question is why
it has taken so long to get to the point where we may be on the verge
of such a measure becoming law, remembering that a bill must go
through three readings in Parliament and that is likely to take
several months, at least. It certainly seems discussion around the
issue has been going on for some time.
Drink-driving is an issue we're confronted with on a daily basis in
one form or another, through news stories, advertising or perhaps even
in having to front up to a police roadblock. There's no arguing with
the fact that it is a major problem. Despite hard-hitting advertising
campaigns - "If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot" is about
as blunt as advertising slogans get - there are currently 29,000
drink-driving prosecutions annually, according to national road
policing manager Superintendent Dave Cliff.
By contrast, police expect to prosecute around 400 cases a year for
driving under the influence of drugs. Granted, that's only 1.37 per
cent of the drink-driving cases, but that shouldn't mean this is any
less important. That still represents a minimum of 400 occasions in
any given year - and let's face it, the number of prosecutions will be
nowhere near the actual number of offences, because police simply
can't be everywhere - when a genuine threat to public safety exists
because someone impaired by drugs is behind the wheel.
An interesting adjunct to this bill, though, is that it's not just
those using illegal drugs who could be nabbed. Those who turn out to
be impaired because they have failed to properly read the guidelines
received with their prescription drugs could also find themselves in
trouble.
Though that may spark some howls of outrage about being grouped
alongside those consuming illegal substances, again, it's simple
common sense. The fact is alcohol is also legal. It's the misuse of it
that gets people into trouble and the same would apply to those taking
excessive doses of prescription drugs or taking them in conjunction
with even minor alcohol consumption, contrary to pharmaceutical advice.
After all, there's no way anyone considered fit to drive a motor
vehicle should be unable to properly follow a drug prescription.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...