THE DRUGGED DRIVING EPIDEMIC

Why the Mayhem at a Southeast Festival Wasn't the Fluke You Might Think It Was

More than three dozen men, women and children were hurt at a
Southeast Washington festival by a driver police say was high on
crack. Two days later, another allegedly drug-addicted driver crashed
into a crowd of students at a bus stop in La Plata, injuring four.

These were not isolated incidents, and they raise the question of how
we can get drug-impaired drivers off the streets.

If readers think the government is doing something to protect
innocent lives from drugged driving, they should think again. The
government response has lagged far behind the growing evidence that
we face an epidemic of drugged driving.

For example:

. The federal government's 2004 U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and
Health estimated that 10.6 million Americans had driven a motor
vehicle under the influence of an illegal drug or drugs during the
previous year.

. Several studies have shown that 80 percent of drug users drive
after having used illicit drugs and that many drive even while in the
process of using the drugs.

. A recent toxicology study conducted at the University of Maryland's
Shock-Trauma Unit in Baltimore found that 65.7 percent of injured
drivers tested positive for either alcohol or commonly abused drugs.
More than half (50.9 percent) tested positive for drugs other than
alcohol, with over 26 percent testing positive for marijuana. Alcohol
was detected in 30.6 percent of the drivers.

Despite this evidence that driving under the influence of illegal
drugs is common, drugged drivers are far less frequently detected,
prosecuted or referred for treatment than drunk drivers.

In most states, proving drugged driving requires showing that an
illegal substance caused the impaired driving rather than showing
less-onerous "per se" evidence, a standard requiring only that it be
proved that a driver had been using drugs when he or she got behind
the wheel. The good news is that 15 states, including Virginia, have
recently passed legislation to make it easier to convict drugged
drivers by establishing such standards for drug use. That doesn't do
much for people in Anacostia and La Plata; neither the District nor
Maryland has a "per se" drugged driver law.

Progress has been slow because of institutional incentives at the
federal level that make reducing drugged driving a lower priority
than the fight against drunken driving. Federal highway laws require
states to have per se standards for drunken driving as a condition
for receiving full highway funds. No such requirement exists for
drugged driving.

In 2005, a bipartisan group in Congress attached legislation to the
omnibus transportation bill to help states combat drugged driving.
This modest legislation authorized $1.2 million a year for research,
mandated a report to Congress within 18 months on policy options for
drugged driving and required the transportation secretary to
recommend a model law for states that want to pass drugged driving legislation.

Over the past two years not one of these actions has been fully
funded by Congress or carried out by the Bush administration. In
fact, the drugged driving program in the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) was effectively eliminated in 2006
through a congressionally mandated merger with other programs. The
report to Congress is long overdue.

This year, the White House has asked Congress to fund the $1.2
million in drugged driving research. If passed, this provision will
raise the proportion of NHTSA resources being used to reduce drugged
driving from 0.2 percent of the agency's budget to 0.3 percent.

Leaders on Capitol Hill need to offer more than lip service to this
fight. At a minimum, Congress should demand that the administration
issue its report on drugged driving and prepare a model law. Congress
should hold hearings on why the fight against this national public
health and safety problem has been allowed to wither.

Congressional hearings can highlight the stories of prosecutors who
are restricted by antiquated laws, police officers who don't have the
tools to identify drugged drivers and parents whose innocent children
have been injured or killed.

- -- J. Michael Walsh

Potomac

- -- Robert L. DuPont

Rockville

J. Michael Walsh is president of the Walsh Group, a policy research
organization. His email address isjmwalsh@walshgroup.org. Robert L.
DuPont is president of the Institute for Behavior and Health. His
e-mail address is rldupontmd@ibhinc.org.