More drug drivers in BoP than any other region

Print

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 6:24p.m.

Police says drug testing is not forgotten – just more difficult

Police says drug testing is not forgotten – just more difficult

By Rachel Tiffen

An Auckland mother is due in court this week over the death of her daughter, accused of being drugged behind the wheel.

Two years ago, a law change was made to allow police to do more roadside drug impairment tests, to clamp down on the problem. But figures obtained by 3 News suggest police could be doing more.

Twelve-year-old Bryer Greenwood’s young life was cut short in a crash north of Auckland last July, allegedly because her mother was driving drugged.

While roadside impairment tests have been happening for almost two years, some experts say not enough – because the focus is on alcohol.

“It is an easy way out, prosecution-wise, just to accept that there is alcohol on board and then forget about the drugs because there is a costly process involved,” says former road policing Sergeant Stu Kearns.

Police says it’s not forgotten – just more difficult.

“The offence is drink or drug and drink is a lot easier to test for,” says acting Road Policing Manager Superintendent Rob Morgan.

Figures obtained by 3 News show that, at 75, the Bay of Plenty had twice as many prosecutions from roadside drug tests than any other region. But tests and prosecutions across the country have been minimal.

Between November 2009 and the end of September this year 514 drug impairment tests have been done, compared with more than 6 million breath alcohol tests.

Of the drug tests, 313 led to prosecutions – 75 in the Bay of Plenty, with Waitemata, the Southern and Central Districts and Waikato next, all hovering around 30.

Countries like Australia and Canada are already doing roadside saliva testing and new finger-printing technology has been developed in the UK that picks up illicit substances in sweat.

But Prime Minister John Key isn’t sweating about pushing changes through in New Zealand any time soon.

“Over time it’s certainly an area we need to continue to clamp down on,” he said.

Police say the problem is finding the most effective and cost-effective way to do that.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

17 Nov 2011 01:22a.m.

Brett wrote:

When Police "Require" a drunk driver to "Accompany" them back to the station for an Evidential Breath Test that person is simply "Detained". They are only arrested if they refuse to accompany that officer. The same happens for a drug test which is called a "Compulsary Impairment Test". The problem with the current tests is if the person fails the impairment test a sample of their blood is required which is taken by a registered medical practioner (nurse or doctor) and that sample is sent away for analysis of which you wait for the return of the results. This is all very time and money consuming as the doctor/nurse need to be paid, analysis fees etc. What needs to happen is something like what the Australians have in place where a sample of your saliva is taken to test for an illegal narcotic. I'm not sure of the costs involved of the saliva test kits but time wise it has to be more benificial as it gets the boys & girls in blue back out on the street faster.

15 Nov 2011 12:04p.m.

jan wrote:

It may be harder to prove at a roadside stop, but police have powers to arrest if they "suspect" you of doing anything wrong. Once at the station the drug tests can be done. If the government are so into saving us from ourselves then they will find a way to make drug tests easier and cheaper, afterall we have helmets, seatbelts, alcohol limits, WOF's, road barriers etc, so they better pull finger and sort this one out for us too.

15 Nov 2011 05:45a.m.

Brent wrote:

@Rachel Tiffen, Did the Mother have a License, If not Why have you not reported that, Also in your search for truth what was the numbers of non licensed drivers.