Why are drug-driving laws so lax?

Currently police officers test for 'impairment' at the roadside by conducting 'field impairment tests' - checking pupil size and asking the person to balance on one leg - which Mr Hughes calls 'bureaucratic, time-consuming and ineffectual'.

He said: "Once society has decided that certain drugs are so dangerous that they are banned, why should we need to prove that a driver's ability has been impaired? It should be an offence to be on illegal drugs and drive just the same, as it is an offence to drink and drive. All the evidence suggests that drug-driving is on the increase. I want to change the law to deal with the problems of the 21st century and not a problem of the 20th century."

While drug analysers - similar to Breathalyzers - are being trialled by the Home Office, Mr Hughes says that changing the law would stimulate manufacturers to produce a range of effective roadside drug testing equipment and would play a key role in convincing the public not to drug-drive.

"We need a good debate with politicians," he said. "We have attracted quite a lot of cross Parliament and motor organisation support and I have canvassed members of the judiciary who can see no problem. I wonder why we are waiting?"

Meanwhile, Mr Hughes is involved in discussions with ministers on the possible tightening of the UK drink-drive limit from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams.

During the 2006 Christmas anti drink-drive campaign the number of drivers breath tested in England and Wales was a record 145,867. A total of 9,658 drivers tested positive (6.6%, down from 6.9% last year).

Mr Hughes said: "There was a big increase in enforcement and that is now being evaluated. I have had discussions with ministers and once the evaluation is complete we will consider how we can improve the situation possibly by reducing the limit."

<< Back to contents page

• < previous article
• |
• next article >