Are Current Drug Driving Enforcement Strategies Achieving the Desired Effect? Drug Users’ Perceptions of Drug Driving Legislation and Enforcement in Queensland

Abstract

This study examined how illicit drug users perceived roadside drug testing (RDT) in Queensland, a jurisdiction that enforces a zero-tolerance enforcement strategy to drug driving. Fifty-two illicit drug users were interviewed, and thematic analysis was used to identify emerging themes. The results showed that exposure to RDT and apprehension certainty were reportedly low. The targeted regime of RDT had dichotomous implications towards apprehension certainty, due to the familiarity with the testing procedures. Participants also reported mixed experiences with testing accuracy, in that some offenders reported testing negative just following use, while others who reportedly regulated their driving tested positive, despite not having recently used. Next, participants reported engaging in punishment avoidance behaviours that aimed to evade police exposure and suspicion, and to mask the presence of drugs in their saliva. The combination of avoidance behaviours and perceptions of one’s ability to circumnavigate RDT impacted on participants’ apprehension certainty. Due to their experiences, the majority of (cannabis) users agreed that RDT approaches were discriminatory and unjust, due to the zero-tolerance policy, the testing of presence over impairment, and the lack of policing towards other drugs. These perceived limitations were noted to potentially increase user offending in some circumstances and suggested that there may be a dissonance between the intended aim of RDT and the outcome on drug user behaviours. The findings of this study may hold implications for future research in identifying limitations in the current evidence and help inform policing procedures and policy surrounding future drug testing approaches.

Australian daily cannabis users' use of police avoidance strategies and compensatory behaviours to manage the risks of drug driving

“…Around half of the sample considered the risk of apprehension for drug driving to be likely (to some extent) which differs to similar Queensland‐based studies where participants perceived the likelihood to be low [16, 18]. One in four participants reported using a police avoidance strategy to reduce the likelihood of detection, with Facebook police location sites most used (16% of sample).…”

“…However, the high level of drug driving in the present sample suggests there may be a greater cost to not supplying guidelines to those who use cannabis. In the absence of such information, individuals using cannabis are likely to make their own decisions, driving at a time they believe they are safe to drive [18], assessments which are often incorrect [13]. The authors acknowledge the current challenges with implementing guidelines (including the variable nature of cannabis impairment and the enforcement of such guidelines).…”

“…Regarding the former, a significant amount of resources are directed towards roadside drug testing (RDT) (401,347 tests conducted Australia wide in 2021 [17]) to detect and deter drug driving events. However, recent studies suggest that those who consume drugs perceive the likelihood of being caught for drug driving to be low [16,18]. Drivers may employ avoidance strategies to further reduce risks of apprehension including driving on back roads, attempting to tamper with oral fluid tests by using other substances (e.g., Fisherman's Friends [19]) and using Facebook police location sites to avoid testing locations [20].…”

Finding the Police Before the Police Find Them? Investigating How and Why Motorists Use Facebook for Knowledge of Roadside Drug Testing Locations

“…However, the same effect is yet to be observed for driving under the influence of drugs and roadside drug-testing operations. In fact, recent studies have found a considerable proportion of drug takers report behaviors such as driving under the influence of drugs (Arkell et al, 2020; Love et al, 2024; Mills, Freeman, et al, 2022) and perceive the likelihood of detection for driving under the influence of drugs to be low (Love et al, 2024; Mills, Freeman, et al, 2022).…”