Driving under the effect of drugs: Hair analysis in order to evaluate recidivism

Tassoni, Giovanna; Cippitelli, Marta; Mirtella, Dora; Froldi, Rino; Ottaviani, Giovanni; Zampi, Massimiliano; Cingolani, Mariano

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.08.022

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lowest range was the older age (>51 years) (see Table 1). We compared the young adults (less than 35 years) of MDU and PDU subjects with respect to the respective older subjects (more than 35 years) [1,12,23]. The result shows significant differences.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hair Analysis to Evaluate Polydrug Use

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polydrug use is a frequent pattern of consumption in Europe. This behavior has mainly been analyzed within restricted groups; more rarely in large populations. Current polydrug use is less studied than simultaneous use. This study focused on the concurrent assumption of polydrug among drivers using hair matrix. Hair matrix, for its biological characteristics, allows to identify illicit drug use more often than other matrices, i.e., urine, and it provides information on the long-term use of them. Hair samples of subjects positive for opiates, cocaine and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) collected by the forensic toxicology laboratory of the University of Macerata in the period 2010–2020, were analyzed using a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method. Our results evidenced that a significant part of the examined population (12.15%) used polydrug. A strong predominance of males over females was evident. Polydrug users were more frequently young people. The abuse of two substances was predominant. Cocaine and Δ9-THC was the most common combination, followed by cocaine and morphine, and morphine and Δ9-THC. The timeframe of polydrug use was also analyzed. Our study shows that polydrug use is a very frequent behavior, and that hair analysis may be a powerful tool to obtain objective biological information of this complex phenomenon.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All analyses were carried out by the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method previously described [12,23]. Drug concentrations in analyzed hair higher than the cutoff values [24,25] were considered to be positive data.…”

Section: Gc/ms Instrumental and Analytical Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hair Analysis to Evaluate Polydrug Use

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The high prevalence of repeat DUID offending and/or use of illicit drugs among the drivers killed in road-traffic crashes suggests that an early intervention and treatment for stimulant abuse might have been more beneficial than conventional punishments for such drug-related crimes (Jones, Holmgren, & Ahlner, 2015). Tassoni et al found high recidivism based on the results of hair analysis, particularly in cocaine users (Tassoni et al, 2016).…”

Section: Prevention For Dui With Recreational Drugsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Driving under the influence of drugs

Marillier

Verstraete

2019

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Driving is a very complex task, requiring the cooperation of several different cognitive and psychomotor functions at once. Approximately 2% of the drivers drive under the influence of drugs, sometimes more (20%) and more at specific times (weekend nights). Population surveys show that self‐reported driving after using psychoactive drugs (mostly cannabis) varies between 3.8 and 29.9%. In injured and fatally injured drivers, about 20–40% test positive for drugs. The risk of a crash is almost doubled after cannabis use, increased about seven times after amphetamine use. For the other drugs, the risk falls between these extremes. Amphetamines are estimated to cause half of the fatalities due to driving under the infuence of drugs (DUID). Medicinal drugs, taken according to prescription, only increase crash risk by 20–40%. In France 4% and 3% of the accidents could be prevented if no one drove after taking cannabis and impairing therapeutic drugs, respectively. Three types of DUID legislation exist: “impairment” legislation, “per se” legislation and the “two‐tier” approach that combines both. In impairment legislation, the prosecution must demonstrate that the driver was impaired or “under the influence.” A “per se” law prohibits driving if drugs are present in blood, serum, plasma, or oral fluid (OF) above a certain threshold concentration. OF is commonly used for roadside drug screening of drivers, and increasingly for confirmation as well. Recently developed methods for confirmation analysis, either on blood or on OF, use liquid chromatography (tandem) mass spectrometry (LC–MS[MS]) to test for dozens of drugs on a small sample volume. This article is categorized under: Toxicology > Drug‐Impaired Driving Toxicology > Drug Analysis

show abstract