Anguish over proposed law "legalising murder"
Candor Trust

Response to MPs debate over the drug driving bill last night from the Campaign Against Drugs on Roads is "severe disappointment that we lead the world in drug driving harm, and in now studiously shying away from meaningfully confronting that", says Community Worker Alia Wharekura.

The new requirement for a field impairment test to have been conducted, before a drug driving conviction can be pursued is a kick in the guts of victims - and may result in Candor appealing the bill to the Human Rights Commissioner due to the unequal treatment of victims versus drink driver's ones, whereby Government is essentially proposing to legalise homicide.

Parliamentarians without conscience have essentially just ensured a large number of pre-killers will be "look away" targets for Police, and that many killers who'd previously have been convicted by extremely solid blood drug level evidence will walk, free of any consequence, in future.

Under the proposed new horror invoking law Luke Voice, the addict who killed Christchurch nurse Mary Radley when he crashed on a cocktail of drugs would have evaded taking the 10 minute physical impairment test due to being injured, so despite his blood being a stream of intoxicant drugs he'd have walked.

Ditto this same situation for the killers of other family of other members of the Candor Trust, as they too did not escape fatal crashes they caused without injury such as might prevent field testing. Quite a few people in cells for drug driving homicide today would be getting no such treatment in future - it's one way to ease the prison bed squeeze and reduce victim's access to Justice, says Candor Coordinator Rachael Ford.

"We're perturbed that impairment still has not been adequately defined within the Land Transport Amendment Bill, most countries define impairment as suffering appreciable effects of the drug taken and being over per se or dangerous blood drug limits, but New Zealands definition lies in failing a subjective roadside test - when drugs are present in the blood".

Combining these two tests does not provide sound criteria to affirm guilt as the blood drug levels may fall below those recognised as causing impairment if taken singly or in combination by forensic scientists. Fatigue could have caused a failed field sobriety test just as well as the "presence" of some drugs at certain levels of detection.

The Select Committee has clearly been misinformed by its Advisors who have worked since the get go to undermine the bill, for no better reason apparently than the bills focus on drug impairment not being infitting with parameters set by the World Banks local Road Police RAM (road safety) population experiment.

It's Architect says Transport Select Committees must be focussed only on the vital few variables of speed and alcohol. Documents obtained in relation to the experiment show that Official suppression of other safety issues is mandated for the experiments duration. Candor Trust expects this is why one of the speeches in the House last night said we'll likely be stuck with this weak new drug driving law as is for 5 years - before it is finally made "more responsive to Police needs".

There is no need to wait before making it responsive. It is criminal to do so, and offer NZers even weaker laws than those extant in the meantime. The Select Committee has clearly been fed a line of obfuscating drivel by its wicked Advisors as regards testing technology and the Bill of Rights considerations. Random drug testing is inarguably required due to the size of this road safety issue.

It is entirely possible to test with tech, and it is already being done or commenced soon in many other places. Police use such tests, prisons do and unions and employment Courts have since 2006 been progressively accepting saliva tests as the gold standard for drug impairment screening.

Yet we still hear from uniquely misinformed MPs (Down Under) that these tests are not up to scratch for making prosecutions "like breath tests" - which shows worrying incomprehension. MPs should have been advised that under the Bill of Rights breathalysers are considered inadequate evidence for obtaining convictions due to unreliability.

This is why manufacturers threatened to pull out if the tech was challenged in Court and a blood test must now be offered. Only due to this option existing can s64(4) of the LTA state that errors in result of breath tests are no defence. There is nothing to stop the law from taking this approach to saliva screens.

If the Committee and MPs actually believe saliva tests are not suitable for limited use at crashes or for targeted random roadside testing stations then they've been fed and swallowed a load of crooked bureaucrats twaddle that is guaranteed fatal to numerous Kiwis over the 5 years they're delusionally thinking it will take for a next step to be feasible.

The Trust is excited by only one possible innovation put forward by MPs in relation to the legislation. An amendment proposed by Trevor Mallard that would allow anyone failing a breath test who appears very messy to also be subjected to a drug impairment test.

This idea is well informed and inspired as higher levels of sanctions, deterrents and rehabilitation are needed for these poly-drug drivers of supreme risk. However practicality issues present, as Field Tests could delay blood testing procedures (allowing alcohol levels to rise and drug levels to tail off).

It would be better to administer a saliva test for recent drug use to drink drivers with signs of drug use, prior to full blood screens. It is vital to detect this population and work with them.

As far as his idea of only testing injured drivers for Class A drugs - that is one inspired by clouds of cannabis smoke. Every serious researcher is aware that Class A drugs are a far lesser road safety issue than marijuana. This idea of overlooking cannabis intoxication is against best practice and would be an injustice creating embarrassment to New Zealand.

"National is showing no leadership and callous disregard in having allowed the Bill to be sabotaged - what a waste of taxpayers money that we will be left with worse road safety, a worse enforcement capability than before".
It's the law you have when you're not having a law".

The Transport Minister Mr Joyce should be called to account for overseeing the manoeuvres of various players to incapacitate legislation here that is of a type being fervently ousted by more modern approaches globally. The big question is whether once the bills assent makes it nigh impossible to stick injured drug drivers with charges, are these offender rights to be retrospective?

Does John plan to now hand over the big freedom Key to recently convicted drug driving killers, so that they can walk right out of their cells when this bill gains assent? It only seems fair, and killers round the country like Nadine Atkinson, Peter Drinnan, Leah Peneha must be hopefully awaiting this moment with baited breath.

ENDS