Roadside drug testing has more to do with politicians scoring political points than it does about keeping our roads safe an expert in forensic chemistry announced at a UTSpeaks public lecture last week

UTS Head of Chemistry, Materials and Forensic Science Associate Professor Michael Dawson said solutions to problems such as drug abuse and drug driving that were popular with politicians rarely produced the desired results. That is to say, what works isn't popular and what’s popular doesn't work.

He said the new laws permitting police to test drivers for the presence of a limited range of high profile recreational drugs did not include many other drugs that can cause much greater driving impairment.

The new laws permit police here and in a number of other states in Australia to test for cannabis, methylamphetamine also known as speed and methylenedioxymethylamphetamine known as ecstasy.

"Politicians who tell the community that they will be safe from drugged drivers on the roads because of these new laws and police powers are sending a false message," Professor Dawson said.

"Speed, ecstasy and cannabis are prohibited drugs, however not all prohibited drugs are included in the testing program. For some reason heroin was not included – even though it can cause significant driving impairment.

"It is quite clear that heroin was not included in the legislation for political reasons. Once in the body heroin is rapidly converted to morphine and any test to detect heroin users would also identify those people being treated with morphine for legitimate medical purposes. In addition there is a long list of drugs used for medical conditions that are not tested for but may cause impaired driving."

According to Prof Dawson while the laws allow for the detection of illicit drugs they are flawed in that they do not measure the level of impairment a driver may be experiencing - as is the case with alcohol.

"A consistent approach must be adopted for all drugs that impair driving performance if we are to honestly talk about road safety within the broader community," Professor Dawson said. "We must be clear about whether these laws are about the policing of illicit drugs versus policing of driver impairment.

"If it is about the latter then a standard level of impairment needs to be established, at and above which it can reasonably be said that driving becomes an unacceptable risk as is the case with alcohol. Driving with a blood concentration above this limit should be an offence in exactly the same way that drink driving is an offence. As is the case with alcohol there should be low, mid and high range offences."

Professor Dawson said as things stand there are major flaws in the way these laws were written and that serious legal complexities would almost certainly arise as a consequence.

"An enormous can of worms has been opened, it will clog up the courts for years on end and provide endless work for lawyers, analytical chemists and expert witnesses," he said.