This document summarizes a national dialogue on drug-impaired driving that took place in April 2012. It discusses policy goals of identifying impaired drivers and distinguishing impairment from medication use. Statistics show that in 2009, over 13,000 drivers who died in crashes tested positive for drugs. The document outlines the dangers of drug-impaired driving and different state laws addressing this issue. It also notes challenges with drug evaluation programs and drug testing. Suggestions are made to improve prevention of drug-impaired driving.

1. CLAAD & Safe BTW
National Dialogue on
Drug-Impaired Driving
April 10-12, 2012
Walt Disney World Swan Resort

2. Policy Goals
• Identifying Drug-Impaired Drivers
• Distinguishing mere medication use from
actual cognitive impairment.

3. Statistics
Drug-impaired driving can have fatal
consequences:
• In 2009, 13,801 drivers who died in car crashes
tested positive for drugs.
• 63% of all tested drivers who died in car crashes
tested positive for drug use.
• A California study found 1 in every 10 people
killed in car crashes was drug-impaired.

4. Dangers of
Drug-Impaired Driving
• Drivers ignore labels warning against operating heavy
machinery.
• Driving after taking medication affects the brain.
• Medications can impair judgment, motor skills,
perception, and memory.
• Drivers, passengers, and others on the road are at risk.

5. Prevention: DUID Laws
All states have DUID statutes. Most states use one
of three types of drugged-driving laws:
1. Statutes requiring driver to be incapable of driving safely (14
states);
2. Statutes requiring driver to be under the influence or affected
by an intoxicating drug (8 states); and
3. Per se or zero tolerance statutes. (17 states)
5 states prohibit any addicted person or habitual
user to drive at all.

6. DUID Law Defenses
• 20 states: valid prescription is not legal defense.
• 5 states: valid prescription as long as used as
directed is legal defense.
• Maryland: valid prescription is legal defense if
defendant was unaware of drug s effect.

7. Statutes with Subjective
Standards
DUID Statutes contain subjective standards:
• Incapacity : connection between drug ingestion and
the incapacity of the driver
• Under the influence : impairment is directly related to
drug ingestion
• Per se : drug is in the driver s system.
• Determination of drug use based on blood, urine, saliva,
or other bodily fluid tests.

8. Prevention: Common Law
States have also developed common law doctrines to
prevent drug-impaired driving.
– Massachusetts: liability for physicians for failure to warn
against driving if such failure results in third-party death.
– Alabama: imposed liability on a Methadone Clinic for
administering methadone and releasing a patient who
killed a third party while driving.

9. Prevention: Common Law
• Florida: Judge will suspend drivers licenses for
using oxycodone.
• Patients are responsible for obtaining a doctor s
letter.
• Prescribers are at a greater risk for liability.

10. Drug-Impaired Laws Lag Behind
Alcohol-Impaired Laws
• Drugged-driving laws lag behind alcohol-impaired
driving law.
• Why?
– Technological limitations in testing.
– No agreed-upon impairment limit.
– Drugs linger in the body.

11. Current Methods of Identifying
Impaired Drivers
Drug Recognition and Classification Programs (DEC)
• 49 states and D.C. have Drug Evaluation and
Classification Programs.
• DREs receive training to identify drug-impaired drivers and
determine the drug category.
• Programs rely on observations.
• Categories are based on signs and symptoms.

12. Current Methods of Identifying
Impaired Drivers
Blood and Urine Testing
• 34 states test blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily
substances.
• 8 states allow blood only.
• 6 states permit saliva.
• 8 states permit other bodily substances.

13. Problems with Drug Evaluation
and Classification Programs
• Drug Evaluation and Classification Programs lack
scientific precision.
• Blood and urine tests cannot determine whether
drivers were actually impaired while driving.

14. What can we do?
• Encourage states to adopt clearer standards for Per Se
laws;
• Collect additional data on drug-impaired driving;
• Prevent drug-impaired driving by educating communities
and professionals;
• Provide increased training to law enforcement on
identifying drug-impaired drivers; and
• Develop standard methodologies for drug-testing labs to
use in detecting the presence of drugs.
• Encourage prescribers to help by recognizing patients
with substance-abuse problems and developing
strategies with their patients to overcome such problems.

15. Suggestions?
What preventative strategies do you think would
help with the following issue?
• Identify impaired drivers.
• Distinguish mere medication use from actual
cognitive impairment.
• Incentivize individuals to refrain from driving
while drug-impaired.

16. For More Information on Drug-
Impaired Driving
Contact:
Paul Scott O Neill, CLAAD Policy Advisor
(703) 527-4550
pso@claad.org
www.claad.org
Stacey Sklaver, Safe BTW Policy Advisor
(703) 527-8800
sls@safebtw.org
www.safebtw.org