Detection and prevalence of drug use in arrested drivers using the Dräger Drug Test 5000 and Affiniton DrugWipe oral fluid drug screening devices.

The use of oral fluid (OF) drug testing devices offers the ability to rapidly obtain a drug screening result at the time of a traffic stop. We describe an evaluation of two such devices, the Dräger Drug Test 5000 and the Affiniton DrugWipe, to detect drug use in a cohort of drivers arrested from an investigation of drug impaired driving (n = 92). Overall, 41% of these drivers were ultimately confirmed positive by mass spectrometry for the presence of one or more drugs. The most frequently detected drugs were cannabinoids (30%), benzodiazepines (11%) and cocaine (10%). Thirty-nine percent of drivers with blood alcohol concentrations >0.08 g/100 mL were found to be drug positive. Field test results obtained from OF samples were compared with collected OF and urine samples subsequently analyzed in the laboratory by gas or liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The Dräger Drug Test 5000 (DDT5000) and DrugWipe returned overall sensitivities of 51 and 53%, and positive predictive values of 93 and 63%, respectively. The most notable difference in performance was the DDT5000's better sensitivity in detecting marijuana use. Both devices failed to detect benzodiazepine use. Oral fluid proved to be a more effective confirmatory specimen, with more drugs being confirmed in OF than urine.

The need for drugged driving per se laws: a commentary.

OBJECTIVE: Triggered by the new federal commitment announced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONCDP) to encourage states to enact drugged driving per se laws, this article reviews the reasons to establish such laws and the issues that may arise when trying to enforce them. METHODS: A review of the state of drunk driving per se laws and their implications for drugged driving is presented, with a review of impaired driving enforcement procedures and drug testing technology. RESULTS: Currently, enforcement of drugged driving laws is an adjunct to the enforcement of laws regarding alcohol impairment. Drivers are apprehended when showing signs of alcohol intoxication and only in the relatively few cases where the blood alcohol concentration of the arrested driver does not account for the observed behavior is the possibility of drug impairment pursued. In most states, the term impaired driving covers both alcohol and drug impairment; thus, driver conviction records may not distinguish between the two different sources of impairment. As a result, enforcement statistics do not reflect the prevalence of drugged driving. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the analysis presented, this article recommends a number of steps that can be taken to evaluate current drugged driving enforcement procedures and to move toward the enactment of drug per se laws.

Towards a national model for managing impaired driving offenders.

AIMS: To describe a proposed national model for controlling the risk presented by offenders convicted of driving while impaired (DWI) and promoting behavioral change to reduce future recidivism. SETTING: Traditional methods of controlling the risk they present to the driving public are not adequate, as indicated by the fact that approximately 1000 people are killed each year-in alcohol-related crashes involving drivers convicted of DWI in the previous three years. However, stimulated by the success of special drug courts for substance abusers and new technological methods for monitoring drug and alcohol use, new criminal justice programs for managing impaired driving offenders are emerging. INTERVENTION: A national model for a comprehensive system applicable to both drug and alcohol impaired drivers is proposed. The program focuses on monitoring offender drinking or the offender driving employing vehicle interlocks with swift, sure but moderate penalties for non-compliance in which the ultimate sanction is based on offender performance in meeting monitoring requirements. FINDINGS: Several new court programs, such as the 24/7 Sobriety Project in South Dakota and North Dakota and the Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Project, which feature alcohol/drug consumption monitoring, have produced evidence that indicates even dependent drinkers can conform to abstinence monitoring requirements and avoid the short-term jail consequence for failure. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the apparent success of emerging court monitoring systems, it appears that the cost of incarcerating driving-while-impaired offenders can be minimized by employing low-cost community correction programs paid for by the offender.