Drive Change

Tag: Police

Letter To Local Members: How You Can Write a Compelling Letter to Inspire Law Reform
Getting in touch with your local MP is one of the best ways to speak out in favour of the change you want to see in your community. Medicinal cannabis patients particularly have something that they should be speaking out about the discriminatory drug driving laws. We’ve organised a Letters to Local Members campaign to make it easy to get in touch with the representative for your area and be a voice for change.

Your letter to local members should share your personal experience with medicinal cannabis, how the discriminatory laws impact you, and why drug driving law reform is long overdue. By speaking directly to your local MP, you’re giving them a personalised reason to work toward drug driving law reform. We’ll give you everything you need to write a letter, identify your local MP, and send off your letter. All you need to do is tell your story.
What you need to know

The more patient stories and facts that representatives receive, the more likely they will become a voice for change in government. It all starts with telling your story. Your letter to a local member should be based on facts, but should also give them insight into the way the laws personally impact you. Get personal, speak from the heart, and give MPs a good reason to act in favour of drug driving law reform.

Your email or letter offers an opportunity to act immediately by signing up for the Drive Change Government Roundtable on Tuesday, 29 March. The Roundtable, open to government officials only, will provide a chance to gather for a discussion on the facts, science, and community call for drug driving law reform. Even if they can’t make be there, you should encourage them to sign up so they receive the recording.

A constituent voice–your voice–asking them to attend will make a difference.

The details of this event are provided in the letter for you.

What does this mean for you?

Your goal is to share your story. Easy as.

By writing your letter, you’re speaking out for the rights you deserve, and then giving MPs an opportunity to take action. Since the Government Roundtable will take place on 29 March, it’s the perfect chance for them to show up and prove they are doing something about the community’s needs.

Why should you write a letter to local members?

Your local MP is responsible for representing you in government and standing up for your rights. To do that, they need to know what you want.

By writing your story and citing scientific facts, you’re voicing a need for reform of the discriminatory drug driving laws. Sharing your experience can help catalyse change, so remember to let them know how the discriminatory laws are impacting you.

What it all comes down to is one simple fact: medicinal cannabis patients face discrimination. Speak out about your experience and then urge your local member to act on it by attending the Government Roundtable on 29 March.

What should the letter say?

This is your chance to get personal. Your letter needs to share your experience as a medicinal cannabis patient, and describe to your MP how the discriminatory laws impact your life, health, and livelihood.

The important thing to mention is how the discriminatory driving laws, and the restrictions on driving, negatively impact your life.

As an example, you may mention that your life-changing legal medicine is unreasonably at odds with the law. The only legal alternatives to medicinal cannabis are medicines like benzodiazepiness and opioids, etc. which are far more detrimental to your health and well-being.

Some other points to consider for your letter:
- What is your medical diagnosis?
- What was your health and well-being like before medicinal cannabis?
- Why did you switch to medicinal cannabis?
- How did cannabis change your life/health for the better?
- How are the current discriminatory drug driving laws negatively impacting you?
Drug driving law: facts and figures

Medicinal cannabis patients face discrimination because the current laws don’t match the science. As you write your letter, it will be important to draw from the science to make solid arguments.

Browse the links below to gain an understanding of the studies and politics surrounding the drug-driving laws. You’ll find plenty of helpful stats and quotes within that will strengthen your letter.
Check back in this space regularly as we add more studies and resources.

Time to tell your story: here’s how

Once you review the science and are ready to tell your story, it’s time to write.

You can do this two ways:

To write an email, head to do-gooder to formulate your email and send it directly to your local MP. The templated paragraph included has details about the Roundtable ready to go along with your personalised story.

To write a physical letter, visit our Better Letters page, which is also set up with the information you need to spread the word about the upcoming event. When you select the tab “Write Your Letter”, choose the “Drive Change Template” from the dropdown menu under the Letters option.

If you don’t know who your local MP is, don’t worry. All you need to do is enter your address where prompted and it will send the email to your local rep.

> Click here to get started <

Writing your letter to a local member is an integral part of taking steps toward change.

How else can I share my story?

Our plan for this campaign is to give the community a voice in the matter, and hopefully get the Government in favour of a change. The more ways we are able to reach out, the better. Sending a letter in the mail and as an email will make sure your story is heard.

Also, consider sharing your story with us! We are an authority for drug driving law reform and always welcome personal statements and patient stories. Email hello@drivechangemc.org.au with the title “Patient Story” and a photo of yourself (if you’d like) to let us know that you’d like to be featured.
March 14, 2022
How Other Countries Successfully Updated Drug Driving Laws for Medicinal Cannabis Patients (and How Australia Can Catch Up)
Driving laws in Australia use a zero-tolerance policy for THC in drivers, despite the science that tells us THC presence has no bearing on intoxication. Wanting drug driving law reform is not a radical request. Several other countries have already amended their laws to allow medicinal cannabis patients to maintain their driving rights.

These countries serve as models for how Australia can adjust their laws to be less discriminatory. Take a look at some examples of updated protocols that can be used as a benchmark for drug driving law reform in Australia.

This information will be useful when you write to your local MP urging them to stand up for change!

California (USA)

The US State of California legalised medicinal cannabis in 1996. It was met with such success that the recreational mandate followed in 2016. Cannabis patients and purchasers have safely and successfully been on the roads since.

What many don’t know about this legalisation is that there is no legal bloodstream concentration limit for THC in the US state of California. Instead, California drug driving laws rely on field sobriety tests. These tests prove a more effective means for identifying drivers who pose a crash risk; THC metabolites alone are disproven as indicators of intoxication. Law enforcement is trained to detect impaired drivers and conduct these tests as needed.

A panel of experts led by the California Highway Patrol concluded that THC or THC metabolites in the bloodstream do not correlate with whether or not a driver is actually impaired.

Additionally, many Californian officers are specialists. There are 1700 specialists in the Californian police force that are certified Drug Recognition Evaluators. And California plans to train even more.

California’s Impaired Driving Task Force called to extend the required standardised field sobriety training from 8 to 24 hours, helping to improve detection of impaired drivers in roadside tests and help create safer roads.

These measures serve as a good example of how fair and just drug driving laws can be adopted as we move past methods that are proven to be outdated and inconsistent. California (population: 39 million) serves as a relatable example of how the laws will unfold in someplace like Australia (25 million people).

Related: Roadside Drug Testing Doesn’t Reduce Road Trauma

Canada

Canada legalised cannabis for adult use in 2018. Naturally, this raised concerns about the potential for increased traffic harm–a concern that Australia shares. But instead of maintaining outdated methods based on disproven science, the Canadian government mandated a periodic review of public health consequences of legalising cannabis. The most recent results were released as a report.

The report gathered records from all emergency departments in Ontario and Alberta–two states which account for 50% of the Canadian population. The data looked at moderate-to-severe traffic injuries that resulted in ER visits between April 1, 2015-December 31, 2019.

The report uncovered no increase in traffic injury following the legalisation of cannabis.

These inspiring results signal that, through effective laws and well-trained law enforcement, medicinal cannabis can be accessible to the adult population without putting a strain on safety in the community.

Police conduct routine traffic check in accordance with drug driving law.

Effective measures that end discriminatory laws

As we ask for drug driving law reform, we do so with real-world data and examples to show our legislature that it works to keep people safe.

Of course, even with laws in place, impaired driving remains a risk. This same risk is present with alcohol and other prescription drugs which are already given legal defence in roadsides. Doing so with cannabis is also possible, so long as law enforcement is properly trained.

1. Implement a Task Force

California’s Impaired Driving Task Force is dedicated to evaluating the factors at play for legal cannabis and adjusting the protocols to respond accordingly. Australia can create a similar team of experts to help adopt and enforce more effective policing measures.

Related: Answering Cannabis Law FAQ

For California, training law enforcement for signs of impaired driving has proven to be an effective measure for reducing incidents of impaired driving. With a task force in place, the state saves time and costly resources.

California had 8.3% fewer traffic fatalities in 2018, the year recreational cannabis sales launched.

Australia still relies on breath tests for impairment. These tests are costly–a cost covered by taxpayers–and have a history of returning false results. California’s population is similar to that of Australia’s, so offers us a very realistic example of how such measures can be adopted here.

2. Train law enforcement in identifying intoxicated drivers

Another way Australia might be able to improve road safety by updating laws is to implement new training practices for law enforcement officials, as they did in Canada.

Canadian law enforcement is specifically trained to identify impaired drivers, helping to alleviate the need for faulty tests and mitigate road trauma. To conduct a roadside impairment test, Canadian Police may:
- Administer a standard Standard Field Sobriety Testing (SFST). If the driver passes the SFST test, they are free to go. If they do not, they’ll be arrested to undergo additional testing.
- Conduct a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluation, involving a series of tests and toxicology reports.
- Require the driver to undertake an oral fluid drug screening
- Demand a blood sample if there is reason to believe the driver committed an offence.
These Canadian practices offer us an example of cannabis policing that works to protect road safety and the rights of drivers who legally consume cannabis. Australia can do the same, but we’re not there yet. Our government still maintains outdated and costly practices that are proven ineffective and actively discriminate against legal patients.

>write a letter to the Government suggesting these updates now<
March 8, 2022
Open Letter to the Department of Transport and Main Roads: Are You Really Paying Attention to Road Safety?

David Heilpern wrote a letter to the Land Transport Safety and Regulation department inquiring about the state of the current laws and in light of the research showing their ineffectiveness. The General Manager, Mr Andrew Mahon, answered this inquiry in a letter which we have attached below for reference.

The following is an open letter to Sussan Osmond, who Mr Andrew Mahon advised Drive Change to contact for further correspondence.

Dear Sussan Osmond,

I recently wrote to the Department of Transport and Main Roads expressing my concern over the ineffective and discriminatory drug laws in place for drivers. In this letter, I will address the Department of Transport and Main Roads directly.

What I presented to you was a concise report on how our drug driving laws are failing to improve safety as they discriminate against medicinal cannabis patients. While I appreciate your effort to offer a response, they were mostly evasive of the problem and prove that lawmakers aren’t relying on science or fact to formulate these laws. They are in need of an update.

In your response, you went as far as to agree they are “difficult to address” but failed to present any scientific evidence in support of the need to uphold the current jurisdiction. This proves a clear need for deeper understanding of the issue. I will provide that to you, and the wider community, here.

Cannabis as a drug

Cannabis is a drug that is proven to impair cognitive and motor function.
Mr. Andrew Mahon, Land Transport Safety and Regulation), QLD

In your letter, you address cannabis as a drug that is “proven to impair cognitive and motor function.” While this is true, it does not explain why the driving laws permit drivers to use other TGA-scheduled and over-the-counter drugs while operating vehicles.

This is the true crux of the issue between medicinal cannabis and roadside drug tests. The chemicals in pharmaceutical drugs can be detected with such tests. Conversely, cannabis can remain at detectable levels in these tests far beyond the time of impairment. This clearly points to current practices as the problem. Why are we still using outdated methods for roadside drug testing if we know without a shadow of a doubt that they’re unreliable?

That truth is that yes, cannabis is a drug. The wider truth of it is that there are plenty of drugs which get protection or a pass when they are detected in roadside tests. It is nothing short of discriminatory to deny such rights to medicinal cannabis patients, especially when you consider the effects on road toll.

This has been an area that has been studied, and the results speak for themselves. The crash risk rate of drivers with a legal 0.05 BAC is 1.38-1.75. Once the BAC hits 0.08, this risk rises to 2.69. This is by far the highest crash risk rate of any of the other “impairing substances.”

Medical cannabis and driving, by Thomas R Arkell, Danielle McCartney, Iain S McGregor, doi: 10.31128/AJGP-02-21-5840

Opioids are not far behind, presenting a crash risk of 2.29; Benzodiazepines carry a risk up to 2.30. Even antihistamines carry a crash risk of 1.17. So why then, if cannabis carries a crash risk of 1.11-1.42, is it the only of these drugs to be banned on the roads?

Discrimination, again, seems to be the only plausible answer.

These discriminatory laws seem to be rooted in an outdated and unreasonable vilification of cannabis, one that doctors and scientists are committed to re-educating the public on. In some capacity, the government is already on board, having approved medicinal cannabis for therapeutic purposes, and there are 75,000 patients in Australia with legal prescriptions.

While these medical professionals have done their due diligence, there has been no accountability from the Department of Transport and Mains Roads, nor the police, in understanding that cannabis as a legal drug holds value in public health.

Driving and Road Safety

The role of drugs, in varying forms, is a growing problem for road safety, not only in Queensland but nationwide and internationally
Mr. Andrew Mahon, Land Transport Safety and Regulation), QLD

The TGA has categorised some forms of medicinal cannabis as a Schedule 8 Controlled Drug. Also in this class are Oxycontin, Sativex, Amytil, etc. So, why is it that patients who test positive for these conventional medications are not committing a crime while medicinal cannabis patients are?

In your letter, you mention that “The role of drugs, in varying forms, is a growing problem for road safety, not only in Queensland but nationwide and internationally.” I absolutely agree with you on this point, which is why I am so adamant about adjusting the laws surrounding them.

The studies into road safety measures speak for themselves in this matter. After the introduction of seatbelts, there was a marked decline in road deaths. Likewise with airbags. In terms of roadside testing for cannabis, there has been no evidence that this decreases road toll. This points to the fact that we need newer methods of understanding what leads to crash risk.

A “zero-tolerance approach” to selected legal prescriptions is clearly not the answer.

You mention that we “take a zero-tolerance approach through presence based legislation as opposed to setting limits similar to alcohol,” but this argument is also untrue and shows the lack of research that’s been done on this topic. Tasmania has adopted laws protecting medicinal cannabis patients on the road. It proves that it is being done here in Australia and can be done throughout the entire country to defend medicinal cannabis users without a toll on road safety.

Yes, impairment increases risk of motor vehicle crashes–which is exactly what roadside drug tests should be looking for. You seem to understand this, saying that “impairments that will affect a person’s driving include their ability to anticipate hazards and unexpected situations, their decision making and their ability to respond quickly to changes in the traffic environment (e.g. reaction time).”

I ask again – why can other potentially impairing pharmaceutical medicines get a pass in roadside tests? Additionally, in testing for the presence of THC, which remains detectable past the point of impairment, it seems that there is no real evidence to back your claim that this is in the name of road safety when other harmful drugs are permissible and protected.

The bottom line on mouth swabs is that they do not work. If they did, we would not have seen a 55% increase in road crashes between 2012-2018.

I do agree with you on one point, that medicinal cannabis cannot easily be tested at the roadside. The legislation stops short of the true issue: what can we do that can make road safety a priority, without a discriminatory framework that infringes on public health?

New and Improved Methods

The answer is not as elusive as you state it to be. In actuality, a simple impairment test can be completed. This has been successful in jurisdictions around the world. It has even caught up to the technological age, and apps such as DRUID app takes the guesswork out of it. Why is it that the Australian governments want to hold on to archaic methods of testing for drug impairment. It seems odd to want to do so when the equipment is so expensive and road toll even more costly both financially and from a human perspective.

I myself am acutely aware of these facts. But the truth of the matter is that the law is changing as our society begins to understand how to better care for our people. This is apparent when you consider the doctors, scientists, and lawyers who prescribe medicinal cannabis and/or support changing these discriminatory laws.. What is not apparent in your letter or in the law is why the Road Commission remains incredibly hesitant to take the step forward not only to assist in public health and putting an end to discrimination, but also into ways that have already proven capable of making our roads safer.

We are calling on your department and other governmental organisations and those in Parliament to research the facts. This is integral to the protection and progression of Australian medicine. This is about public safety and the knowledge of the facts to help improve public health and safety.

I trust this has given you some facts you may not otherwise have known.

The Drive Change team and more importantly patients who desperately need your assistance will await your response on this matter.

Yours sincerely,
David Heilpern
Director of Change
Drive Change
The original letter sent to Drive Change can be found here.

The letter above is a slightly edited copy (due to the different medium) of this letter.

October 5, 2021