A systematic review of factors associated with illegal drug driving

Hasan, Razi; Watson, Barry C.; Haworth, Narelle; Oviedo-Trespalacios, Óscar

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2022.106574

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 165 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The deterrent effect of roadside drug testing (RDT) has long been met with resistance, largely due to the low-risk perceptions and attitudes that drug users adopt towards the consequences of drug driving (Hasan et al 2022). A significant portion of these perspectives may be derived from the perceived limitations of current drug testing policy, technology, and methodology.…”

Section: The Issue Of Drug Drivingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is in contrast to other countries which have opted to accommodate the changing landscape of legalisation surrounding legal cannabis and prescription medical cannabis products, by allowing certain threshold for the presence of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or by assessing driver impairment through field sobriety tests. Secondly, research has demonstrated that frequent drug users generally perceive that (a) their driving ability is not impaired following use (Barrie et al 2011;Davey et al 2005;Hasan et al 2022;Wilson and Wilson 2010), and (b) in comparison, legal substances, such as strong prescription medications (i.e. benzodiazepines and opioids) and alcohol, are comparatively treated with leniency, despite perceptually having more debilitating effects towards driving (Boehnke et al 2016;Wickens et al 2019).…”

Section: The Issue Of Drug Drivingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As explained by classical deterrence theory (Homel 1988), three perceptual factors are thought to influence the deterrence of an offending behaviour, including the perceived: certainty of apprehension (COA), severity of the punishment, and timeliness of the punishment. Deterrence theory has received support from numerous studies investigating the impact of legal sanctions on the intention to drive under the influence, although the perceived COA has emerged as the strongest deterrent factor to both drink driving (Freeman et al 2021a, b;Freeman and Watson 2006;Szogi et al 2017) and drug driving (Freeman et al 2010;Hasan et al 2022;Watling et al 2010). Accordingly, two forms of deterrence can potentially result from these perceptual factors: (a) general deterrence, which refers to deterrence within the general population, and is reliant on how effectively legal sanctions are publicized and promoted (Taxman and Piquero 1998); and (b) specific deterrence, which refers to deterrence created by the apprehension and punishment of offenders (Davey and Freeman 2011;Homel 1988).…”

Section: Police Testing and Deterrencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was particularly because drink driving has been perceived by drug users as more detrimental to driving over most illicit drugs (Barrie et al 2011;Wilson and Wilson 2010). Nonetheless, a consensus among users is that the chance of being caught for drug driving is low (Barrie et al 2011;Davey et al 2005), which is re-enforced by previous punishment avoidance experiences (Davey et al 2005), and vicariously, through the observations of peers' experiences with drug driving (Barrie et al 2011;Hasan et al 2022). Despite such concerns, a Melbourne-based study revealed that less than half of night club attendees indicated that being caught for drug driving would affect their drug driving habits (Degenhardt et al 2006).…”

Section: Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Rdtmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Are Current Drug Driving Enforcement Strategies Achieving the Desired Effect? Drug Users’ Perceptions of Drug Driving Legislation and Enforcement in Queensland

Love

Rowland

Stefanidis

et al. 2022

J Police Crim Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined how illicit drug users perceived roadside drug testing (RDT) in Queensland, a jurisdiction that enforces a zero-tolerance enforcement strategy to drug driving. Fifty-two illicit drug users were interviewed, and thematic analysis was used to identify emerging themes. The results showed that exposure to RDT and apprehension certainty were reportedly low. The targeted regime of RDT had dichotomous implications towards apprehension certainty, due to the familiarity with the testing procedures. Participants also reported mixed experiences with testing accuracy, in that some offenders reported testing negative just following use, while others who reportedly regulated their driving tested positive, despite not having recently used. Next, participants reported engaging in punishment avoidance behaviours that aimed to evade police exposure and suspicion, and to mask the presence of drugs in their saliva. The combination of avoidance behaviours and perceptions of one’s ability to circumnavigate RDT impacted on participants’ apprehension certainty. Due to their experiences, the majority of (cannabis) users agreed that RDT approaches were discriminatory and unjust, due to the zero-tolerance policy, the testing of presence over impairment, and the lack of policing towards other drugs. These perceived limitations were noted to potentially increase user offending in some circumstances and suggested that there may be a dissonance between the intended aim of RDT and the outcome on drug user behaviours. The findings of this study may hold implications for future research in identifying limitations in the current evidence and help inform policing procedures and policy surrounding future drug testing approaches.

show abstract

Section: The Issue Of Drug Drivingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Issue Of Drug Drivingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Police Testing and Deterrencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Rdtmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are Current Drug Driving Enforcement Strategies Achieving the Desired Effect? Drug Users’ Perceptions of Drug Driving Legislation and Enforcement in Queensland

Love

Rowland

Stefanidis

et al. 2022

J Police Crim Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elle peut viser à modifier le comportement des individus (éducation et diffusion d'informations), ou être une intervention substantielle qui fournit un produit, un dispositif ou un équipement nouveau ou amélioré. Les techniques et les pratiques ont généralement des objectifs simples (par exemple, les casques protègent la tête [13] , les brochures d'information visent à modifier les connaissances des gens concernant la conduite sous l'influence de l'alcool [14] ), pour lesquels l'évaluation du succès peut être simple. Les programmes et les politiques peuvent être des combinaisons de techniques et de pratiques nombreuses et variées, avec des acteurs, des objectifs et des mécanismes d'action différents.…”

Section: Concepts Connexesunclassified

Démarche décisionnelle et évaluation des interventions de santé publique

Salmi¹,

Noël²,

Saillour-Glénisson³

2023

Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map

Sevigny,

Greathouse,

Medhin

2023

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGlobally, cannabis laws and regulations are rapidly changing. Countries are increasingly permitting access to cannabis under various decriminalization, medicalization, and legalization laws. With strong economic, public health, and social justice incentives driving these domestic cannabis policy reforms, liberalization trends are bound to continue. However, despite a large and growing body of interdisciplinary research addressing the policy‐relevant health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of cannabis liberalization, there is a lack of robust primary and systematic research that comprehensively investigates the consequences of these reforms.ObjectivesThis evidence and gap map (EGM) summarizes the empirical evidence on cannabis liberalization policies. Primary objectives were to develop a conceptual framework linking cannabis liberalization policies to relevant outcomes, descriptively summarize the empirical evidence, and identify areas of evidence concentration and gaps.Search MethodsWe comprehensively searched for eligible English‐language empirical studies published across 23 academic databases and 11 gray literature sources through August 2020. Additions to the pool of potentially eligible studies from supplemental sources were made through November 2020.Selection CriteriaThe conceptual framework for this EGM draws upon a legal epidemiological perspective highlighting the causal effects of law and policy on population‐level outcomes. Eligible interventions include policies that create or expand access to a legal or decriminalized supply of cannabis: comprehensive medical cannabis laws (MCLs), limited medical cannabidiol laws (CBDLs), recreational cannabis laws (RCLs), industrial hemp laws (IHLs), and decriminalization of cultivations laws (DCLs). Eligible outcomes include intermediate responses (i.e., attitudes/behaviors and markets/environments) and longer‐term consequences (health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes) of these laws.Data Collection and AnalysisBoth dual screening and dual data extraction were performed with third person deconfliction. Primary studies were appraised using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale and systematic reviews were assessed using AMSTAR 2.Main ResultsThe EGM includes 447 studies, comprising 438 primary studies and nine systematic reviews. Most research derives from the United States, with little research from other countries. By far, most cannabis liberalization research focuses on the effects of MCLs and RCLs. Studies targeting other laws—including CBDLs, IHLs, and DCLs—are relatively rare. Of the 113 distinct outcomes we documented, cannabis use was the single most frequently investigated. More than half these outcomes were addressed by three or fewer studies, highlighting substantial evidence gaps in the literature. The systematic evidence base is relatively small, comprising just seven completed reviews on cannabis use (3), opioid‐related harms (3), and alcohol‐related outcomes (1). Moreover, we have limited confidence in the reviews, as five were appraised as minimal quality and two as low quality.Authors’ ConclusionsMore primary and systematic research is needed to better understand the effects of cannabis liberalization laws on longer‐term—and arguably more salient—health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes. Since most research concerns MCLs and RCLs, there is a critical need for research on the societal impacts of industrial hemp production, medical CBD products, and decriminalized cannabis cultivation. Future research should also prioritize understanding the heterogeneous effects of these laws given differences in specific provisions and implementation across jurisdictions.

show abstract

A systematic review of factors associated with illegal drug driving

Cited by 26 publications

References 165 publications

Are Current Drug Driving Enforcement Strategies Achieving the Desired Effect? Drug Users’ Perceptions of Drug Driving Legislation and Enforcement in Queensland

Are Current Drug Driving Enforcement Strategies Achieving the Desired Effect? Drug Users’ Perceptions of Drug Driving Legislation and Enforcement in Queensland

Démarche décisionnelle et évaluation des interventions de santé publique

Health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About