Mr. Conor Faughnan:

I know the committee has spoken to Professor Denis Cusack, director of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, who would have greater expertise on this. Alcohol has been well researched in so many jurisdictions over such a long period. Although a 50 mg/dL level may impair one individual more than it impairs another, at least there is such a large body of evidence that we can draw a definitive line in the legislation stating that it does not matter whether one is impaired or not in one’s judgment, the law states that 50 mg/dL is the limit and one cannot go north of that. At least that gives everybody clean rules to follow. It also means we do not prosecute somebody who had a chocolate liqueur at lunchtime. Unfortunately, for other types of drug, that level of research and data simply do not exist to enable legislators to draw a clear line. In the same way, there is no blow-in-the-bag equivalent. The UK authorities have introduced definitive permitted blood levels for, say, THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in cannabis. I know I am straying from my area of expertise, but I have been told this is problematic and would not be recommended in Ireland.

What is proposed in Ireland is a little more pragmatic. There are two stages to drug testing. A garda will be able to administer the roadside screening test only if he or she forms an opinion of impairment or if there is a properly constituted checkpoint. It is the same as for alcohol. One cannot randomly pick people out of the stream of traffic. A garda must set up a checkpoint and then he or she can breathalyse a driver. After the checkpoint has been set up, the screening device can also be used. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety will be the body charged with ensuring we get the right screening advice and licensing and certifying it. The intention is to go for a screening device which will only read positive where there is clear evidence of recent significant drug use. Physically doing that could prove problematic. The intention is to screen so that a person would be required to provide a definitive sample for evidence only if he or she has a level that would imply impairment. That could work reasonably well. When the person provides the definitive sample for evidence, the law proposes a very strict interpretation, so that even a minor trace could result in a prosecution. I do foresee that this could become problematic and could be challenged. The intention is to use a screening device only to pick up people who have enough in their systems to be impaired. Only those people can then go forward to provide a sample which can be used in evidence. That is probably the best and most pragmatic way it can be done. It would do so much good on the road that it is worth supporting.