Curiously Trimega's stated goal "is to bring global and scientific knowledge into the South African market." This study by their own admission is not scientific, so what weight should we attach to it and do we need to be listening to their call to amend the law or for further research?
The DrugWipe test does not require the DrugAlyzer for operation. "The Trimega Diagnostics DrugAlyzer DrugRead is used to scan the consumable test but is not a mandatory requirement for the DrugAlyzer system. The reader is used to help law enforcement interpret the result and assists in reading results in low light as most operations are conducted at night."(Q&A) The scanner costs R25000 and the department has bought two of them. Are these things not just a glorified pda/torch combination? What a waste of money considering that torches are standard issue at roadblocks.
The DrugWipe does not test what they claim Trimega claims it tests for. The device tests for trace elements in people's system, rather than intoxication. Trimega would have you believe that "...it is a known fact that the taking of illegal substances in any quantity, causes impairment." The law requires intoxication and impairment for a good reason. The Trimega report does not mention the bill of rights or any rights for that matter in their legal discussion. (Even a first year law student knows that this is a good place to start)
Trimega claims that the study is "independent", however the testing teams are called the "DrugAlyzer Team" in the report, the DrugAlyzer is mentioned 44 times, while the other devices are mentioned twice.(other than listing them) A visit to the drugalyzer website brings you face to face with the Trimega logo. The study is neither independent, nor is it scientific.
What of the illicit drugs? A study done in Adelaide in 1998 into cannabis and driving counter-intuitively found that drivers with cannabis in their system were less likely to be involved in accidents. Drivers who have taken stimulants such as amphetamines, methamphetamines and cocaine are likely to be able to challenge their conviction on the basis that their driving was not impaired. Ecstacy and LSD are two drugs which would be of real concern if there were evidence that people were driving while impaired by these drugs.
The DrugWipe test does not give a negative signal and this is problematic as the public are considered to be positive until a positive result does not show up. The delay caused by a roadside drug test being used at a roadblock will be considerable (at least 10-15 minutes). Is this a proportionate response considering the unproven "threat" of drivers under the influence of illicit drugs on road safety? The study does not discuss the conseqences of the testing producing a "false positive" for the individual wrongly accused. The first person "caught" at a roadside drug test in Australia was recently acquitted - winning damages and an apology from the police.
The study was unethical. The public did not give their consent to these tests. Trimega claim they did. Can you really be said to be giving your consent when you are surrounded by police with firearms and you have already committed an offence. 70% of the people tested did not have drivers' licences and 30-40% (see how scientific we are..) of the people tested were driving vehicles with visible defects. This is co-ercion and unethical. That only one person out of 269 refused the test is evidence of this. Trimega workers told the public that there would be no prosecution. This is not strictly true. People who tested positive had their cars searched and their blood taken. Trimega would have you believe that this was in terms of the National Road Traffic Act, but this is not true. The NTRA allows for blood testing when the person is suspected of driving intoxicated, NOT with trace elements of an illicit drug in a person's system. Evidence collected in terms of this will fail. Laws exist for a reason.
The rising accident rate can be clearly traced to alcohol consumption which rocketted from 10 litres per person per annum on average 1998 to 20 litres per person in 2006. (National Drug Master Plans 1998, 2006) To put a finger on the problem the 1998 National Drug Master Plan made alcohol the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, while all other drugs fell under the Deparment of Health. Cape Town has 30 000 shebeens. Violence follows alcohol like bad smell and this place, frankly, stinks! The high accident rate and death rate is directly related to alcohol. The effect alcohol on reactions and co-ordination are severe and well understood. Fetal alcohol syndrome will hit 10% in the Western Cape in 2010 and our government is spending money on expensive toys which are NOT REQUIRED for the test? It is unfortunate that the collective eye has been taken off the ball.
People involved in the sales of the product convinced our policiticians that we need roadside drug testing. Trimega does a questionable study, releases a bunch of sensationalist headlines, calls for URGENT amendment to the law to suit themselves, and calls for more research. The hype created around the "results" of this study will persist and no doubt tests will sooner or later be foisted on the unsuspecting public by career policiticians talking tough on drugs without proper research or consultation.
