Community attitudes towards sanction and health-based interventions for individuals caught drug-driving in Australia

Background:Engaging in drug-driving is a significant risky behaviour that has demonstrated consequences associated with increased crash risk. In Victoria, Australia, drug-driving associated with illicit drugs contributes to 30% of total road deaths annually. As a result, there is increasing focus on identifying effective countermeasures to mitigate drug-driving, particularly those that approach post-offence management and intervention through a holistic person-based lens. The present research aimed to examine community acceptance and attitudes towards a range of sanction- and therapeutic-based interventions designed to mitigate and/or prevent future drug-driving behaviour.
Methods:A population-matched (by residential location, gender and age) participant sample of 1,852 Victorian drivers (age: 18 – 89 years; female: 49.5%) were recruited to complete a survey focused on driving history, alcohol, drug and prescription drug misuse patterns, and attitudes towards countermeasures to address people caught for drug-driving.Of the total sample, 43.3% reported ever having tried a drug other than alcohol, of which half (51.8%) indicated recent use (within the last 12-months). For those reporting recent use of drugs other than alcohol, 31.6% reported driving within three hours of use.
Results:Random roadside drug testing, monitoring of known offenders and combined sanction-health-based approaches were supported by a minimum of 80% of respondents. Comparing survey respondents who reported recent drug use with those who reported past drug use (not within the last 12 months), and those that had never used any drugs before, countermeasures that aim to restrict or require specific behaviours (i.e., Community Correction Orders, vehicle impoundment), and  those that more deeply address drug misuse (i.e., rehabilitation) were seen as more effective in reducing drug-driving behaviour than those that primarily act to deter drug-driving behaviour (i.e., drug-driving enforcement including police drug buses). Of note, support for enforcement initiatives to address drug-driving behaviour was lower overall among individuals with self-reported recent drug use. Specific details across all countermeasures examined will be presented, with comparisons across users of specific drug types including cannabis and methamphetamines.
Conclusions:Community acceptance plays a significant role in shaping public policy decisions. This research provides indicative support and perceived effectiveness on a range of countermeasures that are available to mitigate drug-driving behaviour. Findings suggest a therapeutic-justice model that entails a combination of sanction and rehabilitation options will be well-supported within the Victorian community to address drug-driving behaviour. Implications of applying such a model of intervention will be discussed, noting nuances need to be considered based on the characteristic of the individual caught for drug-driving.