Queensland's proposed 'zero-tolerance' approach to drug and drink driving has sparked significant debate, with key advocacy groups and legal bodies raising alarms over its potential impact on individuals using prescribed medicinal cannabis.

The new legislation, poised to dramatically increase penalties for drivers with drugs present in their system, aims to curb rising road trauma across the state. However, critics contend that the current testing methods fail to distinguish between active impairment and the residual presence of medication, potentially penalising responsible patients.

Government Stands Firm on Road Safety Imperative

Unveiled last month, the Queensland government's proposed amendments are positioned as an evidence-based response to the escalating crisis on the state's roads. The legislation would see maximum penalties increased for drivers found with any drug in their blood or saliva, and would double existing penalties for drink and drug driving offences, alongside a raft of tougher consequences for other infractions, slated to commence in December.

A government spokesperson emphasised that these changes are informed by expert advice, crash data, and enforcement trends, signaling a firm stance against dangerous driving. They highlighted the inherent danger of driving under the influence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of cannabis, noting that over 60 percent of drug driving fatalities recorded in a recent period involved drivers with THC in their system. The message is clear: the state is adopting a zero-tolerance policy for drug driving to underscore serious consequences for risky behaviour.

Advocates Warn of Unfair Penalties for Medicinal Users

However, leading organisations dedicated to alcohol and other drug prevention have voiced strong concerns. A state manager for a prominent Australian alcohol and drug foundation highlighted that these changes would disproportionately affect individuals legally using medicinal cannabis prescriptions.

In a submission regarding the bill, the manager stated, "They face fines, losing their licence and aggravated penalties, simply for taking their medication as directed." The core issue, he explained, is that current roadside drug testing primarily detects the mere presence of THC in saliva, without measuring actual impairment. THC can remain detectable in saliva for up to three days after use, meaning a person could be penalised even if the psychoactive effects – and any impact on driving ability – have long since dissipated.

Queensland boasts one of the largest medicinal cannabis patient populations in Australia, with data from the Therapeutic Goods Administration indicating the state has the highest number of prescribers operating under the Special Access Scheme. The foundation urged the government to explore alternative assessment methods for cannabis-related impairment, including specific THC thresholds in saliva and enhanced field sobriety testing, to ensure road safety laws differentiate between genuine risks and responsible medicinal users.

Road Safety Group Balances Concerns with Support

A major motoring and road safety advocacy group also weighed in on the proposed legislation, expressing strong support for measures that improve road safety while acknowledging the complexities.

The group's general manager for advocacy, speaking to a parliamentary committee, asserted that they cannot support any form of impaired driving, whether the substance is illicit or prescribed. Citing the alarming figure of approximately 70 drug-related deaths on Queensland roads last year, with cannabis involved in the majority of these cases, he underscored the urgent need to address what he termed a 'road safety crisis.'

While supporting the bill's combination of stronger consequences, intervention, and behaviour change measures, the advocacy group also called for further research into the correlation between detectable THC levels and actual driving impairment, before specific legal thresholds are firmly established and enforced.

Legal Experts Flag Fair Justice Concerns

Beyond the debate on medicinal cannabis, the Queensland Law Society has raised significant concerns about another aspect of the bill: the introduction of minimum court-imposed fines for drink and drug driving offences. These fines are intended to ensure penalties consistently reflect the seriousness of the offences, departing from current laws which grant courts discretion over fine amounts, provided they do not exceed the maximum.

The President of the Queensland Law Society articulated serious concerns regarding the rationale and practical implications for equitable justice. While acknowledging the overall aim of improving road safety, he argued that the premise of two people committing the same offence receiving the same fine is flawed. He pointed out that individual circumstances, such as being a first-time offender in genuine financial hardship with strong rehabilitation prospects, versus a recidivist offender with no mitigating circumstances, warrant different considerations in sentencing.

Next Steps in Legislative Process

The parliamentary committee is currently reviewing all feedback and submissions on the bill. Its findings and recommendations will be considered before the legislation proceeds to debate in the state parliament, where the complex balance between stringent road safety and individual rights will continue to be scrutinised.