Author:
Love Steven,Rowland Bevan,Stefanidis Kayla B.,Davey Jeremy
Abstract
AbstractThis 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.
Funder
University of the Sunshine Coast
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference52 articles.
1. Anderson L, Love S, Freeman J, Davey J (2021) Hit and miss: a comparison of targeted and randomised roadside drug testing (RDT). Policing: An Int J 44(6):1154–1167. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2021-0090
2. Armstrong KA, Watling CN, Davey JD (2018) Deterrence of drug driving: the impact of the ACT drug driving legislation and detection techniques. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav 54:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.01.014
3. Armstrong KA, Wills A, Watson B (2005) Psychosocial influences on drug driving in young Australian drivers. In: Dunlop R (ed), Australasian Road Safety Research Policing and Education Conference Proceedings. Research Coordination Advisory Group (RCAG) and the Australasian Traffic Policing Forum, pp 1–11. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/2784/
4. Barrie LR, Jones SC, Wiese E (2011) “At least I’m not drink-driving”: formative research for a social marketing campaign to reduce drug-driving among young drivers. Australas Mark J 19(1):71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.11.010
5. Bates L, Anderson L (2019) Young drivers, deterrence theory, and punishment avoidance: a qualitative exploration. Policing: A J Policy Pract 15(2):784–797. https://blogs.griffith.edu.au/gci-insights/2020/01/20/young-drivers-deterrence-theory-and-punishment-avoidance-a-qualitative-exploration/ Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献