Drug-Impaired 

Driving

Joseph B. Kuhns

No. 69

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Drug-Impaired Driving

Joseph B. Kuhns

This project was supported by cooperative agreement #2010-CK-WX-K005 

awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, 

companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement 

of the product by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, 

the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of 

this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither 

the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity.

© 2012 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. Department 

of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to 

reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, this 

publication for Federal Government purposes. This publication may be 

freely distributed and used for noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-08-6

August 2012

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 69

Contents

Contents

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Drug Use Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Impaired-Driving Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

General Description of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Harms Caused by Drug-Impaired Driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Factors Contributing to Drug-Impaired Driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Access to Drugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Misperceptions of Risk of Injury or Apprehension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Combining Legal or Illegal Drugs Along with Alcohol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Understanding Your Local Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Asking the Right Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Incidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Offenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Locations/Times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Current Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Measuring Your Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Process Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Outcome Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Responses to the Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Specific Responses to Reduce Drug-Impaired Driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Legal and Administrative Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Enforcement Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Restricting Vehicle Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Reducing Drug Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Education and Prevention Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Responses with Limited or Unknown Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Summary of Responses to Drug-Impaired Driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Drug-Impaired Driving

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
| 1 |

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how police can reduce the 

harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and 

to improving the overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling 

specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the technical details about how to implement 

specific responses. The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides will be most useful to 

officers who:

•	 Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and methods. The 

guides are not primers in problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the 

initial decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the problem, 

and means to assess the results of a problem-oriented policing project. They are 

designed to help police decide how best to analyze and address a problem they 

have already identified. (A companion series of Problem-Solving Tools guides has 

been produced to aid in various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.)

•	 Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the complexity of the problem, 

you should be prepared to spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you 

design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your community. 

You should not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must decide 

whether they are appropriate to your local situation. What is true in one place 

may not be true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere.

•	 Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business. The guides describe 

responses that other police departments have used or that researchers have tested. 

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your particular problem, they 

should help give a broader view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think 

you cannot implement some of these responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you 

can. In many places, when police have discovered a more effective response, they 

have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving the response to the 

problem. (A companion series of Response Guides has been produced to help you 

understand how commonly-used police responses work on a variety of problems.) 
| 2 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

•	 Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge. For some types 

of problems, a lot of useful research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing research 

whereas other guides illustrate the need for more research on that particular problem. 

Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you 

might have about the problem. The research may help get you started in designing 

your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This will depend 

greatly on the particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of keeping the 

guides readable, not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every 

point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed and 

distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn 

on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research on the subject. 

•	 Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions to the problem. The 

police alone cannot implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. They 

must frequently implement them in partnership with other responsible private and 

public bodies, including other government agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. An 

effective problem-solver must know how to forge genuine partnerships with others 

and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making these partnerships work. 

Each guide identifies particular individuals or groups in the community with whom 

police might work to improve the overall response to that problem. Thorough 

analysis of problems often reveals that individuals and groups other than the police 

are in a stronger position to address problems and that police ought to shift some 

greater responsibility to them to do so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing 

Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy that promotes 

organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problemsolving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public 

safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context of addressing specific 

public safety problems. For the most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and discussion of 

them is beyond the scope of these guides. 
| 3 |

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, 

the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs, and police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent 

that the police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware of research and successful 

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature and reported police 

practice, and each guide is anonymously peer reviewed by a line police officer, a police 

executive, and a researcher prior to publication. The review process is independently 

managed by the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the Center for ProblemOriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to:

•	 The Problem-Specific Guides series

•	 The companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series 

•	 Special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism

•	 Instructional information about problem-oriented policing and related topics 

•	 An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

•	 An interactive Problem Analysis Module

•	 Online access to important police research and practices

•	 Information about problem-oriented policing conferences and award programs 

| 5 |

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the Center for Problem-Oriented 

Policing, whose officers are Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director), and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). While each guide has a primary 

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff, and anonymous peer reviewers 

contributed to each guide by proposing text, recommending research, and offering 

suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series comprised Herman Goldstein (University 

of Wisconsin Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North Carolina State University).

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and Savannah, Georgia, police 

departments provided feedback on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of 

the project.

Kimberly Nath oversaw the project for the COPS Office. Phyllis Schultze conducted 

research for the guide at Rutgers University’s Criminal Justice Library. Nancy Leach 

coordinated the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing’s production process. Lee Titus 

Elliott edited this guide.

| 7 |

The Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving

The Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving

This guide begins by describing the problem of drug-impaired driving and reviewing 

factors that increase its risks and negative outcomes. It then identifies a series of questions 

to help you analyze your local drug-impaired driving problem. Finally, it reviews a number 

of responses to the problem and summarizes what is known about these responses from 

evaluative research and police practice.

Drug-impaired driving demands police, legislative, and community attention because of 

the harms it may cause. Many of the problems associated with drug-impaired driving are 

similar to those associated with drunk driving. However, recent evidence suggests that the 

prevalence of drug-impaired driving may be equal to, or perhaps higher than, that of drunk 

driving.1 And although the general trend of driving under the influence of alcohol has been 

declining in recent years in many countries—thanks, in large part, to broader and persistent 

attention to this problem—drug-impaired driving specifically linked to traffic fatalities 

appears to be rising.2 To date, however, a historical focus on drunk driving has somewhat 

limited law enforcement and policy attention on drug-impaired driving.

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

Drug-impaired driving is just one aspect of the larger set of problems related to drug use 

and impaired driving. This guide is limited to addressing the particular harms associated 

with drug-impaired driving. Related problems not directly addressed in this guide, each of 

which requires separate analysis, include the following:

Drug Use Problems

•	 Prescription drug abuse

•	 Rave parties

Impaired-Driving Problems

•	 Drunk driving

•	 Age-impaired driving

•	 Sleep-deprived driving

•	 Speeding

•	 Street racing

•	 Aggressive driving

•	 Hit-and-run vehicle crashes
| 8 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

Some of these related problems are covered in other guides in this series, all of which are 

listed at the end of this guide. For the most up-to-date listing of current and future guides, 

see www.popcenter.org. 

General Description of the Problem

Drug-impaired driving—which generally refers to a driver operating a vehicle while 

having a measurable quantity of a drug (legal or illegal) in the body that impairs driving 

performance—is a major road and safety concern in many countries, according to a wide 

variety of sources. In 2009 in the United States, about 4 percent of drivers (or 10.5 million) 

were drug impaired while driving.3 Among high school seniors, drug-impaired (specifically, 

marijuana-impaired) driving rates may be higher (about 14 percent from 2001 to 2006) 

than those of the general population.4 Roadside surveys of drivers’ oral fluid and blood 

samples reveal that among all weekend nighttime drivers, over 16 percent tested positive 

for illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter drugs, any of which could impair driving.5

Estimates of the prevalence of drug-impaired driving across different countries—including 

Australia,6 Germany,7 Canada,8 and New Zealand,9 among others—vary considerably. 

Regardless of the rate, the problem merits police attention, given the potential harms. 

According to a number of studies, young males between the ages of 17 and 24 are at the 

highest risk for drug-impaired driving offending and victimization,10 although female 

involvement is increasing.11 Among high school seniors, drug-impaired driving occurs 

across multiple demographic groups, although lifestyle factors tend to play a stronger role 

in predicting such driving.12 Persistent offenses of drug-impaired driving among males have 

been linked to marijuana dependence; early traffic violations, non-traffic violations, and 

convictions before age 18; and personality characteristics such as a weaker ability to control 

one’s behavior, to avoid harm, and to respect tradition during the offending driver’s teens.13

In Finland, drugged driving is associated with low education and high unemployment, 

receiving disability pensions, and higher rates of divorce or living alone.14 Given the varying 

ways in which these studies have been conducted, there is good reason to believe that many 

drug-impaired drivers are never detected.

Driving under the influence of marijuana—the most commonly used illicit drug—may 

actually be more common than driving under the influence of alcohol in some countries.15

Some marijuana users perceive marijuana to be a safe drug to use before driving and 

thus indicate that changes in laws may not influence their future decisions to continue 

using marijuana before driving.16 These perceptions are particularly troubling given the 

decriminalization and the changes in medical-marijuana laws that are occurring, or that 

have already occurred, in the United States and elsewhere. Indeed, driving under the 

influence of marijuana increases the risk of being involved in motor vehicle crashes.17
| 9 |

The Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving

However, the drug-impaired driving problem extends well beyond the use of marijuana 

and includes the use of a wide variety of legal drugs (including those prescribed and those 

obtained over the counter) and illegal drugs—which include stimulants, depressants, 

antidepressants, narcotics, hallucinogens, sleeping pills, and other intoxicating substances.18

Harms Caused by Drug-Impaired Driving

Drug-impaired driving can damage communities in a number of ways, many of which 

are similar to the harms associated with drunk driving.† These harms can include the 

following:

•	 Drug-impaired drivers, their passengers, and other drivers on the road, as well as 

pedestrians, can be injured or killed.19

•	 Families affected by drug-impaired drivers can suffer emotionally and financially for 

extended periods of time, particularly when family members are severely or permanently 

injured or killed. Injured victims, their families, and their employers can suffer financial 

losses when injured persons cannot work or perform with less effectiveness.20

•	 Vehicles and public and private property can be damaged or destroyed.

•	 The rates of motor vehicle insurance can increase for all drivers, given the costs and 

risks associated with drug-impaired driving.

•	 Traffic flow is often impeded during traffic crashes related to drug-impaired driving, 

and these interruptions may be further prolonged because field drug testing may need 

to occur.

•	 Other drivers may resent having to modify their own driving habits and times to avoid 

encountering drug-impaired drivers.

•	 Police and other public resources (such as hospitals, drug-testing centers, courts, jails 

and prisons, drug-treatment providers, and probation offices) are consumed in efforts to 

enforce drug-impaired driving laws and to respond to drug-impaired driving offenders, 

thereby limiting the resources available for other public-safety and crime challenges.21

•	 Drug-impaired drivers may lose their driving privileges and possibly their vehicles 

(perhaps permanently), which may subsequently interfere with their ability to get 

to work, to attend school, to visit family, to participate in religious events, to seek 

treatment, and so forth.

•	 Positive drug tests may have an immediate and future impact on employment 

eligibility.22

† See Problem-Specific Guide No. 36, Drunk Driving, for further information.
| 10 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

•	 Drug testing—in the field, at the police station or at a hospital—can be expensive 

for communities, particularly if local substance use rates are high and if ongoing drug 

testing and monitoring is included as one of the conditions of a conviction.

•	 Drug-impaired drivers may inadvertently lead other drivers to believe that drugimpaired driving is acceptable or not dangerous, which can exacerbate the problem.23

•	 Drug-impaired drivers contribute to and participate in the illicit drug trade, in some 

cases.

•	 Drug-impaired drivers may create liability concerns for physicians, pharmacists, and 

pharmaceutical companies, which may drive up costs of medications.24

Factors Contributing to Drug-Impaired Driving

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will help you frame your own 

local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention 

points, and select appropriate responses.

Access to Drugs

Jurisdictions with significant local drug market activity likely have correspondingly high 

drug-impaired driving problems, notwithstanding the availability of mass transportation 

or the proximity of users to illicit markets. To the extent that drugs, including prescription 

drugs, are readily available and easily obtainable—whether through illicit markets on or 

off the street, through legitimate or illegitimate (usually recreational) prescription markets 

or through other means (e.g., Internet-based purchasing, nightclub transactions, concert 

distribution, discreet markets, and medical marijuana outlets)—the risk of increased 

drug-impaired driving is higher. Certain drugs or drug categories may be more risky than 

others,25 although a number of factors affect the level of impairment, including dosage, 

frequency of use, and use of other substances.

Open-air drive-by drug markets (those where users drive up and purchase drugs without 

getting out of their cars) are of particular concern because potential users are already in 

vehicles as drugs are being purchased, and those buyers may return for additional drugs 

within a matter of minutes or hours, depending on the particular substance. In addition, 

jurisdictions that have difficulty controlling access to legal prescriptions or that have 

particularly high rates of prescription drug use within their populations (e.g., jurisdictions 

that mainly include elderly persons or that include large groups of mentally ill patients who 

are medicated) might create substantial public safety challenges. Finally, jurisdictions with 

relaxed drug laws (e.g., allowing the use of medical marijuana or decriminalizing the use of 

marijuana) might also have higher rates of drug-impaired driving.
| 11 |

The Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving

Misperceptions of Risk of Injury or Apprehension

Drug use can affect users’ perceptions of the risks associated with substance use, can alter 

decisions and influence behaviors, and can decrease user concerns with apprehension. 

Despite evidence to the contrary, some marijuana users26 and users of other drugs27

perceive minimal risk associated with driving following substance use, and perceptions of 

risk seem to vary across different drugs and drug use patterns.28 As a result, some drug 

users are more likely and more willing to drive while impaired, and their willingness to do 

so can affect other drug users, who may then be inclined to drive following their own drug 

use at some point in the future. To the extent that drug-impaired drivers successfully make 

it to their destinations and avoid being apprehended by police, their willingness to continue 

to use drugs while driving increases risks for other drivers as well.

Combining Legal or Illegal Drugs Along with Alcohol

Using multiple drugs simultaneously or using drugs in combination with alcohol 

significantly impedes driving performance,29 which is a particularly important concern 

in situations or places where alcohol and drugs are readily available and consumed 

simultaneously (such as nightclubs, parties, raves, and concerts). For example, nightclub 

attendees in Australia reported both recent drug use and a likelihood of driving home with 

someone who is drug impaired and possibly alcohol impaired as well.30 Although some rave 

attendees have reported higher levels of concern with impaired drivers,31 young people, in 

particular, are willing to accept rides from drugged drivers.32 In addition, a prior experience 

of driving while drug impaired increases the likelihood of doing so again; it also increases 

the chances of accepting rides with others who are drug impaired.33

Drive-by drug purchases, such as the one pictured here, are of 

particular concern as users are already in vehicles.

| 13 |

Understanding Your Local Problem

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized description of drug-impaired 

driving. You must combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of your 

local problem. Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a more effective 

response strategy. 

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups have an interest in the drugimpaired driving problem and should be consulted when gathering information about the 

problem and responding to it.

•	 Schools and universities are particularly concerned with the safety of students and can 

often provide campus-based data and information and can help administer student 

surveys to assess the extent of the problem and to evaluate the effectiveness of responses. 

University students use substances at high rates, and therefore university faculty and 

staff can further assist in measuring use rates and educating this high-risk group.

•	 Parents who help teach their children to drive and learn about drug and alcohol use 

are ideally positioned to assist police with getting students engaged in the problem, 

with asking them to participate in surveys and other research efforts and perhaps with 

soliciting ideas on how drug-impaired driving can be minimized.

•	 Other drivers who are at risk for damage to their property, for injury, or for death can 

advocate for police and legislative attention to drug-impaired driving and can help 

police by reporting suspicious drivers quickly.

•	 Insurance companies that are interested in minimizing financial exposure and high costs 

and in establishing reasonable insurance rates based on perceived risks can help police 

by tracking offending rates among their customers, by exploring the impact of raising 

insurance rates among offenders on overall public safety, and by providing information 

on future accidents among high-risk offenders (some of which may not involve the 

police but may come to the attention of the insurance companies).

•	 Bar and restaurant owners may be in a position to intervene and contact police if drugs 

are being used in bars and restaurants—either drugs only or drugs in combination with 

alcohol. In an effort to prevent accidents, bartenders and servers can assist police in 

reporting potential offenders as they leave a bar or a restaurant.

•	 Drug treatment providers can help reduce overall drug use rates and reduce drug use 

among offenders specifically. These agencies often track the impact of their treatment 

programs in reducing recidivism among clients.
| 14 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

•	 Driver’s license centers can play an important role in restricting and revoking licenses and 

in recalling license plates of convicted offenders, but they must also serve as a primary 

resource of data on reoffending and overall public safety risk levels.

•	 Motor vehicle clubs and associations can serve as likely targets for educational programs 

and can assist police by providing information on particularly dangerous roadways that 

might serve as roadblock settings.

•	 Transportation businesses, such as taxi cab, limousine, and shuttle services, can assist 

police in measuring the prevalence of drug-impaired passengers over time, which might 

indicate whether any planned responses are effectively discouraging drug-impaired 

driving (and thereby encouraging other forms of transportation).

•	 Traffic engineers can help identify particularly risky roads (near open-air drug markets, 

for example) that might be modified in an effort to disrupt drive-up-and-buy markets 

and limit easy in-and-out access to areas where drug-impaired driving is likely to occur.

•	 Personal injury attorneys can publicize their lawsuits against offenders, which might then 

deter some drug users from driving while drug impaired.

•	 Large employers with motorized fleets can collect internal data on traffic accidents that might 

help police to accurately estimate the magnitude of the problem of drug-impaired driving.

•	 Emergency medical providers can assist police by helping to identify potential offenders, 

by assisting with drug testing those who cannot be field tested (perhaps because of their 

own injuries) and by performing confirmation tests if officers are unable to do so within 

a reasonable time.

•	 Drug courts can develop systems to track offender compliance and reoffending rates 

among those who do and do not complete the drug court process.

•	 Physicians who prescribe drugs can help police by confirming prescription status, perhaps 

as a condition of probation, among first-time offenders who may be at increased risk for 

future offending. 

•	 Advocacy groups that support medicalizing, decriminalizing, or legalizing certain drugs, 

particularly marijuana, can assist by tracking the effectiveness of educational programs 

designed to deter drug-impaired driving.

•	 Pharmaceutical companies can alert police and community leaders regarding the risks 

associated with specific drugs that are widely used among high-risk populations 

(including the elderly, for example).

•	 Pharmacies and pharmacists can assist with investigations of offenders who may have 

been impaired because they used legal prescriptions.

•	 Victim advocacy groups and public health agencies can assist in collecting victimization 

and injury data and in tracking emerging or ongoing trends.
| 15 |

Understanding Your Local Problem

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask in analyzing your local problem 

of drug-impaired driving, even if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers 

to these and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of responses 

later on.

Incidents

•	 How many drug-impaired driving incidents occur locally each week, month, or year 

(depending on your reporting processes)? 

•	 Does your jurisdiction have a valid method of measuring the number of drug-impaired 

driving incidents? If not, what will it take to develop such a system?

•	 What proportion of police officers is trained to test for drug-impaired driving in 

the field, at the station or at some other location (e.g., a clinic or hospital)? Are law 

enforcement employees who are not police officers involved in the testing process, or 

could they assist?

•	 Which drugs are you able to test for in the field or at other locations? What drugs that 

might be implicated in drug-impaired driving are you currently unable to test for in 

these locations?

•	 What proportion of traffic crashes is associated with drug-impaired drivers? Is this 

proportion higher or lower than the proportion associated with alcohol-impaired 

driving?

•	 What testing methods are used to test for drug-impaired driving, and are these methods 

valid, reliable, and user-friendly? How do you know?

•	 What is the estimated cost to the public for drug-impaired driving crashes, 

enforcement, testing, treatment, and so forth? 

Victims

•	 What proportion of traffic crash victims is tested for drug and alcohol impairment? 

What limitations exist that prevent higher or broader levels of testing—i.e., testing for 

more substances?

•	 What is known about the demographic profile of the victims of drug-impaired 

drivers (e.g., gender, education, socioeconomic status, employment history, living 

arrangements)? How are these data collected? Are they used in any meaningful way to 

develop responses?
| 16 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

•	 Are victims of drug-impaired driving crashes ever given an opportunity to confront the 

offender (e.g., a victim impact panel)? If so, is there any evidence of effectiveness?

•	 What proportion of victims of drug-impaired driving crashes has a criminal record, or 

more specifically, evidence of past drug involvement?

•	 Are there any specific laws or practices in place to provide restitution to the victim(s)?

Offenders

•	 What proportion of traffic crash offenders is tested for drug impairment? Is testing 

mandatory under certain conditions or discretionary (if so, under what conditions)? 

What limitations exist that prevent more frequent or broader levels of testing—i.e., 

those involving more substances?

•	 What is known about the demographic profile of drug-impaired drivers (e.g., gender, 

education, socioeconomic status, employment history, living arrangements)? How are 

these data collected? Are they used in any meaningful way to develop responses?

•	 What proportion of drug-impaired drivers consists of repeat offenders (e.g., they have 

previously been arrested for similar charges or for other drug-related charges)?

•	 What is the driving history of those arrested for drug-impaired driving, and how does it 

compare with that of the average driver or with that of drunk drivers?

•	 What is the criminal history of those arrested for drug-impaired driving? Are most of 

them involved in other forms of crime or in persistent drug use? If so, would focusing 

attention and resources on those types of crimes help reduce drug-impaired driving?

Locations/Times

•	 What times of day, days of the week, weeks of the month, or months of the year have 

the highest levels of impaired-driving rates? What are some possible explanations for 

these patterns?

•	 What locations (e.g., specific streets, communities, and areas near stadiums, bars, and 

open-air drug markets) are at increased risk for drug-impaired driving incidents? Are 

these locations close to illicit drug markets or to pharmacies?

•	 Are open-air, drive-by-and-purchase drug markets operational in parts of your 

community or jurisdiction? How common is it for driving buyers to use the drugs they 

purchase before resuming driving?
| 17 |

Understanding Your Local Problem

Current Responses

•	 How many arrests and convictions for drug-impaired driving occur annually? Has this 

number increased or decreased over the past decade?

•	 What are the legal consequences for drivers who refuse to submit to a drug test, either 

during a traffic stop or following a vehicle crash, when impairment is suspected? What 

proportion of suspected drivers refuses? Is the consequence for refusal swift, certain, and 

severe?

•	 What proportion of drug-impaired drivers continues to drive with suspended or 

revoked licenses? For what proportion does suspending or revoking their license reduce 

recidivism?

•	 Are arrested or suspected drug offenders routinely educated about the risks and 

consequences of drug-impaired driving?

•	 Does your jurisdiction have mandatory drug-impaired driving education courses within 

the school system, either as part of driver education or within local universities or other 

settings?

•	 Is drug treatment mandatory for drug-impaired driver offenders?

•	 Is some form of punishment mandatory? Does the specific response vary, depending 

on the type of drug, the level of intoxication or the number of offenses? Is punishment 

swift, certain, and severe?

•	 Do state or local laws ensure that drug-impaired drivers have mandatory increases in 

insurance rates following an arrest or conviction? If not, has the insurance industry 

discussed this strategy with police or with legislators?

•	 Can drug-impaired drivers, especially repeat offenders, lose their vehicles permanently 

as one of the consequences of driving while drug impaired? Does the impoundment 

process occur quickly?

•	 Can drug-impaired drivers be diverted into alternative venues (either within or outside 

the criminal justice system) by police officers or by the court system (or by both)?

•	 What discretion exists for police officers who respond to potential drug-impaired 

driving situations?

•	 Does your police department have a specialized unit that handles drug-impaired driving 

situations, or are some of your police officers specifically trained to handle these cases?
| 18 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts have succeeded, and 

suggests how you might modify your responses if they are not producing the intended 

results. 

Ideally, you should take measures of your problem before you implement responses, to 

determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to determine whether 

your responses have been effective. You should take all measures in both the target area and 

the surrounding area. For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see ProblemSolving Tools Guide No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police 

Problem-Solvers and Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 10, Analyzing Crime Displacement 

and Diffusion.

The following are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to drugimpaired driving. Process measures demonstrate the extent to which the responses were 

properly implemented. Outcome measures demonstrate the extent to which the responses 

reduced the level or severity of the problem.

Process Measures

•	 More efficient processing times for drug-impaired driving scenes, testing, and responses

•	 Improvements in officer training and certification in recognizing and responding to 

drug-impaired driving situations and in testing for a variety of drugs, using standardized 

protocols

•	 Increased proportion of point-of-contact testing (field testing) that is later verified

•	 Demonstrated improvements in laboratory and field-testing protocols

•	 Wider adoption and implementation of sobriety checkpoints that focus on drug 

impairment in addition to alcohol impairment

•	 Improvements in physician and pharmacist awareness training

•	 Disruption of drive-up-and-buy markets as sources of drug-impaired driving incidents

•	 Increased education outreach (at multiple critical points) among at-risk populations 

(such as high school and college students, those who regularly use impairing prescription 

medications, the elderly, known drug users, and prior drug-impaired driving offenders)

•	 Increased number of forfeited vehicles from convicted drug-impaired drivers

•	 Increased number of confiscated license plates from convicted drug-impaired drivers

•	 Increased prosecutions of offenders

•	 Reduced amount of time for punishing offenders and increased certainty of punishment
| 19 |

Understanding Your Local Problem

Outcome Measures

•	 Reduced number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities that involve drug-impaired drivers, 

measured as a proportion of all traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities

•	 Reduced degree of injury to persons and property from drug-impaired driving crashes

•	 Reduced number of repeat offenders and of victims involved in drug-impaired driving 

incidents

•	 Improved successful outcomes following treatment of offenders (e.g., reductions in test 

failures, successful integration into the community, and lower recidivism rates)

| 21 |

Responses to the Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving

Responses to the Problem of Drug-Impaired 

Driving

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors 

contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for 

measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses for addressing the problem. 

The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your 

particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies, 

government initiatives and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your 

community problem. 

It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances and that you can justify each 

response on the basis of reliable analysis of accurate data. In most cases, an effective strategy 

will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are 

seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: carefully consider whether others 

in your community share responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond 

to it. The responsibility of responding, in some cases, may need to be shifted toward 

those who have the capacity to implement more effective responses. (For more detailed 

information on shifting and sharing responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and 

Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.)

For further information on managing the implementation of response strategies, see 

Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 7, Implementing Responses to Problems.
| 22 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy

Generally, any enforcement, intervention, or prevention programs that attempt to 

minimize or delay onset of illicit substance use can also help reduce incidents of drugimpaired driving.†

In addressing drug-impaired driving, you would do well to begin by examining your local 

strategies for responding to drunk driving and consider using parts of that framework as a 

starting point for responding to drug-impaired driving.‡ The lessons we have learned about 

drunk driving can directly inform many of our responses to drug-impaired driving. For 

example, first-time drunk-driving offenders can likely be influenced and persuaded to desist, 

but repeat offenders’ behavior is far more difficult to change, and they are at increased 

risk of continued offending.34 Therefore, you should consider adopting different sets of 

responses that address first-time drug-impaired drivers and repeat offenders.35

Specific Responses to Reduce Drug-Impaired Driving

Legal and Administrative Responses

1. Implementing per se (also known as “zero-tolerance”) laws. Many jurisdictions 

have implemented per se laws in which a specified level of an illicit drug found in 

the body of a driver is, in and of itself, defined as an offense. Within the context of 

illegal drugs, zero-tolerance laws include those that set the limit of illicit drugs at the 

minimal drug detection level. Therefore, under zero-tolerance laws, it may not be 

necessary to prove that drivers were actually impaired but only to demonstrate that 

they had a detectable amount of an illegal drug in their body while driving.36 Other 

states, and some scientists, have an interest in identifying reasonable detection levels 

that suggest impairment by some substances (including marijuana).37 Nevertheless, 

zero-tolerance laws, while not necessarily improving the enforcement of the laws, 

appear to improve prosecution rates in some states.38 Broader adoption of zerotolerance laws has been carefully studied and recommended.39 However, actual 

enforcement of zero-tolerance laws may be challenging, because police officers 

may still need to use the premise of perceived impairment as the justification for a 

traffic stop. Therefore, per se and zero-tolerance laws may ultimately focus attention 

primarily on drivers who are substantially impaired, as opposed to the larger 

† For further information on addressing the broader issues related to drug use, readers are encouraged to review the POP 

Guides on Drug Dealing in Open-Air Drug Markets (#31), Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes (#4), Clandestine 

Methamphetamine Labs (#16), Rave Parties (#14), and Prescription Fraud (#24).

‡ See Problem-Specific Guide No. 36, Drunk Driving for further information.
| 23 |

Responses to the Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving

population of drivers who have illicit substances in their bodies.40 Furthermore, per 

se and zero-tolerance laws may not include drug-impaired drivers who are using 

prescription or over-the-counter medications (because possession, as determined by a 

laboratory or field test of those drugs, may not be illegal, in and of itself).

2. Developing drug-impaired driver courts. Drug-impaired driver courts, generally 

modeled on drug courts, have been developed and implemented in South Dakota 

and in Erie/Niagara, New York.41 These specialized courts have been used to respond 

to first-time offenders, but they mostly target high-risk and repeat offenders and 

are focused on managing substance abuse problems, one of which is drug-impaired 

driving. Because initial evaluations and reviews of these kinds of intervention efforts 

are promising, like the evaluation and review of drug court effectiveness overall, much 

broader adoption of drug-impaired driver courts should be encouraged, given the cost 

of trying offenders in drug courts compared with the cost of their incarceration,42

especially for serious recidivists.43

3. Implementing or improving on-site, point-of-contact (field) drug-testing devices 

and protocols. A number of drug-screening devices are available for use in the field. 

One initial evaluation suggested that Los Angeles police officers were quite effective 

at field testing, although there was some room for improvement.44 However, a 

larger study that examined a wide variety of testing methods across a broad array 

of substances suggested that no devices can yet be recommended.45 As a result, 

continued development of drug-testing devices that ensure accuracy, reliability, and 

usability is necessary.

4. Standardizing lab and field testing protocols. Uniformity in lab and field drugtesting standards and protocols is also important. Professional organizations such 

as the American Board of Forensic Toxicology (ABFT), the American Society 

of Crime Laboratory Directors/ Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASLD/LAB), 

and other similar entities should continue to take the lead in aligning laboratory 

standards internationally and ensuring consistency in lab processes and protocols.46

Standardization of testing protocols can also assist police in preparing cases that can 

be efficiently prosecuted and that can withstand legal and judicial scrutiny.
| 24 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

5. Suspending, restricting, or revoking driving privileges. Motor vehicle departments 

typically have administrative and legal protocols in place for restricting, suspending, 

or revoking driving privileges for impaired drivers, and these responses have been 

effective.47 The same protocols could be (and in some jurisdictions already are) 

applied to drug-impaired drivers. It seems clear, however, that relying solely on these 

measures has not been effective—especially for persistent drinkers. It likely follows 

that these approaches, if implemented as a primary response, would be equally 

ineffective for persistent drug users, including users of intravenous drugs who are 

frequently convicted of drug-impaired driving.48 First-time drug-impaired driving 

offenders, however, may be more effectively influenced to change their behavior by 

various methods of restricting driving privileges. And some evidence suggests that 

“use and lose” laws, which include those that authorize driver-licensing actions against 

persons found to be using, or in possession of, illicit drugs, and against underage 

persons found to be drinking, purchasing or in possession of alcoholic beverages, 

improve public safety and reduce subsequent traffic violations overall.49

Enforcement Responses

6. Implementing high-visibility enforcement, including sobriety checkpoints. Police 

visibility, focused and directed enforcement—especially during high-risk time frames 

and in high-risk areas—and regular and highly visible use of sobriety checkpoints have 

been successful deterrents to alcohol- and drug-impaired driving.50 Although sobriety 

checkpoints can be resource intensive (and therefore expensive), this enforcement 

approach has been upheld by American courts as a reasonable intrusion of privacy 

when implemented properly. The general public typically supports the use of sobriety 

checkpoints to enforce drunk-driving laws and sobriety checkpoints, particularly 

© 2012. Creative Commons

Many departments use officers trained as drug recognition experts at sobriety checkpoints such as the one 

pictured here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sobriety_checkpoint_easthaven_ct.jpg

Used with permission.
| 25 |

Responses to the Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving

when advertised in advance, have increased potential offenders’ perceptions that they 

will be apprehended.51 On the other hand, sobriety checkpoints that have targeted 

drunk driving fail to detect legal intoxication among many drivers.52 It is therefore 

likely that checkpoints designed to target drug-impaired driving would also miss a 

substantial proportion of impaired drivers, given the range of difficulties associated 

with field drug testing (see response #7 below).

7. Training police officers to be drug recognition experts. Many police departments 

have trained some officers as drug recognition experts. These experts rely on a 

standardized process for assessing whether a suspect is drug impaired.53 The use of 

this systematic approach has assisted many prosecutors in prosecuting drug-impaired 

driving offenders, although the reliability of the process and the admissibility of the 

evidence have been subjected to substantial legal challenges.54 Evaluations of the 

effectiveness of this response have been mixed, but they tend to indicate that officers 

are reasonably accurate in identifying drug-impaired drivers.55 The National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has published useful guidance on how to 

improve the investigation and prosecution of drug-impaired driving cases.56

Restricting Vehicle Access

8. Impounding, immobilizing, or confiscating vehicles or vehicle license plates 

of drug-impaired drivers. Impounding or immobilizing vehicles or confiscating 

license plates, temporarily or permanently, as a method of reducing additional 

traffic violations and improving overall safety, has been effective at reducing future 

offending by those driving on suspended or revoked licenses.57 Confiscating license 

plates of drunk drivers, particularly first-time drunk drivers, has also been effective.58

These responses appear to be working in a variety of locations in the United States 

and Canada among alcohol- and drug-impaired drivers who are either first-time 

or repeat offenders.59 Jurisdictions vary with respect to the time when, and under 

what conditions, permanent vehicle forfeiture can occur. New York City applies 

such sanctions to first-time and repeat offenders alike, arguing that the vehicle is 

an instrument of a crime and observing that first-time offenders were responsible 

for 87 percent of the drug-impaired driving-related deaths. Although there have 

been concerns about establishing vehicle ownership, about undue impact on family 

members, and about claims of excessive punishment, vehicle forfeitures have generally 

been upheld by state and federal courts in the United States.60
| 26 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

Reducing Drug Use

9. Mandating drug treatment for all drug-impaired drivers. It is unlikely that all 

drug-impaired drivers were apprehended the first time they drove while impaired. 

Furthermore, repeat offenders have demonstrated a persistent use of drugs and a 

willingness to drive while impaired; they have also demonstrated an unwillingness 

or inability to change either behavior. By and large, it is reasonable to conclude that 

most convicted drug-impaired drivers are drug users during periods when they are not 

driving. Drug treatment, including court-mandated treatment or compelled treatment 

by other means (e.g., drug courts or other drug diversion programs), is often effective 

at reducing (and sometimes eliminating) drug use and at managing the consequences 

associated with drug abuse.61 Treatment should be more intensive and last longer for 

repeat drug-impaired driving offenders (who are likely persistent drug users); even 

so, treatment has been effective at reducing subsequent collision risk for cocaine 

and alcohol users.62 Treatment is often less costly than many other criminal justice 

sanctions, including incarceration; therefore, it should be required for any convicted 

drug-impaired driver. Treatment, either concurrent with or in lieu of punishment, 

can be effective, but punishment without treatment is less likely to deter repeat drugimpaired driving.

10. Using electronic-monitoring devices to closely track repeat drug-impaired driving 

offenders. Offenders who are arrested or convicted more than once for drug-impaired 

driving merit closer monitoring and supervision by the criminal justice system than 

first-time offenders. Recent advances in electronic monitoring have suggested that this 

approach is a cost-effective method of community supervision both before and after 

convictions.63 Electronic monitors affixed to convicted drug-impaired drivers or their 

vehicles would allow police to track offenders continuously, to determine whether 

they are on foot or in a car, and to assess whether they are near such places as drug 

markets and drug houses. Together with driving restrictions, an electronic-monitoring 

program that includes a drug-use-monitoring device that can detect illicit substance 

use occurring within the offender’s home or while he or she is driving to or from work 

would create an effective technological method of preventing continued drug use and 

of reducing rates of recidivism among convicted drug-impaired drivers.
| 27 |

Responses to the Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving

Education and Prevention Responses

11. Conducting public-awareness campaigns directed at the general population 

and targeting high-risk populations.† Like public-awareness campaigns that focus 

attention on drunk driving, drug-impaired driving campaigns should be broadcast 

to the general public. Such campaigns should focus on correcting misperceptions 

about the dangers associated with driving under the influence of drugs—in particular, 

marijuana. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has taken the initiative and 

developed a number of campaigns, such as “If You Are High, You Can’t Drive.”64

Repeatedly publicizing laws and legal sanctions might also deter drug-impaired 

driving.65 States and countries that have recently permitted the use of marijuana 

for medical purposes or decriminalized it altogether, or that are considering doing 

so, should prioritize public-awareness campaigns because marijuana use will likely 

increase after decriminalization. Campaigns that emphasize the message across 

multiple mediums and that engage multiple community groups and stakeholders may 

be worth pursuing.66

12. Mandating drug-impaired driving education and prevention programs for 

high-risk drivers. Any new driver should be exposed to educational materials that 

focus attention on preventing drug-impaired driving. These types of programs 

should also target older drivers who are prescribed potentially impairing medications 

(which can be identified when the drivers renew licenses or, better yet, when they 

are prescribed); first-time and persistent substance abusers who may be at increased 

risk of offending; and other identified at-risk populations (e.g., those with drugrelated arrests, nontraffic convictions, and persistent traffic infractions at younger 

ages, as well as first-time drug-impaired drivers). These programs must move beyond 

merely providing factual information about the hazards associated with drugimpaired driving, an approach which may not be particularly effective.67 Prevention 

programs will be more effective if they emphasize increased swiftness and certainty 

of apprehension, nonlegal sanctions such as shame and loss of friends, concern for 

others, and awareness of personal-injury risks.68 Furthermore, programs that seek 

to correct inaccurate perceptions of the risks associated with various forms of drugimpaired driving, including marijuana-impaired driving and driving under the 

influence of marijuana and alcohol combined, should be developed and adopted.69

† See Response Guide No. 6, Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns, for further information.
| 28 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

© Colorado Department of Transportation. Used with permission.

 WARNING: Driving while medicated 

can result in an arrest.

Repeatedly publicizing laws and legal sanctions may deter drug-impaired driving.
| 29 |

Responses to the Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving

13. Educating and engaging physicians and pharmacists regarding prescription drug 

abuse and drug-impaired driving. Given that a substantial proportion of drugimpaired driving is linked to prescription drugs and prescription drug abuse, doctors 

and pharmacists (and their assistants) need to be fully informed of, educated about, 

and engaged in responding to this problem. One potential program that focuses 

on physician support for designated drivers could be considered and adopted.70

A comparable program, supported by pharmaceutical companies and perhaps 

local transportation companies, could also be considered and adopted: designated 

drivers would be made available to those who are picking up or continuously using 

prescription drugs known to impair driving ability. Guides for developing such 

programs are available.71

14. Encouraging physicians and pharmacists to educate their patients about the link 

between the use of certain prescription drugs and impaired driving. Point-of-sale 

education programs are a viable method of reaching the general population and specific 

at-risk populations using prescription drugs, such as the elderly and the mentally 

impaired. These types of warning programs might have a meaningful impact because 

they are delivered proactively from a medical professional rather than reactively from 

a law enforcement officer or a court. Such programs should seek to identify drugs 

that are potentially impairing, to explain the consequences of using these substances 

before driving and to articulate the laws and punishments (including rate increases 

in automobile liability insurance) that apply to drug-impaired driving.72 Progressive 

programs might also include readily available transportation alternatives, home delivery 

of potentially impairing substances, clearly readable warning labels on containers, and 

other such methods for ensuring that substance users are effectively reached and are 

likely to understand the risks and consequences associated with driving while medicated.

Responses with Limited or Unknown Effectiveness

15. Confining convicted drug-impaired drivers to their homes in the absence of close 

monitoring (electronic or otherwise). Home confinement, while possibly minimizing 

some subsequent offending, does not necessarily address the problem of substance 

abuse, and persistent drug users are unlikely to abstain in the absence of additional 

coercive or restrictive measures. Use of electronic monitoring as a method of enforcing 

home confinement is a preferred option, particularly if the offender understands 

the surveillance capability of the monitoring device and if swift, certain, and severe 

sanctions are in place for noncompliance with, or other violations of, confinement 

conditions. Home confinement, combined with mandatory treatment and electronic 

monitoring, has been tested with drug offenders and has generated some positive 

results.73
| 30 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

16. Developing ignition interlocking devices and requiring convicted drug-impaired 

drivers to install them. Use of ignition interlocking devices, properly installed and 

maintained for a sufficient amount of time, has been effective in deterring some 

first-time and repeat drunk drivers from reoffending.74 Nevertheless, there have 

been some disadvantages to this approach. Some offenders do not own cars (and the 

impoundment of which may be part of their punishment—see #8 above); others may 

not install the devices even if ordered to do so; and ongoing monitoring may present 

substantial resource challenges for criminal justice systems. Those challenges would 

need to be considered if technological advances allow for drug testing by ignition 

interlocking devices in the future. At present, such devices are neither widely available 

nor validated as useful.

17. Developing and implementing devices that monitor drug use. Current technology 

allows for ongoing monitoring of the amount of alcohol in the blood. Similar 

technology may be developed for ongoing drug monitoring and testing of sweat, 

blood, urine, or saliva. At this point, such technology is in the early stages of 

development, although there are some preliminary indications that sweat-testing 

patches might prove useful in the future.75 If you are part of the criminal justice 

system in your jurisdiction, you should be aware of new scientific and technological 

developments regarding the technology of remote drug-monitoring devices. Such 

technology might also be used in conjunction with electronic-monitoring technology, 

which would allow police to track offenders and test them for drugs at all times and 

wherever they go.

18. Incarcerating drug-impaired drivers. Incarcerating convicted drug-impaired drivers, 

particularly repeat offenders and those prosecuted for deaths associated with crashes, 

obviously prevents offenders from driving during confinement and can deter them 

from further drug-impaired driving once released, but the deterrent impact on all 

drivers may be less than anticipated. Much of the deterrence literature suggests that 

swift and certain responses, rather than severe consequences alone, are likely to deter 

future offending, particularly if offenders know clearly how they are expected to 

behave in the future and the consequences for failing to do so. For offenders who are 

unresponsive to alternative sanctions, to substance abuse treatment (either compelled 

or voluntary), or to other responses, long-term incarceration is a viable, although 

expensive, strategy for ensuring increased public safety for some period of time.76
| 31 |

Responses to the Problem of Drug-Impaired Driving

19. Substantially increasing fines for drug-impaired driving offenses. In many 

countries, increasing fines has historically had minimal effects on recidivism rates 

among drunk drivers or as a general deterrent to drunk driving. Often the fines are 

not paid, and many jurisdictions lack the resources to enforce payments unless the 

offender comes into contact with the criminal justice system in the future. Hence, 

there is little reason to believe that this approach would have a meaningful impact on 

drug-impaired drivers. However, Australia and Sweden have adopted fine systems that 

are closely linked to offenders’ income levels and to the seriousness of the offense, and 

within those systems, fines have been more effective in reducing recidivism rates.77

Nevertheless, the magnitude of the fine relative to the offender’s resources and the 

seriousness of the offense may not have been equitably balanced in many countries. 

Therefore, fine systems may need further exploration as one potential response to 

drug-impaired driving.

| 33 |

Appendix 

Appendix

Summary of Responses to Drug-Impaired Driving

The table below summarizes the responses to drug-impaired driving, the mechanism by 

which they are intended to work, the conditions under which they might work best, and 

some factors to consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical that you 

tailor responses to local circumstances and that you can justify each response on the basis 

of reliable analyses. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several 

different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or 

solving the problem.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Legal/Administrative Responses

1 22 Implementing 

per se (aka “zerotolerance”) laws

Increases the 

probability 

of successful 

prosecution of 

offenders; subjects 

more drug-impaired 

drivers to arrest 

and prosecution; 

communicates 

societal intolerance 

for drug-impaired 

driving

...states or countries 

are interested in 

strong enforcement 

policies and are not 

as concerned about 

the inadequacies of 

current field-testing 

protocols

Some drivers who 

are not actually 

impaired will still be 

punished, perhaps 

harshly, depending 

on the location 

and local laws; false 

positives may affect 

a small minority 

of drivers; legality 

of enforcement of 

these laws may be 

challenged; drugimpaired drivers 

using prescription 

or over-the-counter 

medications may 

not be included
| 34 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

2 23 Developing drugimpaired driver 

courts 

Holds offenders 

accountable for 

future substance 

use and offending; 

ensures closer 

monitoring of 

offenders in an 

effort to prevent 

repeat offending

...offenders are 

at high risk for 

recidivism or have 

had more than one 

arrest for driving 

while impaired

Establishing drugimpaired driver 

courts can require 

significant time and 

start-up resources, 

although these 

courts are often cost 

effective in the long 

run

3 23 Implementing or 

improving on-site, 

point-of-contact 

(field) drugtesting devices and 

protocols

Improves 

prosecution success 

and ensures that 

drug testing occurs 

near the time and 

place of the offense, 

which improves 

validity of test 

results

...the devices are 

user-friendly, cost 

effective, accurate, 

and reliable

There are a number 

of technological 

devices available 

and still evolving, 

so police agencies 

will need to keep 

pace with ongoing 

innovations; the 

technology is still 

in development and 

may not accurately 

assess newer drugs 

or certain categories 

of drugs

4 23 Standardizing laband field-testing 

protocols

Facilitates successful 

testing protocols 

that can withstand 

legal scrutiny; 

increases probability 

of conviction

...agencies know 

how to handle 

testing samples and 

have the resources to 

handle them

While some 

guidelines for 

standardizing 

such protocols are 

evolving, many 

jurisdictions operate 

independently; 

therefore, 

standardization 

among many 

jurisdictions remains 

challenging
| 35 |

Appendix 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

5 24 Suspending, 

restricting, or 

revoking driving 

privileges

Deters other 

potential offenders 

by threat of 

punishment; 

limits offending 

by controlling 

opportunities to 

drive a vehicle 

...police, 

prosecutors, 

and courts have 

the resources to 

adequately enforce 

violations 

Repeat offenders 

and those with 

persistent substance 

abuse problems 

are less likely to be 

deterred and will 

often continue to 

drive while impaired 

despite repeated 

administrative or 

legal restrictions; 

police, prosecution, 

and judicial 

resources for 

enforcement are 

often scarce

Enforcement Responses

6 24 Implementing 

high-visibility 

enforcement, 

including sobriety 

checkpoints

Increases risk of 

apprehension at 

high-risk times and 

places; raises public 

awareness of drugimpaired driving

...police are able to 

identify offending 

patterns at high-risk 

times and places 

Legal challenges 

regarding sobriety 

checkpoints are 

likely to hinder 

implementation in 

some jurisdictions; 

can be resource 

intensive

7 25 Training police 

officers to be drug 

recognition experts

Increases likelihood 

of successful 

prosecution and 

ensures that suspects 

are treated fairly but 

tested accurately

...scale of drugimpaired driving 

is sufficiently large 

to justify training 

costs; prosecutors’ 

evidentiary 

requirements are 

satisfied 

Legal challenges 

to admission of 

collected evidence 

will consume court 

and officer time; 

training costs can be 

substantial
| 36 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Restricting Vehicle Access

8 25 Impounding, 

immobilizing, or 

confiscating vehicles 

or vehicle license 

plates of drugimpaired drivers

Prevents offenders 

from driving their 

own vehicle or 

increases likelihood 

of being stopped by 

police for driving 

without a license 

plate

...clearly authorized 

by law

Legal challenges 

may surface, as 

well as concerns 

about excessive 

punishment (e.g., 

for first offenders); 

costs associated with 

vehicle confiscation 

might be substantial

Reducing Drug Use

9 26 Mandating drug 

treatment for all 

drug-impaired 

drivers

Reduces likelihood 

of recidivism by 

reducing demand 

for illicit drugs

...treatment 

programs are 

properly matched 

by drug type and 

offender’s needs

Treatment does not 

have to occur in 

lieu of punishment, 

but punishment 

without treatment 

may be less effective; 

treatment costs are 

substantial 

10 26 Using electronicmonitoring devices 

to closely track 

repeat drugimpaired driving 

offenders

Increases offenders’ 

risk of drug 

detection and 

apprehension

...employed in 

conjunction with 

driving restrictions 

and drug use 

monitoring

Start-up costs 

may be expensive, 

but ongoing costs 

of electronic 

monitoring are 

generally more 

reasonable than 

incarceration costs; 

requires staff time to 

monitor offenders 

and apprehend 

them, if necessary
| 37 |

Appendix 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Education and Prevention Responses

11 27 Conducting publicawareness campaigns 

directed at the 

general population 

and targeting highrisk populations

Draws attention 

to dangers and 

consequences 

associated with 

drug-impaired 

driving 

...targeted to highrisk populations, 

including youths, 

college students, 

first-time offenders, 

drug users, the 

elderly, and in 

jurisdictions that 

have relaxed drug 

laws (including 

those permitting 

medical marijuana); 

message is deemed 

credible by intended 

audience

Campaigns with 

multiple message 

points and sponsors 

may be more 

effective; costs may 

be substantial and 

benefits limited

12 27 Mandating drugimpaired driving 

education and 

prevention programs 

for high-risk drivers

Focuses on 

education and 

prevention programs 

that reach at-risk 

populations or that 

may be required 

for certain at-risk 

populations; 

targets high-risk 

populations and 

ensures that those 

groups understand 

the risks and 

consequences

...the programs 

emphasize the 

swiftness and 

certainty of 

apprehension, 

focus on nonlegal 

sanctions, correct 

misperceptions 

about the risks 

of drug-impaired 

driving, and are 

supported with 

frequent fieldtesting programs 

(e.g., sobriety 

checkpoints) and 

public-awareness 

campaigns 

Different programs 

will need to be 

developed for 

different risk groups 

such as repeat 

offenders, the elderly 

on prescriptions, 

and youths
| 38 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

13 29 Educating and 

engaging physicians 

and pharmacists 

regarding 

prescription drug 

abuse and drugimpaired driving

Ensures that those 

who prescribe drugs 

are fully aware of 

the consequences 

of drug-impaired 

driving and 

are engaged in 

prevention efforts

...physicians 

and pharmacists 

recognize their own 

liability concerns 

and work with 

engaged partners 

who might 

provide alternative 

transportation 

opportunities for 

prescription drug 

users

Many designated 

driver programs 

already exist 

that focus on 

preventing drunk 

driving, and these 

programs might be 

readily adopted or 

expanded to address 

the consequences of 

prescription drug 

use while driving

14 29 Encouraging 

physicians and 

pharmacists to 

educate their 

patients about 

the link between 

the use of certain 

prescription drugs 

and impaired 

driving

Ensures point-ofsale educational 

awareness and 

delivers the message 

outside of the 

criminal justice 

system, which may 

be more appropriate 

for some groups and 

more effective for 

others

...the programs 

involve physicians 

and pharmacists and 

provide a variety 

of options for safe 

delivery and use of 

prescription and 

over-the-counter 

medications that 

can hinder driving 

ability

Pharmaceutical 

companies will need 

to be active partners 

in acknowledging 

the risks associated 

with their 

medications and 

in educating users 

about those risks

Responses with Limited or Unknown Effectiveness

15 29 Confining 

convicted drugimpaired drivers 

to their homes 

in the absence of 

close monitoring 

(electronic or 

otherwise)

Deters offenders 

from driving 

through fear of 

sanctions

...sanctions are 

certain and swift; 

drug treatment is 

also made available

Home confinement 

restrictions are too 

easily violated absent 

vigilant monitoring
| 39 |

Appendix 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

16 30 Developing ignition 

interlocking devices 

and requiring 

convicted drugimpaired drivers to 

install them 

Reduces likelihood 

of impaired driving 

by preventing 

such drivers from 

operating their own 

vehicle while drug 

impaired

...the technology 

is reliable and valid 

(and available); 

monitoring is 

effective

Technology of such 

devices is still in 

early development 

and testing stages; 

offender might 

have access to other 

vehicles

17 30 Developing and 

implementing 

devices that monitor 

drug use

Deters offenders 

from using drugs 

illicitly out of 

fear of detection 

and punishment; 

facilitates 

compliance by 

giving offenders 

a valid argument 

against others who 

encourage drug use

...technology 

is reliable and 

if monitoring is 

vigilant and results 

in swift and certain 

sanctions for 

violations

Technology of 

such devices is still 

being developed 

and will not be 

widely available 

for some time; 

legal challenges 

will likely delay 

implementation, 

and different 

technologies 

will need to be 

developed for 

different substances

18 30 Incarcerating drugimpaired driversPrevents offenders 

from driving while 

incarcerated; deters 

potential offenders 

through fear of 

punishment

...punishment 

is also swift 

and certain; 

incarceration is 

accompanied by 

drug treatment

This response may 

be the best available 

option for persistent 

offenders who are 

not responsive to 

other forms of 

intervention

19 31 Substantially 

increasing fines 

for drug-impaired 

driving offenses

Intended to deter 

potential offenders 

through aversion to 

paying fines

...fines are 

proportional to 

income levels and 

to seriousness 

of offense and 

are consistently 

enforced

Fines are often not 

paid, and follow-up 

enforcement is often 

lax

| 41 |

References

References

Abramson, Mark A., and Holly B. Haines. 2012. “Medical Provider Liability to NonPatient Third Parties for Negligent Medical Care and Prescribing Practices.” Available 

at www.arbd.com/medical-provider-liability-to-non-patient-third-parties-fornegligent-medical-care-and-prescribing-p. 

Aitken, Campbell, Michael Kerger, and Nick Crofts. 2000. “Drivers Who Use Illicit 

Drugs: Behaviour and Perceived Risks.” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 7 (1): 

39–50.

Beasley, Erin, Douglas Beirness, and Amy Porath-Waller. 2011. A Comparison of Drugand Alcohol-Involved Motor Vehicle Driver Fatalities. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on 

Substance Abuse.

Begg, Dorothy, John D. Langley, and Shaun Stephenson. 2003. “Identifying Factors That 

Predict Persistent Driving after Drinking, Unsafe Driving after Drinking, and Driving 

after Using Cannabis Among Young Adults.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (5): 

669–675.

Bernhoft, Inger, Anni Steentoft, S. Johansen, N. Klitgaard, L. Larsen, and L. Hansen. 

2005. “Drugs in Injured Drivers in Denmark.” Forensic Science International

150:181–189.

Bingham, C. Raymond, Jean Shope, and Jian Zhu. 2008. “Substance-Involved Driving: 

Predicting Driving after Using Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Drugs.” Traffic Injury 

Prevention 9 (6): 515–526.

Bonta, James, Suzanne Wallace-Capretta, and Jennifer Rooney. 2000. “A QuasiExperimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program.” 

Criminal Justice and Behavior 27: 312–330.

Boorman, Martin, and Katherine Owens. 2009. “The Victorian Legislative Framework 

for the Random Testing Drivers at the Roadside for the Presence of Illicit Drugs: An 

Evaluation of the Characteristics of Drivers Detected from 2004 to 2006.” Traffic 

Injury Prevention 10 (1): 16–22.

Brookoff, Daniel, Charles Cook, Charles Williams, and Calvin Mann. 1994. “Testing 

Reckless Drivers for Cocaine and Marijuana.” New England Journal of Medicine 331 

(8): 518–522.

Calafat, Amador, Daniel Adrover-Roig, Nicole Blay, Montserrat Juan, Mark Bellis, Karen 

Hughes, Fernando Mendes, and Anna Kokkevi. 2009. “Which Young People Accept 

a Lift from a Drunk or Drugged Driver?” Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (4): 

703–309.
| 42 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

Cartwright, Jennifer, and Mark Asbridge. 2011. “Passengers’ Decisions to Ride with a 

Driver Under the Influence of Either Alcohol or Cannabis.” Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol and Drugs 72 (1): 86–95.

Caulkins, Jonathan, and Robert DuPont. 2010. “Is 24/7 Sobriety a Good Goal for Repeat 

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenders?” Addiction 105:575–577.

Cissner, Amanda B. 2009. The Drug Court Model and the Persistent DWI: An Evaluation 

of the Erie and Niagara DWI/Drug Court. New York: Center for Court Innovation. 

Available at www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/dwi_court_evaluation.pdf. 

Compton, Richard P. 1986. Field Evaluation of the Los Angeles Police Department 

Drug Detection Program. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration.

Couper, Fiona, and Barry Logan. 2004. Drugs and Human Performance Fact Sheets.

Available at www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/introduction.htm. 

Darke, Shane, Erin Kelly, and Joanne Ross. 2004. “Drug Driving Among Injecting Drug 

Users in Sydney, Australia: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Risk Perceptions.” Addiction

99 (2): 197–185.

Davey, Jeremy, James Freeman, Gavan Palk, and Anita Lavelle. 2008. “The SelfReported Impact of Legal and Non-Legal Sanctions on Drug Driving Behaviours in 

Queensland: A Study of General Motorists and Convicted Offenders.” In Proceedings: 

Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference 2008. Adelaide, 

South Australia: 416–425.

Degenhardt, Louisa, Paul Dillon, Cameron Duff, and Joanne Ross. 2006. “Driving, Drug 

Use Behaviour and Risk Perceptions of Nightclub Attendees in Victoria, Australia.” 

International Journal of Drug Policy 17 (1): 41–46.

DeYoung, David. 1997. An Evaluation of the Specific Deterrent Effect of Vehicle 

Impoundment on Suspended, Revoked and Unlicensed Drivers in California. California 

Department of Motor Vehicles, Research and Development Branch. 

DuPont, Robert. 2011. “Drugged Driving Research: A White Paper.” Draft prepared by 

the Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc., Drugged Driving Committee for the 

National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington, D.C., March 31.

Eibner, Christine, Andrew Morral, Rosalie Pacula, and John Macdonald. 2006. “Is the 

Drug Court Model Exportable? The Cost-Effectiveness of a Driving-Under-the 

Influence Court.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 31 (1): 75–85.
| 43 |

References

Elliott, Simon, Helen Woolacott, and Robin Braithwaite. 2009. “The Prevalence of Drugs 

and Alcohol Found in Road Traffic Fatalities: A Comparative Study of Victims.” 

Science and Justice 49 (1): 19–23.

Farrell, Laurel, Sarah Kerrigan, and Barry Logan. 2007. “Recommendations for 

Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving.” Journal of Forensic Science 52 

(5): 1214–1218.

Fergusson, David, and L. John Horwood. 2001. “Cannabis Use and Traffic Accidents in a 

Birth Cohort of Young Adults.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 33 (6): 703–711.

Fergusson, David, L. John Horwood, and Joseph Boden. 2008. “Is Driving Under 

the Influence of Cannabis Becoming a Greater Risk to Driver Safety than Drunk 

Driving? Findings from a Longitudinal Study.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 

(4): 1345–1350.

Freeman, James, Jeremy Davey, Gavan Palk, Anita Lavelle, and Bevan Rowland. 2008. 

“The Impact of New Oral Fluid Drug Driving Detection Methods in Queensland: 

Are Motorists Deterred?” In Proceedings High Risk Road Users—Motivating Behaviour 

Change: What Works and What Doesn’t Work? National Conference of the Australasian 

College of Road Safety and the Travelsafe Committee of the Queensland Parliament, 

Brisbane.

Fulkerson, Andrew. 2003. “Blow and Go: The Breath-Analyzed Ignition Interlock Device 

as a Technological Response to DWI.” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 29 

(1): 219–235.

Grotenhermen, Franjo, Gero Leson, Gunter Berghaus, Olaf Drummer, Hans-Peter 

Kruger, Marie Longo, Herbert Moskowitz, Bud Perrine, Johannes Ramaekers, Alison 

Smiley, and Rob Tunbridge. 2005. Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving 

under the Influence of Cannabis (DUIC): Findings and Recommendations by an Expert 

Panel. Bethesda, Maryland: The Walsh Group.

Hanson, David J. 2012. Doctors for Designated Driving. Available at 

www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1093628753.html. 

Hausken, Anne, Svetlana Skurtveit, and Asborg Christophersen. 2004. “Characteristics of 

Drivers Testing Positive for Heroin or Ecstasy in Norway.” Traffic Injury Prevention 5 

(2):107–111.

Hersch, Rebekah, Dennis Crouch, and Royer Cook. 2000. Field Test of On-Site Drug 

Detection Devices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA).

 
| 44 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

International Association of Chiefs of Police. n.d. The Drug Evaluation and Classification 

Program. Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Jolin, Annette, and Brian Stipak.1992. “Drug Treatment and Electronically Monitored 

Home Confinement: An Evaluation of a Community-Based Sentencing Option.” 

Crime and Delinquency 38 (2): 158–170.

Jones, Ralph K., David Shinar, and J. Michael Walsh. 2003. State of Knowledge of DrugImpaired Driving (DOT HS 809 642). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

Karjalainen, Karoliina, Tomi Lintonen, Antti Impinen, Pirjo Lillsunde, Pia Makela, Ossi 

Rahkonen, Jari Haukka, and Aini Ostamo. 2011. “Socio-economic Determinants of 

Drugged Driving: A Register-Based Study.” Addiction 106 (8): 1448–1459.

Kelly, Erin, Shane Darke, and Joanne Ross. 2004. “A Review of Drug Use and Driving: 

Epidemiology, Impairment, Risk Factors and Risk Perceptions.” Drug and Alcohol 

Review 23 (3): 319–344.

Kerrigan, Sarah 2004. Drug Toxicology for Prosecutors: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers. 

Alexandria, Virginia: American Prosecutors Research Institute.

Lacey, John H., Katharine Brainard, and Samantha Snitow. 2010. Drug Per Se Laws: A 

Review of Their Use in States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration.

Lacey, John H., Tara Kelley-Baker, Debra Furr-Holden, Robert Voas, Eduardo Romano, 

Anthony Ramirez, Katharine Brainard, Christine Moore, Pedro Torres, and Amy 

Berning. 2009. 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by 

Drivers: Drug Results (DOT HS 811 249). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Leaf, William, and David Preusser. 2011. Evaluation of Minnesota’s Vehicle Plate 

Impoundment Law for Impaired Drivers. Preusser Research Group. 

Lenne, Michael, Craig Fry, Paul Dietze, and Greg Rumbold. 2001. “Attitudes and 

Experiences of People Who Use Cannabis and Drive: Implications for Drugs and 

Driving Legislation in Victoria, Australia.” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

8 (4): 307–313.

Li, Mu-Chen, Joanne Brady, Charles DiMaggio, Arielle Lusardi, Keane Tzong, and 

Guohua Li. 2011. “Marijuana Use and Motor Vehicle Crashes.” Epidemiological 

Reviews 34 (1): 1–3.
| 45 |

References

Loudenburg, Roland, Gregg Drube, and Gary Leonardson. 2010. South Dakota 24/7 

Sobriety Program Evaluation Findings Report. Salem, South Dakota: Mountain Plains 

Evaluation, LLC.

Macdonald, Scott, Robert Mann, Mary Chipman, Basia Pakula, Patricia Erickson, Andrew 

Hathaway, and Peter MacIntyre. 2008. “Driving Behavior Under the Influence of 

Cannabis or Cocaine.” Traffic Injury Prevention 9 (3): 190–194.

McKnight, A. James, and Robert Voas. 2001. Prevention of Alcohol-Related Road 

Crashes. In International Handbook of Alcohol Dependence and Problems, ed. N. 

Heather, T. Peters, and T. Stockwell. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2005. “MADD Canada Launches New Drug-Impaired 

Driving Awareness Campaign Aimed at Youth and Post-Secondary Students.” 

Available at www.madd.ca/english/news/pr/p05aug29.htm. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1996. Administrative License 

Revocation, State Legislative Fact Sheet, October. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA. 

———. 2004. Priorities and Strategies for Improving the Investigation, Use of 

Toxicology Results, and Prosecution of Drug-Impaired Driving Cases: Findings and 

Recommendations. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.

———.2009. “Testing Multiple Medication Usage and Driving Functioning.” Traffic 

Safety Facts: No. 357. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.

———. 2010, November. Drug Involvement of Fatally Injured Drivers. Traffic Safety Facts 

Crash States (DOT HS 811 415). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Statistics 

and Analysis.

———. 2012a. How to Implement a Designated Driver Program. Washington, D.C.: 

NHTSA.

———. 2012b. Impaired Driving in the United States. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA. 

Nichols, James L., and H. Laurence Ross. 1990. “The Effectiveness of Legal Sanctions in 

Dealing with Drunk Drivers.” Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 6 (2): 33–55.

Normand, Jacques, Richard O. Lempert, and Charles P. O’Brien. 2004. Under the 

Influence: Drugs and the American Workplace. Washington, D.C.: Committee on Drug 

Use in the Workplace, National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. National 

Academy Press.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2011. Teen Drugged Driving: Parent, Coalition, 

and Community Group Activity Guide. Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug 

Control Policy. 
| 46 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

Officer, Jane. 2009. “Trends in Drug Use of Scottish Drivers Arrested Under Section 4 of 

the Road Traffic Act—A 10 Year Review.” Science and Justice 49 (4): 237–241.

O’Kane, Carl, Douglas Tutt, and Lyndon Bauer. 2002. “Cannabis and Driving: A New 

Perspective.” Emergency Medicine 14 (3): 296–303.

O’Malley, Patrick, and Lloyd Johnston. 2007. “Drugs and Driving by American High 

School Seniors, 2001–2006.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68 (6): 834–842.

Poulsen, Helen. 2010. Alcohol and Other Drug Use in New Zealand Drivers 2004 to 2009. 

Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Police.

Ramaekers, Johannes. 2003. “Antidepressants and Driver Impairment: Empirical Evidence 

from a Standard On-the-Road Test.” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 64 (1): 20–29.

Shaffer, Deborah. 2011. “Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug Courts: A Meta-Analytic 

Review.” Justice Quarterly 28 (3): 493–521.

Skopp, G., L. Pötsch, H. Eser, and M. Möller. 1996. “Preliminary Practical Findings on 

Drug Monitoring by a Transcutaneous Collection Device.” Journal of Forensic Science

41 (6): 933–937.

Smith, John, Charles Hayes, Robert Yolton, Dale Rutledge, and Karl Citek. 2002. 

“Drug Recognition Expert Evaluations Made Using Limited Data.” Forensic Science 

International 130:167–173.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2010. Results from the 2009 

Household Survey Drug Use and Health: Volume 1. Summary of National Findings. 

Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-38A, HHS Publication No. SMA 

10-4856Findings. Rockville, Maryland.

Sweedler, Barry, and Kathryn Stewart. n.d. Vehicle Sanctions: An Effective Means to Reduce 

Impaired Driving. National Transportation Safety Board, Pacific Institute for Research 

and Evaluation. Available at www.icadts.org/proceedings/2000/icadts2000-135.pdf. 

Talpins, Stephen, and Chuck Hayes. 2004. The Drug Evaluation and Classification 

(DEC) Program: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers. Alexandria, Virginia: American 

Prosecutors Research Institute.

Ulmer, Robert G., Veronika Shabanova, and David Preusser. 2001. “Evaluation of Use or 

Lose Laws.” (DOT HS 809 285.) Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration.
| 47 |

References

Voas, Robert. 2006. “Commentary on History of DWI Enforcement: What Does It Tell 

Us About DUID Enforcement?” Transportation Research Circular, No. e_C096. 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts: Transportation Research Board of the National 

Academies.

Walsh Group. 2002. The Feasibility of Per Se Drugged Driving Legislation: Consensus Report. 

Bethesda, Maryland: The Walsh Group.

Watling, Christopher, Gavan Palk, James Freeman, and Jeremy Davey. 2010. “Applying 

Stafford and Warr’s Reconceptualization of Deterrence Theory to Drug Driving: Can 

It Predict Those Likely to Offend?” Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2): 452–458.

White, William. 2003. Management of the High-Risk DUI Offender. Springfield, Illinois: 

Institute for Legal, Administrative and Policy Studies, University of Illinois.

White, William, and David Gasperin. 2006. Management of the High-Risk Offender. 

Springfield, Illinois: Institute for Legal and Policy Studies, Center for State Policy and 

Leadership, University of Illinois.

Whittle, Shirley. 2000. “New York’s Property Clerk Forfeiture Act: Can They Do That?” 

Journal of Law and Policy 4:361–376.

| 49 |

Endnotes

Endnotes

1. Lacey et al. (2009).

2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2010).

3. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2010).

4. O’Malley and Johnston (2007).

5. Lacey et al. (2009).

6. O’Kane, Tutt, and Bauer (2002).

7. Bernhoft et al. (2005).

8. Beasley, Beirness, and Porath-Waller (2011).

9. Poulsen (2010).

10. Elliott, Woolacott, and Braithwaite (2009).

11. Officer (2009). But see Beasley, Beirness, and Porath-Waller (2011) for a somewhat 

different age distribution among Canadian offenders and victims.

12. O’Malley and Johnston (2007).

13. Begg, Langley, and Stephenson (2003).

14. Karjalainen et al. (2011).

15. Fergusson, Horwood, and Boden (2008).

16. Lenne et al. (2001).

17. Li et al. (2011).

18. Bingham, Shope, and Zhu (2008); Brookoff et al. (1994); Hausken, Skurtveit, and 

Christophersen (2004); Ramaekers (2003).

19. Jones, Shinar, and Walsh (2003).

20. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2012b).

21. Ibid.

22. Normand, Lempert, and O’Brien (1994).

23. Kelly, Darke, and Ross (2004).

24. Abramson and Haines (2012).

25. Couper and Logan (2004).
| 50 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

26. Lenne et al. (2001).

27. Aitken, Kerger, and Crofts (2000).

28. Kelly, Darke, and Ross (2004).

29. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2009).

30. Degenhardt et al. (2006).

31. Cartwright and Asbridge (2011).

32. Calafat et al. (2009).

33. Cartwright and Asbridge (2011).

34. White (2003).

35. Kerrigan (2004).

36. DuPont (2011).

37. Grotenhermen et al. (2005).

38. Lacey, Brainard, and Snitow (2010).

39. Walsh Group (2002).

40. Voas (2006).

41. Loudenburg, Drube, and Leonardson (2010); Cissner (2009).

42. Eibner et al. (2006).

43. Caulkins and DuPont (2010).

44. Compton (1986).

45. Hersch, Crouch, and Cook (2000).

46. Farrell, Kerrigan, and Logan (2007).

47. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1996).

48. Darke, Kelly, and Ross (2004).

49. Ulmer, Shabanova, and Preusser (2001).

50. Boorman and Owens (2009).

51. Freeman et al. (2008).

52. McKnight and Voas (2001).
| 51 |

Endnotes

53. International Association of Chiefs of Police (n.d.).

54. Talpins and Hayes (2004).

55. Smith et al. (2002).

56. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2004).

57. DeYoung (1997).

58. Leaf and Preusser (2011).

59. Sweedler and Stewart (n.d.).

60. Whittle (2000).

61. Shaffer (2011).

62. Macdonald et al. (2008).

63. Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, and Rooney (2000).

64. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (2005).

65. Office of National Drug Control Policy (2011).

66. Lacey et al. (2009).

67. Davey et al. (2008).

68. Watling et al. (2010).

69. Fergusson and Horwood (2001).

70. Hanson (2012).

71. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2012a).

72. Couper and Logan (2004).

73. Jolin and Stipak (1992).

74. Fulkerson (2003).

75. Skopp et al. (1996).

76. White and Gasperin (2006).

77. Nichols and Ross (1990).

| 53 |

About the Author

About the Author

Joseph B. Kuhns

Joseph B. Kuhns is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and 

Criminology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Before his academic 

appointment, he was a senior policy analyst and regional supervisor at the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Kuhns has 

developed a model academic curriculum in problem-oriented policing and has used it to 

train students and officers both within and outside the United States. His research interests 

include community policing, police use of force, situational crime prevention across 

various settings, and the linkages between drugs and alcohol and crime and violence. Dr. 

Kuhns holds a bachelor’s and a master’s degree from the University of South Florida and a 

doctorate in criminology from the State University of New York at Albany.

| 55 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott with David K. 

Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana Sampson. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly 

Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. Braga. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3
| 56 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike Hough. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. Antonacci, and Joel B. 

Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto 

Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob T. Guerette. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana York. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5
| 57 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and Adam Thorpe. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

57. Stolen Goods Markets. Michael Sutton. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

58. Theft of Scrap Metal. Brandon R. Kooi. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-12-6

59. Street Robbery. Khadija M. Monk, Justin A. Heinonen, and John E. Eck. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

60. Theft of Customers’ Personal Property in Cafés and Bars. Shane D. Johnson, Kate 

J. Bowers, Lorraine Gamman, Loreen Mamerow, and Anna Warne. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

61. Aggressive Driving. Colleen Laing. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8

62. Sexual Assault of Women by Strangers. Kelly Dedel. 2011. ISBN: 978-1-935676-43-0

63. Export of Stolen Vehicles Across Land Borders. Gohar Petrossian and Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-935676-59-1 

64. Abandoned Buildings and Lots. Jon M. Shane. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-01-7

65. Animal Cruelty. Kelly Dedel. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-05-5

66. Missing Persons. Kenna Quinet. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-20-8

67. Gasoline Drive-Offs. Bruno Meini and Ronald V. Clarke. 2012. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-15-4

68. Chronic Public Inebriation. Matthew Pate. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-07-9

69. Drug-Impaired Driving. Joe Kuhns. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-08-6

70. Home Invasion Robbery. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2012. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-16-1

Response Guides Series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go Down This Road?

Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems. Michael S. Scott 

and Herman Goldstein. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel Barthe. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-66-5
| 58 |

Drug-Impaired Driving

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of Kelly Socia. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 

2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. Jim Hilborn. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

10. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Barbara Raymond. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-14-0

Problem-Solving Tools Series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police ProblemSolvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. Schultze. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving. Scott H. Decker. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems. Sharon Chamard. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and Michael S. Scott. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving.

Diane Zahm. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units. Matthew B. 

White. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Rob T. Guerette. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-93-2
| 59 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Special Publications:

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps. Ronald V. Clarke and 

John E. Eck. 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive’s Guide. Graeme R. Newman and 

Ronald V. Clarke. 2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A Problem-Oriented Guide for Mayors, 

City Managers, and County Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 

Implementing POP: Leading, Structuring, and Managing a Problem-Oriented Police 

Agency. Michael S. Scott and Stuart Kirby. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-61-1

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Prescription Fraud and Abuse, 2nd Edition

Physical and Emotional Abuse of the Elderly

Insurance Fraud by Arson

Hate Crimes

Robbery of Pharmacies

Problem-Solving Tools

Understanding Repeat Offending

Understanding Hot Products

Identifying and Defining Policing Problems

Response Guides

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Special Publications

Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving

For a complete and up-to-date listing of all available POP Guides, see the Center for 

Problem-Oriented Policing website at www.popcenter.org.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series and other 

COPS Office publications, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770, 

via e-mail at AskCopsRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

Got a problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

•	 Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention

•	 A complete listing of other POP Guides

•	 A listing of forthcoming POP Guides

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office).

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Drug-impaired driving demands police, legislative, and community attention 

because of the potential harms it causes. Many of the problems associated 

with drug-impaired driving are similar to those associated with drunk driving. 

However, recent evidence suggests that the prevalence of drug-impaired driving 

may be equal to, or perhaps higher, than drunk driving.

Drug-Impaired Driving will provide an overview of the problem of drug-impaired 

driving review factors that increase its risks and negative outcomes. It then 

identifies a series of questions to help you analyze your local drug-impaireddriving problem. Finally, it reviews a number of responses to the problem and 

summarizes what is known about these responses from evaluative research and 

police practice.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770.

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

August 2012

ISBN: 978-1-932582-08-6 e071229491

Scan this QR code with your 

smartphone for more information 

about the POP Guides Series, or visit 

www.popcenter.org.