Citation

Maatz KR. Blutalkohol 2006; 43(6): 451-465.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, International Committee on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety and Bund gegen Alkohol und Drogen im Straßenverkehr, Publisher Steintor Verlag)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In the first instance the paper examines the consequences resulting from the ruling of the chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) on 21 st December 2004 (NJW 2005,349) with regard to applying the 'absolute drug ban' in accordance with the (section) 24a sec. 2 StVG. In this instance the BVerfG decided for the factual restraint of the rule - and in the author's opinion against and in contradiction to, the actual wording of the rule - thereby failing to give sufficient importance to the individual positive active substances found in blood of the person affected. Instead a determination of a blood substance concentration is demanded as it is deemed more appropriate since it would make a pharmaco-dynamic effect on driving ability 'seem possible'. This interpretation of the law qualifies the desired 'real 0 threshold value' which, according to the author, the legislator strives for. Furthermore it requires a setting of so called 'minimum effect threshold value' for all substances listed in the enclosure to (section) 24a sec. 2 StVG. In the author's opinion these would be so-called analytical threshold values. Therefore, in certain cases where values would fall below these 'minimum effect threshold values' (which were set by the BVerfG for THC at 1 ng/ml following recommendations of the threshold value commission) the factual restraint may be approved if the person affected behaves suspiciously and their blood test show toxic substances (even if they are only traces) as well as reactions which may influence driving ability. In another section the paper refers to the problems of 'relative' driving inability after drug use in terms of its relevance in criminal law. Furthermore it addresses the possibilities of legal or judicial determination of threshold values for 'absolute' driving inability after drug use. The legal equality of alcohol and Other intoxicating substances' ((section)(section) 315c sec. 1 no. 1 a sec. 1 StGB) suggests methodical orientation of the requirements of the expert report of the Federal Health Authorities with regard to alcohol in road traffic in cases of determining driving ability after alcohol or drug use. Threshold values of 'absolute' driving inability after drug and medication use can therefore only be established based on simultaneous results of equal status. This applies both for bio-medical, statistical research into each individual psychotropic substance as well as to taking into consideration the results of driving experiments. To date there is still a shortage of scientific unanimously accepted findings with regard to the dosage-concentration-effect relationship, which would enable the determination of threshold values. Therefore the main emphasis of the medical-toxicological finding still lies in the interpretation of the psycho-physical state the affected person is in at the time of being stopped as well as blood-substance concentration in relation to the driving atti-tude in the light of 'relative' driving inability. Proof of drug related driving inability usually requires further meaningful evidence in addition to positive drug findings. However, in the interest of a more effective fight against driving under the influence of drugs within the framework of the criminal law the author expresses an interest in the introduction of a legal requirement with regard to blood-substance concentration in accordance with the legally defined threshold value of 'absolute' driving inability of 1.1 %c for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Keywords: Cannabis impaired driving; Ethanol impaired driving

Language: de