| 1. |
- Holmgren, Anita, et al.
(författare)
-
High re-arrest rates among drug-impaired drivers despite zero-tolerance legislation
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Accident Analysis and Prevention. - : Elsevier BV. - 0001-4575 .- 1879-2057. ; 40:2, s. 534-540
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: A zero-tolerance law for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) in Sweden led to a 10-fold increase in the number of cases submitted by the police for toxicological analysis. The statutory blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving is 0.2 mg/g (∼0.02 g%). Methods: An in-house database (TOXBASE) was used to investigate re-arrests for impaired driving over 4 years (2001-2004), which comprised 36,799 cases. The age, gender, re-arrest rate of the offenders and the concentrations of ethanol and amphetamine in blood samples were evaluated. Results: We found that 44% of individuals (N = 16,277) re-offended 3.2 times on average (range 1-23 arrests). Between 85 and 89% of first-time offenders were men and there was also a male dominance among the recidivists (88-93%). The mean age of drunken drivers was ∼40 years compared with ∼35 years for driving under the influence of amphetamine, which was the drug identified in 50-60% of DUID cases, either alone or together with other licit or illicit drugs. The median BAC was 1.5 mg/g (∼0.15 g%), which suggests a dominance of heavy drinkers. The median BAC was even higher in recidivists (1.6-1.7 mg/g). The median concentration of amphetamine in blood was 1.0 mg/L in recidivists compared with 0.5 mg/L in the first-time offenders. About 14% of drunken drivers re-offended 1-10 times compared with 68% of DUID suspects, who were re-arrested 1-23 times. People with only a scheduled prescription drug in blood were re-arrested much less frequently (∼17%) compared with those taking illicit drugs (68%). Conclusions: The appreciable increase in number of arrests for DUID after a zero-tolerance law might reflect a heightened enthusiasm by the police authorities armed with knowledge that a prosecution is easier to obtain. Zero-tolerance laws do not deter people from impaired driving judging by the high re-arrest rates. During the sentencing of hardcore offenders, the courts should give more consideration to the underlying substance abuse problem. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 2. |
- Jönsson, Anna, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Cause of death and drug use pattern in deceased drug addicts in Sweden, 2002-2003
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Forensic Science International. - : Elsevier BV. - 0379-0738 .- 1872-6283. ; 169:2-3, s. 101-107
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Compared with their contemporaries, individuals abusing illicit drugs suffer a higher risk of premature death. In Sweden, a simple protocol for registration of fatalities among abusers of alcohol, pharmaceuticals, illicit drugs, or other substances, has been used by the forensic pathologists since 2001. This routine was introduced to allow for an evaluation of the cause and manner of death, and patterns of abuse among different groups of abusers. We explored the data on drug abusers (i.e. abusers of illicit drugs) subjected to a forensic autopsy 2002-2003. The Swedish forensic pathologists examined 10,273 dead victims during the study period and 7% (743/10,273) of the cases were classified as drug abusers. Toxicological analyses were carried out in 99% (736/743) and illicit drugs were detected in 70% (514/736) of these. On average, 3.8 substances (legal or illegal) were found per case. The most common substances were ethanol and morphine, detected in 43 and 35% of the cases, respectively. When exploring the importance of the different substances for the cause of death, we found that the detection of some substances, such as fentanyl and morphine, strongly indicated a poisoning, whereas certain other substances, such as benzodiazepines more often were incidental findings. In total, 50% (372/743) died of poisoning, whereas only 22% (161/743) died of natural causes. Death was considered to be directly or indirectly due to drug abuse in 47% (346/743), whereas evidence of drug abuse was an incidental finding in 21% (153/743) or based on case history alone in 33% (244/743). We believe that this strategy to prospectively categorize deaths among drug addicts constitutes a simple means of standardizing the surveillance of the death toll among drug addicts that could allow for comparisons over time and between countries. © 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
