President Michael Cope, Drug Driving Law Rally held 25 August 2026
I wish to start with the big picture because the QCCL’s attitude to this law is part of our broader policy position. QCCL takes the position that personal use, possession and supply of cannabis should be legalised. We supported Queensland’s partial relaxation of the recreational cannabis laws and joined with the successful campaign for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis.
In relation to other drugs, the policy of the QCCL is that the personal use and possession of all drugs (psychoactive substances) and psychotropic plants should be decriminalised. A model something like the Portuguese one. The amendments to the TORUM are part of this Government’s broader reactionary agenda. It started this year with its changes to drug diversion laws.
In 2023 the former Government introduced a drug diversion program for those caught in possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use. It allowed three chances before criminal penalties were imposed. That is to be replaced by one chance. This is, in our view, an extraordinary reactionary decision. The current law offered a broad measure of decriminalisation coupled with treatment options for those who required them. It was sane and compassionate.
I turn now to discuss our criticisms of driving laws in general. The laws create an offence to simply be driving a vehicle with one of the prescribed ‘drugs’ in your system. The Council opposes this for two reasons:
- First of all, this is supposed to be an Act about road safety. It should only create offences when road safety is affected.
- Secondly, it places the onus on the driver to prove that the ‘drug’ test is wrong when there is serious scientific debate about the accuracy of the test.
The problem the Government has is that so far science has been unable to establish a clear relationship between the amount of a ‘drug’ in your system and your ability to drive. It is quite a different situation with alcohol where there is a clear correlation between the level of alcohol in your bloodstream and your capacity to drive. The Government is then forced to introduce this draconian legislation.
The Council accepts that the police should be entitled to take ‘drug’ tests, but they should only be entitled to do so when the police are able to point to evidence that a person has been driving unsafely and they cannot find any other reason for it such as alcohol. So that if the police observe a wandering driver on the road and cannot detect alcohol, they should be entitled to take a ‘drug’ test.
This is the law in Canada where police must first establish reasonable grounds or physical signs of impairment before roadside oral ‘drug’ testing. However, the onus of establishing the ‘drug’ test is accurate should remain on the police. Turning to this legislation in particular, there a number of issues.
The starting point must be this proposition—recreational cannabis remains illegal, but legally prescribed medicinal cannabis is fully lawful under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2019. Despite this there is a major increase in penalties for the mere presence of the ‘drug’ in a person’s blood or saliva. This offence is currently subject to a maximum penalty of 14 penalty units ($2,417). The maximum penalty for this offence will increase to 28 penalty units ($4,835). This is despite the fact that presence of a ‘drug’ in the bloodstream proves nothing about the capacity to drive.
The current roadside testing regime results in harms to those who use legal medicinal cannabis including criminal sanctions. The possibility of loss of licence deters patients from using medicinal cannabis products as they do not want to face prosecution or be prevented from driving. Patients may risk more than a fine or a suspended licence. If they are involved in an accident, their insurance will be voided. If another person is injured, they could face criminal charges of driving while impaired.
To avoid the risk of prosecution, users of medicinal cannabis may choose to leave prescriptions unfilled if they must work and have to drive every day. Those in rural, remote and regional locations are particularly disadvantaged, as they are more likely to rely on their car for transport. They are likely to suffer particular hardship by a loss of licence which often leads to loss of work, difficulties maintaining family and other connections. This hardship may also be a disincentive to seek the medical help they need.
Again, there are alternatives to this Government’s irrational and draconian approach. Drug driving laws in UK, Germany, New Zealand, Norway and Ireland recognise a statutory medical defence for medicinal cannabis patients without impairment. Ten European countries, seven US states, Canada and New Zealand penalise ‘drug’-related driving offences using specific quantitative blood or serum concentration thresholds rather than relying solely on zero-tolerance trace detection.
From the civil liberties perspective, there should be no discrimination at all against the users of medicinal cannabis. They should be subject to the same test used for other prescription medicines that are known to affect driving, including benzodiazepines (Xanax, Valium), antidepressants, opiates, anticonvulsants, antihistamines, antipsychotics, muscle relaxants and hypnotics. Drivers are not tested for these by police.
The obvious conclusion is that prescription cannabis medicines are only targeted because of historical stigma and prejudice. But unfortunately, this describes much of the current Government’s reactionary agenda.
Thank you.
