Sedqa calls for random breathalyser tests
As the festive season approaches, substance abuse agency Sedqa has called for a change in the law to allow the police to carry out random breathalyser tests at road blocks as a way of clamping down on drunk driving.
Under current laws, the police are only permitted to perform a breathalyser test when they “reasonably suspect” a person is drunk. Even then, a driver may refuse the test, leaving the police with only one option: to arrest the person on the basis of the refusal.
Sedqa’s operations director Jesmond Schembri told The Times that police officers need to be given more power to administer the test. Right now, he said, they can only do so if they have seen the driver swerve for no apparent reason or after an accident, for example.
“Just as in a roadblock nobody can protest if a policeman asks to see an ID card or driving licence, policemen should also have the discretion to administer a breathalyser test,” he said.
Only 60 positive breathalyser tests were carried out this year until the end of October, according to police statistics. Sedqa’s call comes ahead of a campaign to raise awareness to the dangers of drinking too much which it plans to launch for the Christmas period.
Last week, it highlighted the urgent need on a national alcohol policy, in the wake of a UK report which revealed that drink causes more harm to society overall than illegal drugs like heroin, ecstasy or crack cocaine.
The agency is also advocating a lower threshold on what qualifies as drunk driving.
“Right now we are lobbying with the rest of Europe... to bring down the alcohol limit from 80mg/dl of blood to 50 mg/dl,” Mr Schembri said.
Alcohol intoxication varies according to the individual but for most people this would mean a limit of one small beer, a glass of wine or shot of spirit per hour. The agency had made a similar call last year but it was not taken up.
Mr Schembri said Malta was experiencing a shift in alcohol consumption from quiet drinking over a long period to binge drinking. The problem with binge drinking was that it lulled one’s response in certain situations, he said, giving the example of a slow reaction to the need to press the brakes. Especially in adolescents, peer pressure overcame many of the messages which the agency was trying to put across, he added.
It is precisely because of the multi-faceted nature of the alcohol problem that the agency is calling for the drawing up of a national policy which would help introduce a more coordinated response.
“This would be a very strong statement by the government to move in the right direction.” He said the minimum drinking age should be raised to 18 for health reasons, as alcohol had a worse effect on the body when the organs were still developing and because alcohol abuse had serious effects on others.
One effect, as highlighted in the national sexual health policy published last week, is a higher incidence of sex among teenagers.
“If, in this country, the right to vote, possession of a firearm and a driving licence are only granted at 18, why shouldn’t alcohol be bound by this age limit too?” he said.
Sedqa estimates there are about 15,000 Maltese people who are experiencing serious alcohol problems.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
33 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Callum Turner
Nov 30th 2010, 08:32
If you have nothing to hide, a breathalyser isn't an invasion of privacy but an inconvenience to the people who respect their limits.
However along with airport security, I welcome the inconvenience as I know that my family and I will be safer long term.
Paul Smith
Nov 29th 2010, 15:27
Nothing will change, instead the police will continue to arrest Teens for small quantities of cannabis whilst letting drunks room free all over the island ever weekend in there cars.
In August, i arrived back at the Ramla bay hotel after a meal in St. Julians. There was nowhere to park. all the weeding guests were drunk, when i woke up about 7am i noticed all the cars had gone, my guess is majority of the people drove home drunk.
But hey, never mind, wonder what poor soul will lose there life this festive season due to a drunk driver?
A.ATtard
Nov 30th 2010, 01:32
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-471106/Smoking-just-cannabis-joint-raises-danger-mental-illness-40.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332838/Cannabis-raises-risk-cancer-killer-diseases.html
Read some true links that are not pro cannabis Mr Smith not like the ones you sent last week and stop choosing the better of two evils.Too much alcohol is bad ,any use of Cannabis is illegal and bad.That should be the message
MAria Vella
Nov 29th 2010, 11:47
Police should be present at strategic points outside our night life spots. to check those who are most likley to be under the influence of alchohol. Anyone may be drunk, but I believe that there is a category that is more likley to be irrisponsible behind the wheel. I do not not wish to generalise but I think that the young people who leave Paceville at the early hours of the morning after a whole evening of drinking are more likley to be drunk then couples of a certain age who go out for a decent meal and consume a glass of wine or maybe two. We are seeing too many accidents that point to drink driving. Not only during the festive season but nearly every weekend. These people are too young to die, but they do not always have enough maturity to stop and consider their actions. Call me an old spoil sport, but life is precious!
M.Attard
Nov 29th 2010, 14:28
I'm pretty sure 'older' crowds, who might not be as used to drinkng, would be prone to getting drunk at weddings. So might as well place a couple of police nearby wedding halls.
While we're at it might as well target village festas - can't imagine anyone passing the test after a whole day of drinking.
Oh and by the way, most probably even couples out for dinner who get a bottle of wine to share would fail the test (especially if the man ends up drinking more than the wife :) )
Oh and why not placing police stand by every house where there will be xmas and NYE reunions? good chance of wine and champagne flowing through such nights among the guests.
oh come on! If such tests are to be implemented they should be totally random and non-discriminatory (against no places and persons)
Ramon Casha
Nov 29th 2010, 11:06
I agree, with one condition - that the tests are truly random, testing people irrespective of age, gender, general appearance, number of companions, ethnicity etc.
Pamela Hansen
Nov 29th 2010, 10:51
Patrik Larsson, I am assuming your comment referred to me.
Did you not read my first sentence, or all my comment!
"While I fully agree with random police breathalyser tests..."
Police holding random checks for drunk driving is very much OK and are needed.
In fact, I have opined that they should be held in my Sunday column a few weeks ago when writing about a UK study, which found that alcohol was the most dangerous drug.
Roadblocks are very different, I am sorry i have to repeat it, but road blocks are carried out by armed men.
You do not need armed men to stop drink driving. We are not in Mexico here,
Patrik Larsson
Nov 29th 2010, 12:29
No, my apologies, but it was directed at Kenneth Cassar. Clicked the wrong comment button.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 29th 2010, 10:15
Very unexpected comment from you.
I'm all for personal liberty, but drunk driving actually costs lives and a breathaliser test is not exactly a violation of someone's privacy, which a cavity search definitely is. This is the norm in most of northern Europe, where personal integrity normally is far up on the scale of importance, yet they recognise that drunk driving is a big problem with a simple remedy (not cure).
In Malta it has become the norm to get into your car regardless of how much you have had to drink. This is a simple, non intrusive solution, that has been in place and worked in many other countries. Why is it such a problem for Malta?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 29th 2010, 10:58
I'm not against breathalyser tests on people suspected of drunk-driving. But yes, breathalysers are an invasion of privacy if performed on people who are clearly innocent. It doesn't take much to know that someone is under the effect of alcohol, and non-invasive tests could always be performed prior to breathalysers, as is done in other countries.
There is no need to do breathalyser tests on people who pass the non-invasive tests (like walking along a straight line, to name just one).
Pamela Hansen
Nov 29th 2010, 09:50
While I fully agree with random police breathalyser tests. I am surprised that Sedqa is supporting road blocks!
Roadblocks are normally only used in countries at war or where there is serious civil unrest.
They are totally against freedom of movement, which is a human right in a democratic country.
Of coarse the police, or the army, because don't forget roadblocks here are held by armed men, should use road blocks in extreme cases like a seriously big drug sting, but not to deploy armed personnel with nothing better to do.
A. Bialczak
Nov 29th 2010, 11:49
In Melbourne Australia we have 'Booze Buses' situated in places where it is impossible for drivers to escape. As we are driving through, the police will call us over to be tested and if we are less than .05( Blood Alchohol Concentration) we can continue on our way. If drivers are over the limit they are not permitted to drive their car for a specified time. Our advertising campaigns are slowly getting through to people. Slogans like ' If you drink, then drive, you're a bloody idiot' has become a famous catchphrase.
Charles Sammut
Nov 29th 2010, 09:41
While I do understand Sedqa's concern with drunk driving, what they suggested is against the law and basic human rights. By the same reasoning, police should carry out random house searches in the hope of finding something illegal. That's called "fishing" and is a not allowed.
By all means, set up roadblocks and if there is reasonable suspicion that someone is over the limit or under the influence of drugs such as alcohol smell, slurred speech, lack of coordination and so on, then there is reasonable suspicion to carry out the test. If found positive then throw the book at them.
John Carmel Navarro
Nov 29th 2010, 09:39
Part of the Maltese so called culture seem to allow for driving under the influence of alcohol, the message of the dangers has not filtered through yet, as much as I agree with random breath testing there is a need for some serious education to dispel the attitude that drinking and driving are acceptable.
M.Aguis
Nov 29th 2010, 09:09
Mindu naqsu l hinijiet ta clubs u qataw tipjip Paceville hadd adulti m ghadu jersaq kwazi. U l businesses issa daru fuq iz zaghzagh jbihhulhom l alcohol biex idawwru lira ta samaritani twajba li huma hux. Cheap booze, cheap short-term gain, long-term consequences. But that's Malta for you. Povri sedqa caritas etc jiggieldu kontra r-rih (rifnu) ta Malta... l business.
Gerry Said
Nov 29th 2010, 09:06
As a person who trains early mornings (with lights and reflective gear) I cannot but applaud Sedqa's call. I will be avoiding danger areas such as Sliema and Rabat anyway, but having fewer drunk drivers would make me feel somewhat safer. It's bad enough when they're sober.
C. Borg
Nov 29th 2010, 09:04
I agree with what Sedqa said about drink driving, but the effort should be on excessive drinking. Seeing the state of most of the young kids driving out of Paceville, severe binge drinking (meaning really pissed ) is the real problem and not whether one could drink one glass or two glasses of wine. Let's be real. If one cannot get home safely (meaning less than a15 minute drive) after taking just 2 glasses of wine, then might as well stop serving wines in most restaurants. Also let's make taxi fares more realistic and encourage kids to use them more.
G. Attard
Nov 29th 2010, 09:01
I really hope that breathilzer tests will be a frequent thing in Malta and done regularly particulary in hotspots like St. Julian's and Bugibba. This should not be done just during the holiday season nor on the weekend for that matter.
At what point does a policer officer suspect someone is drunk behind the wheel and decide they should do the test? When the accident has happened? When the driver is already driving recklessley?
It's all about prevention and having these tests set up in the hot spots would be a great deterant for people who may think of getting behind the wheel.
J Galea
Nov 29th 2010, 08:59
Can you imagine an NGO in America or the UK having to urge the police to do random breathylser tests? Law enforcement on the roads in Malta is a laugh. However, with the casualties there have been this year we have nothing to laugh at or celebrate this Christmas, only New Year resolutions to make. Why not implement your New Year resolutions early and follow what this NGO is advising?
Dennis Agius
Nov 29th 2010, 09:49
Sur Galea
Qabel ma ghamilt dan il kumment imissek rajt il poteri li ghandom il Pulizija gewwa l-Amerika, l-Ingilterra u wara Malta.
Grazzi.
Tommy Lee
Nov 29th 2010, 08:57
The Substance abuse agency should know that drug driving is a bigger problem than drink driving. Let us start where the problem really lies.
C.Borg
Nov 29th 2010, 09:17
you certainly do know what you re saying! research before you comment!
C Garden
Nov 29th 2010, 09:35
I'm sure that you're very wrong. I'll bet you anything that there is a far higher number of drink drivers than drug drivers.
The fact that this country does nothing about it has allowed it to grow and become part of the culture here. This will probably take a lot more work than roadblocks to undo.
Tommy Lee
Nov 29th 2010, 10:11
Seems you need to do some research.
At a fatal accident in Malta are the drivers breathalised ?, are they tested for drugs ?
Tommy Lee
Nov 29th 2010, 10:20
http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/DrivingAndDrugs.html
C.Borg
Nov 29th 2010, 10:28
This seems to help!
Marijuana: Drove very slowly - feeling a common effect the drug - paranoia - made him more cautious as he worried that he was going to hit something.
Mark Grima
Nov 29th 2010, 10:51
What will probably happen if this law comes into effect, is have police cars on the four corners of Paceville who wil happliy have an arrest cruscade every weekend ( even for a couple of glasses of wine). Drink driving is illegal and extremely dangerous for others and one self. However, if one has the balls to legislate this kind of enforcement police cars should not only concentrate on nightlife hot spots, but outsuide the hundreds of wedding halls , on viilage ring roads for each and every Sunday 'Patron Saint' feast and so on. Futhermore anyone not agreeing with Tommy Lee lives in limbo.
Peter Korsten
Nov 29th 2010, 11:45
Hey, even in a country like the Netherlands, where recreational drug use is condoned (it's still technically illegal), the issue of driving whilst under the influence of drugs (or under the influence of drugs AND alcohol) has only come to the attention of the general public in the last couple of years.
sandro pace
Nov 29th 2010, 08:51
I support Sedqa's call. The 'reasonable suspicion' motive to enable police to do the test is ridiculous and ineffective. There is nothing wrong in random and quota testing, strategically placed. When you are in foreign airports you dont have to act like a terrorist to be frisked. Drink drivers are nothing but road terrorists.
No one would have minded if the only persons in danger were the willing drunken themselves, but by their actions they endanger third parties. Which is unacceptable. A little nuisance for a better road safety and deterrence. Of course, it should also be made a criminal offence and accompanied by a hefty fine. This is nothing more than is being done in other disciplined EU countries. But I dont think authorities and politicians are interested.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 29th 2010, 10:50
There's a difference between frisking and breathalyser testing. I have no problem with breathalyser tests on people suspected of drink-driving. But that's as far as it should go.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 29th 2010, 08:31
"Just as in a roadblock nobody can protest if a policeman asks to see an ID card or driving licence, policemen should also have the discretion to administer a breathalyser test".
Why not give police the power to perform random body cavity searches, while we're at it?
John Micallef
Nov 29th 2010, 09:11
Tajba Kenneth, mghandniex ligi sura ta nies biex tghatti certi poteri il AG f'din l island, ahseb u ara.
Pero nahseb illi bhala skop is-sedqa qeghda hemm biex tghin il- min qieghed fil-vizzju, mhux biex tara li min jabbuza jaqla citazzjoni. Wara kollox min ghandu l-vizzju ghajnuna ghandu bzonn mhux citazjoni.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 29th 2010, 10:47
Li jintuza l-breathalyser ma kull persuna suspettata, naqbel. Li jigi obbligat it-test bl-addocc, le.