November 11, 2025 • 10 mins
There's concerns the Government's new roadside drug tests may not have the nuances of alcohol tests.
From December, police across Wellington can do random roadside saliva tests - screening for cannabis, methamphetamine, MDMA, and cocaine.
The rollout will begin throughout the rest of the country from April.
New Zealand Drug Foundation Executive Director Sarah Helm joined the Afternoons team to discuss further.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk ZEDB. Follow
this and our Wide Ranger podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
So we are talking about the new roadside drug testing
that will be rolled out nationwide from mid next year.
It's going to start in Wellington next month as a trial.
So to chat about this further, we are joined by
the executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, Sarah Helm,
who is on the phones right now. Sarah, A very
good afternoon to you. Thank you very much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Get a now, Sarah, drugs are often lumped in together,
but surely cocaine has a very different effect on people's
concentration compared to say marijuana.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Oh i'd so.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Both impear your ability to drive actually, but what is
really different is how long they say in your body
and how long they impear you. And those things are
quite important when it comes to roadside drug testing and
actually four people who are trying to avoid driving while
(01:10):
impeered and knowing how long something has affected you and
knowing how long it lasts in your system, and you know,
so for example, with cannabis, you might be impaired for
a few hours and it stays in your system and
can't be detected by something like a Salivia test for
as many as seventy two hours. So there's quite a
(01:32):
big gap there.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
So you're saying that cocaine, which is an upper compairs
you the same as marijuana, which is a downer.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
I actually wouldn't hazard to guess that they would impear
you the same, but they would cause impairment. Yeah, I
would say you wouldn't be safe to drive.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
So what is the study saying on that the comparison
between between the two. I just find it really really
odd when we say drink driving. So that's alcohol, and
we know what alcohol is and it's absolutely horrific and
we shouldn't drive on it, absolutely, and we put it there.
But then with the drugs, we just all lump them
into GEI They're like they're the exact same thing.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
Yeah, no, that's right, and that is problematic. I think
more problems from the perspective of chying to prevent people
from driving impeered. I can't stand across the evidence between
whether or not you'd be less impaired on versus cannabis.
It would depend on the person, how much they're taken,
whether they've taken anything else, et cetera, et cetera. There's
(02:32):
a lot of nuance in there.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
That's an interesting That's another interesting point that I've been thinking.
So when we look at these these stats and their
you know, and deaths while people are impaired on drugs,
how much is the crossover between that and alcohol? So
people that are both both have been drinking and also
taking illegal substances.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Yeah, just before I answer, I do want to say that,
you know, like most thew Zealanders, we're really keen to
see impeered drivers, whether it's from illicit drug use or
anything else, off the roads and not harming people. So
we're on the side of that. It's just about getting right.
But anyway, coming back to your question, the thirty percent
(03:15):
of fatal accidents, it's one hundred and five people who
very sadly die in our roads every year. That are
you know, where there is some sort of substance involved.
Actually that figure includes prescription medications, which you know we
all know as humans can embarra us. I've had some
migraine medication that I tell you what, you wouldn't have
(03:35):
wanted me to be in charge of anything while I
was on those so prescription medications, there might also be
an overlap with alcohol, but that figure apparently doesn't include alcohol.
So yeah, the evidence that's been put out isn't very
clear in terms of what substances are causing what kind
of harm out on the roads.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Is it going to be picked up? I mean, talk
about the prescription medicine. A lot of people are obviously
on prescription drugs and they might not drive within the
window that their doctor or pharmacist tells them. But is
there still a potential for that to be picked up
in these tests and those people may get fined.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
Yeah, so this is a little bit of a problem,
and there is some unknowns here and we have actually
sent some questions to the officials to ask with some clarity.
So one of the things we're picking up from, you know,
particularly people who are prescribed ADHD medications, they want to
know whether the methamphetamine salivet tests will pickick that up
(04:31):
for them and whether or not they'll be therefore deemed
to be impaired, So how the test will work. And
then actually, so I'll explain how the test works because
there's another factor that's involved here. So you have on
the roadside two saliviritiess. So if you pass the first one,
you're free to go. If you fail the first one,
you're given another Salivi test. If you fail both of
(04:52):
those salive tests, you're immediately unable to drive for twelve hours.
You have to find your way home some other way.
Your sample is then sent off for further testing in
a lab and it's tested for twenty five substances. And
I don't know what those twenty five subs might be.
I presume some of them will be medications if they've found.
(05:15):
If they found, you have then fined and you receive
the demerit points. You don't receive a criminal prosecution for
this unless you refuse to be tested and they make
you have a blood test in YadA YadA. But in
this first instance, you actually might get picked up for
a number of things, and we don't know what those
number of things are. We do know what's in the legislation.
The legislation is very prescriptive, and it does include a
(05:38):
range of prescription medications, as in a way it should.
But perhaps so what these tests don't show is whether
or not somebody is actually current currently impaired, and so
the person may well have been whether it's illicit or
a prescription medication cannabis to you know, an antidepressant or
(05:59):
something anti anxiety means I think are listed in there.
They might have followed all the instructions and done all
the right things and still be penalized. They might be impaired,
and those tests aren't sophisticated enough to show that as
far as we know, certainly all evidence points to that,
but we actually also haven't been told what technology will
be being used, so there's a whole lot of questions
(06:22):
that still we don't quite know the answers to.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
We're talking to executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation,
Sarah Helm. Now this is a text has come through
from Bill. If someone tests positive and I think I
know the answer to this, but if someone tests positive,
is that then give the police reason to search your
car or your house.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
Yeah, there's a great question. We understand. There's a line
around this, and the penalties are just to merit points
and are fine as opposed to criminal prosecution. Unless indeed
you refuse to be tested, then they can make you
have a blood test and if that results in you
having something detected, they could press criminal charges at that
(07:02):
point another thing, just I'd love to just chip in here.
When we made our submission to this piece of legislation,
one of the things that we're really keen to see
is an impairment methodology. So we don't want none of
us want any impaired drives on the road, right and
you might be impaired for a range of reasons, including
(07:23):
prescription or illicit medication drugs. You might also be impaired
because you didn't sleep first three days or you know whatever.
If the person fails that first elive test, what we
would have preferred is that the police then conduct a
traditional impairment test. We don't think they're going to pick
up that many people that are you know, fail that
(07:47):
first test in any case, and we know that the
problem with the impairment test is it takes a bit
of time or can we not take that bit of
time with those people? And then therefore you've got a
real reason for getting them off the road.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
I mean, it seems if you're going to take you know,
suspend them from driving for twelve hours, then an impairment
test would be you know, that's not everyone. You know,
there seems there'd be time for that. And when you
talk about an impairment test, is that the traditional things,
you know, walking in a straight line and touching your
fingers on your nose and that kind of stuff.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
It's my understanding. There's also new technology. It's not quite
ready for roadside, but we've been working with a company
who have produced it pretty effectively from what we can see,
for workplaces, so as an alternative to the old fashioned
drug screening because it picks up more things essentially, and
it is much more accurate, and they're trying to develop
(08:39):
that for roadside and last I heard it was eighty
percent effective for roadside. So there is actually technology coming
on streams that I think would be a preferable alternative,
and it might also New Zealanders thinking about actually am
I fit to drive today? Should I be getting in
this car versus?
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Shit?
Speaker 4 (08:58):
How long ago did I have that weed? Can I
get away with driving now?
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (09:04):
I mean it's really not that around.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
I have even around just impaired from not sleeping and
being tired as well. I mean, just the impairment is
the problem, isn't it now? So the New Zealand Drug
Foundation here just broadly with these questions you have to ask,
and the obviously that the bits that haven't been announced yet.
Are you guys broadly for this or broadly against it?
Speaker 4 (09:25):
Probably just somewhere in the middle, a few unknowns there.
So we don't want to see people unfairly penalized. We
don't want to people see people harmed on the roads,
whether the other person is doing the thing or the
victim of it. So you know, we would prefer us
to take more of an impairment approach, maybe trial the thing.
But we also are in Australia right now at an
(09:47):
addiction conference and I know that there's problems here with
a similar sort of regime that's enforced.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
So yeah, really good to get your thoughts. Sarah, thank
you very much for coming on No Worries. That is
the executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, Sierrah Helm.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
For more from news Talks, there'd be listen live on
air or online and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk ZEDB. Follow
this and our Wide Ranger podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
So we are talking about the new roadside drug testing
that will be rolled out nationwide from mid next year.
It's going to start in Wellington next month as a trial.
So to chat about this further, we are joined by
the executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, Sarah Helm,
who is on the phones right now. Sarah, A very
good afternoon to you. Thank you very much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Get a now, Sarah, drugs are often lumped in together,
but surely cocaine has a very different effect on people's
concentration compared to say marijuana.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Oh i'd so.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Both impear your ability to drive actually, but what is
really different is how long they say in your body
and how long they impear you. And those things are
quite important when it comes to roadside drug testing and
actually four people who are trying to avoid driving while
(01:10):
impeered and knowing how long something has affected you and
knowing how long it lasts in your system, and you know,
so for example, with cannabis, you might be impaired for
a few hours and it stays in your system and
can't be detected by something like a Salivia test for
as many as seventy two hours. So there's quite a
(01:32):
big gap there.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
So you're saying that cocaine, which is an upper compairs
you the same as marijuana, which is a downer.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
I actually wouldn't hazard to guess that they would impear
you the same, but they would cause impairment. Yeah, I
would say you wouldn't be safe to drive.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
So what is the study saying on that the comparison
between between the two. I just find it really really
odd when we say drink driving. So that's alcohol, and
we know what alcohol is and it's absolutely horrific and
we shouldn't drive on it, absolutely, and we put it there.
But then with the drugs, we just all lump them
into GEI They're like they're the exact same thing.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
Yeah, no, that's right, and that is problematic. I think
more problems from the perspective of chying to prevent people
from driving impeered. I can't stand across the evidence between
whether or not you'd be less impaired on versus cannabis.
It would depend on the person, how much they're taken,
whether they've taken anything else, et cetera, et cetera. There's
(02:32):
a lot of nuance in there.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
That's an interesting That's another interesting point that I've been thinking.
So when we look at these these stats and their
you know, and deaths while people are impaired on drugs,
how much is the crossover between that and alcohol? So
people that are both both have been drinking and also
taking illegal substances.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Yeah, just before I answer, I do want to say that,
you know, like most thew Zealanders, we're really keen to
see impeered drivers, whether it's from illicit drug use or
anything else, off the roads and not harming people. So
we're on the side of that. It's just about getting right.
But anyway, coming back to your question, the thirty percent
(03:15):
of fatal accidents, it's one hundred and five people who
very sadly die in our roads every year. That are
you know, where there is some sort of substance involved.
Actually that figure includes prescription medications, which you know we
all know as humans can embarra us. I've had some
migraine medication that I tell you what, you wouldn't have
(03:35):
wanted me to be in charge of anything while I
was on those so prescription medications, there might also be
an overlap with alcohol, but that figure apparently doesn't include alcohol.
So yeah, the evidence that's been put out isn't very
clear in terms of what substances are causing what kind
of harm out on the roads.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Is it going to be picked up? I mean, talk
about the prescription medicine. A lot of people are obviously
on prescription drugs and they might not drive within the
window that their doctor or pharmacist tells them. But is
there still a potential for that to be picked up
in these tests and those people may get fined.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
Yeah, so this is a little bit of a problem,
and there is some unknowns here and we have actually
sent some questions to the officials to ask with some clarity.
So one of the things we're picking up from, you know,
particularly people who are prescribed ADHD medications, they want to
know whether the methamphetamine salivet tests will pickick that up
(04:31):
for them and whether or not they'll be therefore deemed
to be impaired, So how the test will work. And
then actually, so I'll explain how the test works because
there's another factor that's involved here. So you have on
the roadside two saliviritiess. So if you pass the first one,
you're free to go. If you fail the first one,
you're given another Salivi test. If you fail both of
(04:52):
those salive tests, you're immediately unable to drive for twelve hours.
You have to find your way home some other way.
Your sample is then sent off for further testing in
a lab and it's tested for twenty five substances. And
I don't know what those twenty five subs might be.
I presume some of them will be medications if they've found.
(05:15):
If they found, you have then fined and you receive
the demerit points. You don't receive a criminal prosecution for
this unless you refuse to be tested and they make
you have a blood test in YadA YadA. But in
this first instance, you actually might get picked up for
a number of things, and we don't know what those
number of things are. We do know what's in the legislation.
The legislation is very prescriptive, and it does include a
(05:38):
range of prescription medications, as in a way it should.
But perhaps so what these tests don't show is whether
or not somebody is actually current currently impaired, and so
the person may well have been whether it's illicit or
a prescription medication cannabis to you know, an antidepressant or
(05:59):
something anti anxiety means I think are listed in there.
They might have followed all the instructions and done all
the right things and still be penalized. They might be impaired,
and those tests aren't sophisticated enough to show that as
far as we know, certainly all evidence points to that,
but we actually also haven't been told what technology will
be being used, so there's a whole lot of questions
(06:22):
that still we don't quite know the answers to.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
We're talking to executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation,
Sarah Helm. Now this is a text has come through
from Bill. If someone tests positive and I think I
know the answer to this, but if someone tests positive,
is that then give the police reason to search your
car or your house.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
Yeah, there's a great question. We understand. There's a line
around this, and the penalties are just to merit points
and are fine as opposed to criminal prosecution. Unless indeed
you refuse to be tested, then they can make you
have a blood test and if that results in you
having something detected, they could press criminal charges at that
(07:02):
point another thing, just I'd love to just chip in here.
When we made our submission to this piece of legislation,
one of the things that we're really keen to see
is an impairment methodology. So we don't want none of
us want any impaired drives on the road, right and
you might be impaired for a range of reasons, including
(07:23):
prescription or illicit medication drugs. You might also be impaired
because you didn't sleep first three days or you know whatever.
If the person fails that first elive test, what we
would have preferred is that the police then conduct a
traditional impairment test. We don't think they're going to pick
up that many people that are you know, fail that
(07:47):
first test in any case, and we know that the
problem with the impairment test is it takes a bit
of time or can we not take that bit of
time with those people? And then therefore you've got a
real reason for getting them off the road.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
I mean, it seems if you're going to take you know,
suspend them from driving for twelve hours, then an impairment
test would be you know, that's not everyone. You know,
there seems there'd be time for that. And when you
talk about an impairment test, is that the traditional things,
you know, walking in a straight line and touching your
fingers on your nose and that kind of stuff.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
It's my understanding. There's also new technology. It's not quite
ready for roadside, but we've been working with a company
who have produced it pretty effectively from what we can see,
for workplaces, so as an alternative to the old fashioned
drug screening because it picks up more things essentially, and
it is much more accurate, and they're trying to develop
(08:39):
that for roadside and last I heard it was eighty
percent effective for roadside. So there is actually technology coming
on streams that I think would be a preferable alternative,
and it might also New Zealanders thinking about actually am
I fit to drive today? Should I be getting in
this car versus?
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Shit?
Speaker 4 (08:58):
How long ago did I have that weed? Can I
get away with driving now?
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (09:04):
I mean it's really not that around.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
I have even around just impaired from not sleeping and
being tired as well. I mean, just the impairment is
the problem, isn't it now? So the New Zealand Drug
Foundation here just broadly with these questions you have to ask,
and the obviously that the bits that haven't been announced yet.
Are you guys broadly for this or broadly against it?
Speaker 4 (09:25):
Probably just somewhere in the middle, a few unknowns there.
So we don't want to see people unfairly penalized. We
don't want to people see people harmed on the roads,
whether the other person is doing the thing or the
victim of it. So you know, we would prefer us
to take more of an impairment approach, maybe trial the thing.
But we also are in Australia right now at an
(09:47):
addiction conference and I know that there's problems here with
a similar sort of regime that's enforced.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
So yeah, really good to get your thoughts. Sarah, thank
you very much for coming on No Worries. That is
the executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, Sierrah Helm.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
For more from news Talks, there'd be listen live on
air or online and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Paper Ghosts: The Texas Teen Murders
Paper Ghosts: The Texas Teen Murders takes you back to 1983, when two teenagers were found murdered, execution-style, on a quiet Texas hill. What followed was decades of rumors, false leads, and a case that law enforcement could never seem to close. Now, veteran investigative journalist M. William Phelps reopens the file — uncovering new witnesses, hidden evidence, and a shocking web of deaths that may all be connected. Over nine gripping episodes, Paper Ghosts: The Texas Teen Murders unravels a story 42 years in the making… and asks the question: who’s really been hiding the truth?
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com