Every road safety law exists for one reason, to save lives. For decades, governments of all political persuasions have strengthened drink-driving laws, introduced roadside drug testing, increased enforcement and invested in public education because every serious decision has been guided by one principle, if a measure saves lives, we should support it.
That is why the Minns Labor Government’s proposal to amend the state’s drug driving laws and allow medicinal cannabis users to drive is so deeply concerning.
The issue currently before Parliament is not whether medicinal cannabis should be legal – it already is. The issue is whether the Government has established a scientifically robust and evidence-based framework that ensures the safety of all road users. On that test, the proposal falls short and would actually weaken road safety.
For Catholics, this debate is about more than legislation or public policy. Every person who uses our roads is someone’s son or daughter, mother or father, husband or wife. We have a duty to ensure our roads remain as safe as possible for every family.
The proposed reforms would allow registered medicinal cannabis users to avoid prosecution after testing positive to THC below a newly-created threshold, with a “three strikes” system before penalties apply in many circumstances. Supporters argue this is a balanced approach that recognises lawful patients while maintaining road safety.
However, balance cannot be achieved by weakening safeguards in the absence of settled science. Between 2019 and 2023, 372 people died on our road with drugs in their system, of those fatalities, 69 per cent had THC in their system, dwarfing all other illicit drugs.
Drug driving is now the second leading contributing factor in road fatalities, ahead of fatigue, drink driving and failing to wear a seatbelt.
Twenty of the state’s leading health and trauma experts have warned that the proposed THC threshold is not supported by any recognised Australian or international clinical body and lacks a credible scientific basis.
The NSW Roads Minister Jenny Aitchison cannot name a single doctor, road trauma specialist, scientist or medical expert which backs the government’s position.
The NRMA has also called this move a misstep as NSW continues to record its highest numbers of road deaths in years. When the doctors and road safety experts who see the aftermath of catastrophic crashes every day are telling the Government its proposal is unsafe, Labor should listen.
According to Transport for NSW, 45 per cent of medicinal cannabis users admitted to driving within six hours of using cannabis despite being advised not to because impairment can last between three and eight hours.
Fifty-four per cent admitted they were not using their prescribed medicinal cannabis as directed, instead taking higher doses, using it more frequently or for recreational purposes. Those findings alone should have caused Labor to pause. Instead, they continue to press ahead with this dangerous drug-driving policy and would have us believe these reforms represent best practice. They do not.
In fact, another Australian jurisdiction has recently undertaken one of the most comprehensive reviews of medicinal cannabis and drug driving laws in the country, and reached the exact opposite conclusion.
The Queensland Government commissioned an independent review into medicinal cannabis and driving, examining the latest medical evidence, roadside testing technology, prescribing practices and overseas models. Its review concluded what we already know, unlike alcohol, cannabis has no predictable relationship between the amount of THC in a person’s system and their level of impairment.
The review also found that saliva testing can detect recent cannabis use, but cannot reliably determine whether a driver is actually impaired. Blood testing was dismissed as impractical and inequitable, particularly for regional communities, while a medical defence for prescribed cannabis users was found to be unworkable because police cannot verify compliance with prescriptions or accurately assess impairment during a roadside stop.
After considering all of the available evidence, Queensland reached a simple conclusion: the science is not there yet. That is the critical difference. Queensland looked at the evidence first and decided not to change the law. The NSW Labor Government has decided to change the law first and hope the evidence will justify it later.
We know that road crashes do not discriminate. The victims of a fatal crashes do not get three chances, so why should a driver? Their families expect the government to put safety first.
When governments cannot say with confidence where the line between safe and unsafe driving sits, they should not be moving the line at all. They should be investing in the research, technology and evidence needed to get it right before changing the law.
To legislate first and then promise to keep reviewing the evidence later, is the wrong way to look at this problem. Road safety policy should never be based on hope. It should be based on proof.
History shows that the reforms which have saved the most lives, from compulsory seatbelts to random breath testing and mobile phone enforcement, were introduced because the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated they would reduce road trauma.
Road safety isn’t the place for political experiments. If Labor is wrong, the consequences won’t be measured in headlines or political embarrassment. They will be measured in serious crashes, lifelong injuries and lives that cannot be replaced.
The millions of people who use NSW roads each day deserve to know that their government has done everything possible to keep them safe, and has not accepted unnecessary risk. Road safety laws consistently save lives when they are built on strong evidence.
Because when it comes to road safety, there are no second chances.
