The Druid Program (Driving under the Influence of Drugs)

The Druid Program(Driving under the Influence of Drugs)http://www.druid-project.eu1

ESTHER DRUID Project - Workpackage -Enforcement1. Practical evaluation of screening devices 2006 – 2009Comparison of practical effects of screening devices for the policeSlide 3 and 42. Scientific evaluation of screening devices 2008 – 2009Accuracy and reliability of the test systemsSlide 4 -153. Cost-benefit analysis (not finished)Total costs and total benefits of drug screening programs.2

ESTHER study confirms DrugWipe®‘sexcellent operabilitySafe and hygienic testing with DW 5+ ?• 97 % of police stated yesPolice rely on the indicated result of DW 5+ ?• 82 % of police rely on the obtained resultSimple and fast road side testing?• 98 % of police qualify DrugWipe® 5+ as simple and very easy to useDrugWipe® could be used easily at the road side ?• 98,5 % concluded that DrugWipe® is a real road side testDruid Project Deliverable 3.1.1. , from 25.11.2009 KLDP/ TISPOL3

ESTHER study confirms DrugWipe®is the most promising solutionfor police forcesAveragecollecting timeAverageanalysing timeTesting in ahygienic wayFailure rateTest simple toperformSecuretecDrugWipe® ®BrananOratect XPCozartDDSInnovaconOrALertVarianOraLab 6Screening devices to be used everywhere without specific requirements1 min. 15 sec. 4 min. 50 sec. 97 % 2 % 98 %4 min. 5 min. 45 sec. 89 % 12 % 82 %2 min. 6 min. 85 % 1 % 87 %3 min. 7 min. 72 % 10 % 66 %3 min. 50 sec. 7 min. 20 sec. 87 % 20 % 85 %DrägerDrug Test 5000MavandRapidStatBiosensorBIOSENSScreening devices only to be used in specific police vehicles3 min. 11 min. 100 % 3 % 82 %2 min. 15 sec. 9 min. 70 % 15 % 66 %Screening devices only to be used at mass events50 sec. 2 min. 15 sec. 95 % 0 % 75 %Druid Project Deliverable 3.1.1. , from 25.11.2009 KLDP/ TISPOL4

Scientific evaluation in the frameworkof DruidSpecificity and SensitivitySolutions basedon electronicreadersDruid Project Deliverable 3.2.1 from 8.12.2009 National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland.5

Scientific evaluation: overall sensitivityDrugWipe® 5+ is the leading productDrugWipe®5+Druid Project Deliverable 3.2.1 from 8.12.2009 National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland.7

Comparability of the D9THC dataConclusion:1. The data collected at the exit of the coffee shop should not be relevantfor an evaluation of police road side devices because coffee shopconcentrations of drugs in saliva are tremendously high, especially forTHC, in comparison with the lower saliva sample concentrations atpolice controls (see next slide)2. It is difficult to understand the reasons why Dutch police chose the exitof a coffee shop for testing devices for the police force. These easyobtained high levels are not conducive to development of the deviceswith better specificity and sensitivities for use at the road side.3. The DrugWipe® device shows a high accuracy and a high specificity.The latest 2010 DrugWipe® has a significantly improved sensitivity ofTHC detection and now leads to a higher hit rate for THC consumers.(new confidential data is available on request)11

The average concentration of D9THCis higher at the exit of the coffee shopConcentration of D9THCCoffeeshopsalivatime window police controlurinebloodDetection limit0,5 - 1 h6 h 12 hhoursA high average concentration of D9THC in saliva (at the coffee shop) leads toa higher ratio of positive test results, so recording higher Sen/Spec/Acc stats,even for devices with a very poor sensitivity for D9THC.Securetec AG -200512

Scientific evaluation:Amphetamine/MetamphetaminesensitivityDrugWipe®5+shows high values forsensitivity (87%), atthe same time a verygood rating forspecificity (95%) andaccuracy (93 %)Druid Project Deliverable 3.2.1 from 8.12.2009 National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland., page 86.13

Visual “Signs of Impairment” evaluation:using standard checklist (CSI)Belgium – Netherlands - FinlandDruid Project Deliverable 3.2.1 from 8.12.2009 National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland., page 92.14

Clinical “signs of impairment” (CSI)checklist shows poor results forsensitivityCSI by policeofficerTP 33 86FP 26 87TN 4500 4444FN 233 185TOTAL 4792 4802SENSITIVITY 13 % 32%PREVALENCE 5,6% 5,6%Self reported use of drugs and CSIby police officerThe work with the checklist does not offer a convincing methodology to distinguisha drugged driver from non impaired drivers. Easy access to fast and mobilescreeners is essential to establish a drug enforcement policy.Druid Project Deliverable 3.2.1 from 8.12.2009 National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland., page 82f.15

All data was independently gathered and assessedby Police and Universities in the EU and is freelyavailable at:http://www.druid-project.euWorkpackage 3 - deliverables16