The Hidden Cost of Roadside Drug Testing: Parliament Does It to Us Again.

The Hidden Cost of Roadside Drug Testing: Parliament Does It to Us Again.

If ever there was an opportunity for parliament NOT to alienate further a growing chunk of the nation, it has just failed spectacularly, by doing it all again and passing the Roadside Drug Testing Act. It is almost as if this is deliberately provocative, a middle finger into the faces of Kiwis already stripped of rights and forced into medical assault. 

Silent on sudden deaths in the young proximate to their covid jabs, widespread immune failure, rapid cancers and the amyloid-like rubbery structures growing quietly in many people’s blood vessels, now the Overlords are concerned to find and remove impaired drivers from our roads, whilst ignoring climbing mortality and declining fertility.  

But the current random roadside drug testing in New Zealand is not a test of impairment. By wiping the test pad on the tongue it detects the presence of substances which may or may not be causing impairment in the human body. The substances may be legally prescribed. We agree that impaired drivers should not be on the road behind the wheel but randomly stopping people who are driving normally and safely and coercing them into an invasive test is not a way to achieve this which restores trust and community support. Of course there will always be some people who welcome every rule and regulation which makes their lives feel safer. 

But the current approach tests for presence rather than impairment. Cannabis traces linger in the body and appear in saliva long after any high has passed, making saliva testing a relatively poor proxy for impairment. THC can remain detectable in regular users for days or even weeks, even though its intoxicating effects may last only a few hours. That means a medicinal cannabis patient who took a prescribed dose the night before, or a habitual user with high baseline levels, could test positive while driving safely.

For the other targeted drugs, methamphetamine, cocaine and MDMA, the connection to driving impairment is also unclear. At lower doses, stimulants can even improve certain motor skills. The risks are instead tied to perceptual shifts or lapses in attention, which a saliva test cannot detect. Because these drugs remain illegal globally, it is difficult to conduct the controlled studies needed to link presence and impairment. Of course, mixing them, or adding to alcohol, can raise impairment risks considerable. 

So what about the rise in single vehicle crashes and those caused by a “medical event”? Might there be other explanations? Goodness knows authorities are looking well away from all the jab harms. And what about working harder on the importation and distribution of highly destructive drugs like methamphetamine, rather than demonising and punishing private citizens who are legitimate users of medical cannabis? In our view it is highly ironic that many jab injured patients otherwise unhelped, if not ignored completely, by the medical system may find some comfort and respite from medical cannabis – but risk their licenses.

The Bill of Rights and Informed Consent

As doctors, informed consent is fundamental to our work. Informed means being advised about the test, what is in it, what it will be used for, rate of false positive and false negatives, and being able to read a datasheet. Consent means agreeing freely without coercion or duress. Significant penalties constitute coercion. And assent – accepting you must do something – is NOT consent.

Section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 states that “everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment” https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224797. It is our view that taking a fluid sample from a body cavity for the purposes of testing for substances is a medical procedure which in theory one has the right to decline. The Health and Disability Commissioner confirms that a competent consumer may refuse medical treatment, even if the treatment would be in their best interests.

The Attorney General’s report into the legislation, written by Judith Collins in July 2024, found it was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, specifically the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right not to be arbitrarily detained. “The intrusion on an individual’s privacy that arises from the taking of a bodily sample for the first oral fluid screening test appears disproportionate where there is no basis to suspect the individual driving is under the influence of an impairing drug,” she wrote https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/NZ-BORA-Advice-Misuse-of-Drugs-Pseudoephedrine-Amendment-Bill-for-publication.pdf. Yet parliament passed the legislation, signalling further erosion in the contract which says we give you our money and you govern us in our interests.  

Some Specific Concerns

Our concerns with roadside testing include:

• The use of an invasive test, entering a body cavity with undeclared substances on or in it. Police have responded to OIA requests that a Safety Data Sheet is not required because the DrugWipe device is a manufactured article with reagents “fully contained” and no hazardous substance accessible during normal use https://fyi.org.nz/request/32972-random-drug-testing-drivers-using-securetec-drugwipe-s3-devices-confirming-the-due-diligence-undertaken#incoming-135664. Subsequent requests have challenged the basis for these claims https://fyi.org.nz/request/34806-basis-for-20-years-of-safe-use-claim-and-sds-statements#incoming-145676.
• The lack of alternatives, such as saliva collection by dribbling, for those who wish to comply but do not want unknown substances put in their bodies.
• The excessive and coercive penalties, including a $400 fine, 75 demerit points, and a 12 hour stand down, for exercising basic human rights and declining https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/LMS822839.html.
• The presumption of guilt until proven innocent.
• The uncertainty about the rate of false positives.

A Critical Legal Distinction: Compliance versus Consent

There is a subtle but potentially powerful legal argument that has not yet been widely tested. The legislation creates a specific infringement offence for “failure or refusal to undergo an oral fluid screening test or provide an oral fluid sample” (our italics)  https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2025/0012/latest/LMS965616.html. 

An OIA request to Police asked specifically whether an individual may provide saliva by spitting onto the swab instead of placing it directly on their tongue. The response was clear: “A driver may not spit on the screening device. The screening device requires a driver to wipe the device pads down their tongue” https://fyi.org.nz/request/33263/response/138989/attach/3/OIA%20Response%20letter%20IR%2001%2025%2045451.pdf.

OK, but: if a person is willing to comply with the law as written by providing a saliva sample, the state should not be permitted to insist on a specific method that risks the introduction of unknown substances into the body. The question of whether the discretion is unlimited or whether it must accommodate alternative methods where no material difference in the result exists is a question that will be tested in court.

For those who wish to challenge the regime:

The Manufacturer’s Instructions and Coerced Compliance

There is a further legal tension worth examining. The manufacturer’s instructions for the device, the DrugWipe 3 S, were written presumably for a scenario of a voluntary or willing subject, and that assumption is so implicit that surely police cannot claim the technical instructions alone make the test enforceable against consent. The instructions are technical: the driver wipes the device pads down the front of their tongue to absorb a sample. This is a physical procedure, and the manufacturer’s safety claims are based on this use. Police have stated that the public is not exposed to hazardous substances during roadside testing, that there are no chemicals on the device pads, and that Police is assured by manufacturer assurances and independent safety analyses of the device. Sound familiar? [https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-services/drugs-and-alcohol/roadside-drug-driving-testing/health-and-safety-and-privacy. The notice approving the DrugWipe 3 S for use was issued by the Minister of Police on 11 November 2025 [https://www.legislation.govt.nz/secondary-legislation/pco-drafted/2025/246/en/latest/.

The law requires you to comply, but that compliance is obtained under the threat of severe penalties. This is coercion, not consent.  In a legal context, we think this distinction should be critical, but we have all been here before. A consent is not legally valid if it is obtained under duress or coercion. 

This specific legal tension does not appear to have been examined in the public legislative process, or in the Attorney General’s BORA report. The Attorney General’s review focused on broader constitutional issues, such as the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and arbitrary detention, rather than the technicalities of the biomedical consent question. The focus of the debate was on the power to test, not on the biological safety of the test.

Your Rights and Duty,  and Police Obligations

Despite understandable anxiety or resistance to engaging with the police, even when legally compelled to do so at a traffic stop, there are clear rules and laws the police must follow.

They must identify themselves, state the reason for any search, and name the Act under which it is being conducted unless impracticable https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2012/24/en/2025-04-05/#DLM2136536. 

They cannot detain you for longer than 15 minutes solely to establish your identity https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/traffic-patrol-techniques-270325.pdf. 

They must inform you if you are arrested or detained of the reason and your right to consult a lawyer without delay https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225525.html. 

They must treat you with humanity and respect for your inherent dignity https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224801.html.

In response to emerging stories of overreach and aggression by police officers during these stops, this is our understanding:

Under the law, motorists must stop when asked, show licence, give name and address, agree to any testing, and not resist arrest (even if you think the grounds may be unlawful; for instance, before forcibly removing a person from their car, the grounds for this must be stated and a warning given). Drivers do NOT have to answer any other questions, and they do not have to consent to the vehicle being searched.

General good policy is to be polite and calm but not overly friendly. You do NOT have to answer questions like “do you know why I stopped you”, “where are you heading”, “where have you come from” or “have you had any alcohol”. These are questions designed to give police reason to claim suspicion. The overarching question if the officer keeps you talking or seems to not be closing the encounter is: “Officer am I under arrest or am I free to go?”

Current law says that refusing the “saliva test” is punishable by a $400 fine and 75 demerit points and a 12 hour ban from driving https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/LMS822839.html. 

The Sovereign Citizen Issue

We should all be free men and women of course, although this is resisted by the state. Police and judicial officers such as Justices of the Peace (JPs) are being enabled to compile a register of non-compliant people, and sovereign citizens, and to spot and deal particularly harshly with them in the case of the police. We are aware of such cases.

The Police have formalised updated advice for dealing with sovereign citizens, reinforcing a clear message to Police Association members to treat every interaction professionally and lawfully but recognise “the heightened risks and plan accordingly”. https://www.policeassn.org.nz/news/advice-on-fronting-sovereign-citizens-refined#/

Risks of and plan for what, exactly? Being schooled on human rights? The recently released Sovereign Citizens chapter in the Police Manual brings operational tactics, legal guidance and intelligence requirements into a single framework. This includes a requirement to record interactions with sovereign citizens in the National Intelligence Application and notify the Security Intelligence and Threats Group. Clearly, Know the Signs is alive and well. 

Only those people who are highly experienced and confident from past success should go down this route. We are in dangerous times that do not respect the oldest streams of law and a century of modern human rights legislation.

Summary

In the light of the tremendous harms and deceptions by the pandemic government and its police agents, it is reasonable for some to be a) anxious or stressed in their presence, and b) sceptical of a safe and effective testing device where there is no list of ingredients let alone a safety data sheet which might allow informed consent.

If New Zealanders accept this sort of bodily invasion – guess what, we did from 2021 on – then what is next? That is how totalitarianism appears, by small incremental steps that people go along with. People need to ask themselves, at what point would I say NO? 

Parliament rightly recognises that police should not be the ones scraping someone’s tongue, but violation of autonomy is just that whether by someone else or forced by your own hand. Come to think of it, why didn’t Ashley Ardern-Kins try this: “all the jabs have arrived but you are too many so if you want it you’ll have to jab yourselves. It’s easy, anyone can do it.” 

NZDSOS is an organisation focused on biomedical science and safety. We do not condone drug-impaired driving. We insist that public health interventions be based on sound, transparent science and respect for individual rights.