[NSW] Mythbusting Roadside Drug Testing

Politicians (especially from the Greens Party), stoners, and soccer moms alike all fear one thing - a roadside drug test.

For years many people, shockingly including politicians, have perpetuated many myths about roadside drug testing. In this article, I'll be unpacking some of the most common.

Myths debunked

1. Not wearing gloves invalidates a drug test

2. The drug testing devices are inaccurate

3. Unlike Roadside Breath Test (RBT) the police aren't looking for a level, just presence.

4. Drug testing hasn't reduced the road toll.

1. Not wearing gloves invalidates the drug test - Myth

   This myth was started by Cate Faehrmann(1) of the NSW Greens Party in 2021 when she stated, as the police officer testing her 'staff member' in a car was not wearing gloves that:

This is the sort of bad faith argument one expects from a stoner in court desperately trying to weasel their way out of a conviction, not from a sitting member of the Legislative Council.

FACTS

• A NSW police officer did test the 'staff member' that was with the MP.

• The NSW Police officer did not wear gloves.

• The NSW Police Force manual does require police officers to wear gloves when conducting Roadside Drug Testing (RDT) operations.

The reason this is a 'nothing' issue is that the policy is strict on gloves to protect the officers from the saliva of the individuals.

NSW Police manual - Roadside Drug Testing(2)

This is effectively a WHS ass-covering measure. The chance of ever getting an infection/virus etc. from oral fluid is negligible however as it could hypothetically happen, this is why every agency that works with any body fluid, mandates the use of PPE. Some agencies require staff to wear PPE whilst handling blood or urine in a vacutainer (a vacuum sealed tube). It's nothing to do with contamination of the sample. There is also no chance that a police officer could contaminate both the sample tested roadside and the sample processed by the laboratory in Sydney that would make you test positive for THC (unless they literally put cannabis in your oral fluid).

Accordingly, no prosecutions for drug driving have been withdrawn in the past 4+ years despite the MP's ongoing insistence.

2. The drug testing devices are inaccurate

This myth was a hasty conclusion of researchers at the University of Sydney(3) which was flawed from the start as they failed to use the same roadside device that police do. NSW Police Force, at the time, only used the DrugWipe II device made by Securetec specifically for law enforcement. NSW Police now use the DrugWipe III which tests for Methamphetamine/Ice, MDMA/Ecstasy, Cocaine, and THC/Cannabis. The researchers used a commercial DrugWipe 5S made by Securetec which for starters, is not compliant with AS/NZS 4760:2019 (which was the standard at the time they published).

Even if we put that aside the other two fatal flaws were that

1. There was a 2.38% chance of a false positive 3 hours after you smoke cannabis. I should point out, most commercial drug testing devices on the market, in their own +25% cut-off validations, have up to a 7% false positive rate. Most suppliers will not even refund your drug testing equipment until you can prove a 12% false positive rate. As they were using a commercially available test rather than one made for law enforcement, this actually is a pretty good advertisement for Securetec that even their commercial test is more accurate than competitors.

2. They had an incredibly modest sample size of 14 people

Interestingly, no one points out the tests are more likely to produce a false negative (letting a stoner off the hook) than a false positive result.

Even if you were unlucky to get a false positive roadside, that's not the end of the world as...

3. Unlike Roadside Breath Test (RBT) the police aren't looking for a level, just presence

Nope. When doing RBT the NSW Police Force are usually looking for a BrAC (Breath Alcohol Concentration) of above 0.050 grams of alcohol per 210 Litres of breath.

Similarly the NSW Health Forensic science lab (which does the confirmatory tests for NSW Police), accredited by NATA to AS/NZS 4760:2019(4) would only need to find 5 ng/mL to deem you positive under AS/NZS 4760:2019 - and yet they have determined their lower limit of reporting to be 10 ng/mL (0.010 mg/L), double the standard(5).

NSW Health Pathology lab procedure

An in fact, this lab test must be done before police commence prosecutions.

4. Drug Testing hasn't reduced the road toll

No single measure can be attributed to reducing the road toll as many measures from mandatory seatbelts, better vehicle engineering, speed cameras, better training of paramedics etc. have all contributed to lowering the road toll - but yes, there was a drop in the number of deaths in the years after introducing drug testing.

In 1970 we went from 0.030% of the population dying in car accidents each year to currently having <0.005% of the population dying in a car accident.

There is a 0.011% chance of you being bitten by a venomous snake in Australia - meaning you have twice the chance of being bitten by a snake than having a fatal car accident.

Roadside drug testing isn’t flawless, but it’s far more robust than the myths suggest. Understanding how it actually works helps drivers, workplaces, and even MPs avoid getting it wrong.

References

(1) Police Caught Breaching RDT Procedures while Drug Testing Greens MP, Cate Faehrmann NSW Greens MP [website], https://www.catefaehrmann.org/police_rdt_procedures, (accessed 10 October 2025).

(2) Commissioner of Police - NSW Police Force, Standard Operating Procedures for Random Oral Fluid Testing, Sydney, NSW, Traffic and Highway Patrol Command - NSW Police Force, 2018, p. 5.

(3) Arkell, T. R., Kevin, R., Stuart, J., Lintzeris, N., Haber, P., Ramaekers, J. G. & McGregor, I. S. 2019, ‘Detection of Δ⁹‐THC in oral fluid following vaporized cannabis with varied cannabidiol (CBD) content: an evaluation of two point‐of-collection testing devices’, Drug Testing and Analysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 1486–1497

(4) Standards Australia & Standards New Zealand, AS/NZS 4760:2019: Procedure for specimen collection and the detection and quantification of drugs in oral fluid (2019)

(5) Glyn Hansen, Confirmation of Prescribed Illicit Drugs in Oral Fluid by LC-MS-MS (Method DD 24B), Version 3.3, Sydney, NSW, NSW Health Pathology - Forensic & Analytical Science Service, 2021, p. 8.