The approval of the new highway code is causing much less outcry than expected: in fact it is barely talked about, and we have not heard any major debates on the matter. This would seem strange, if we think about the quantity of very questionable innovations introduced by this modification; but all in all it is easily explained, and here lies one of the disturbing aspects of the operation implemented by the Minister of Transport.

Preventive measures?

The general spirit that animates the new code is eminently repressive: the idea is to increase the penalties, be they financial or otherwise, for anyone who violates the highway code. Fines become higher for everything, from using a cell phone to driving to running a red light, and in many cases the license will be withdrawn or suspended. This would not be a big problem in itself, but it is a sign of the mentality behind the reform, reiterated several times even by the minister himself: those who break the rules must be punished. It seems like an obvious phrase, which no one would question, but this is because we are not used to thinking about laws, which do not have as their purpose – in our system – the simple punishment of illicit actions: a highway code should be designed to avoid accidents as much as possible, certainly also with the application of sanctions that (hopefully) dissuade citizens from illicit behaviour, but not only in this way. Here, however, preventive measures are completely lacking.

The absurdity of the management of the drug problem

In fact, we see the same thing in the measures envisaged for the consumption of narcotic substances. The new code introduces a very important change, which is not being given particular importance: it is no longer expected that the driver who drives in a state of psychophysical alteration will be sanctioned, but rather the one who tests positive in a salivary test, who is actually in an altered state or not. In fact, salivary tests do not detect the alteration, but only the presence of the substance; and, depending on the substance, this presence is also detected days after consumption, as in the case of THC, the active ingredient of cannabis. If the substance is still detectable, however, this does not mean that the person is still under its influence: the day after taking cannabinoids no effects are perceived anymore, exactly like with alcohol.

This presents some problems. The first – the most obvious – is that there is a risk of taking away the license of people who are perfectly lucid while driving, punishing them for having done something which in Italy is not a crime (the use of narcotic substances is in fact an administrative offence, it has no criminal relevance); punishing them, in fact, for something that has nothing to do with the highway code, because if the person is not under the influence of drugs, it is not clear what relevance their assumption has in the decision on the withdrawal of the license. In short: if a citizen uses substances at home, and then goes to bed, and the next day takes the car to go to work, perfectly lucid and having worn off all the effects, why should he be sanctioned?

Rather than avoiding accidents, the intent is to spread propaganda

It is clear that the intent here is in fact to sanction the use of drugs, not drunk driving; but sanctioning the use of drugs is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, as well as not being the most effective way to combat addiction. But it is equally evident that it is not the contrast to the dependencies that we want to obtain here, but precisely only the sanction: therefore I was talking about a repressive spirit, and this is the second, enormous problem. The literature on the topic, in fact, as well as the years of experience during the plague of heroin and synthetic drugs, clearly tells us that addictions can be defeated through prevention, something that this government is never interested in. The tightening of penalties, on the contrary, has never led to anything other than sending some unfortunate person caught stealing 20 euros to get a dose to prison.

Another problem is that in this way the consumption of alcohol appears to be less problematic and dangerous than the consumption of soft drugs, in defiance of scientific evidence and also data on addictions in Italy, of which alcohol is the most lethal of all. . If I drink tonight and get behind the wheel tomorrow morning, I run no risk, while if I smoke a joint and get behind the wheel two days later, I am treated like a drunk. It is clear that there is no logic in all this, but a simple propaganda intent: the electorate that the government must pamper hates the “drug addicts” of the social centers, but appreciates alcohol as a made in Italy product, part of the our culture and everything else. Therefore, with alcohol a rational criterion applies (I will take away your license if you are under the influence of the substance), with other substances not (I will take it away regardless).

The stigma of “drug addicts”

So why don’t we hear too many protests? Why did only a few lawyers raise doubts, why didn’t the associations make themselves heard? Because no one wants to risk being associated with “drug addicts”, no one wants to have the stomach ache of explaining that fighting drunk driving is one thing, which no one would ever question, and punishing someone else is another. case a citizen just because we want to send a message.

But the matter is very serious, and someone should take the stomach ache; because we punish the violation of an administrative offense as a crime, we use repressive methods that have no effectiveness against addictions (and we ignore the social and economic causes of substance abuse), and we confirm ourselves once again, thirty years behind the rest of Europe.