In 2024/25, 49 Queenslanders died in drug-related crashes compared to 42 in alcohol-related incidents, a reversal that challenges decades of road safety messaging focused almost exclusively on drink driving. Yet if you ask most drivers what worries them more, they'll still say drunk drivers.
When the Data Stopped Matching Our Fears
For years, alcohol dominated Queensland's road toll. In 2019, 46 people died in alcohol-involved crashes versus 43 in drug-involved incidents. The crossover happened without the fanfare that usually accompanies major changes in public safety.
Nationally, the picture looks similar. Drug driving became the top risky behaviour in fatal crashes at 16.8% in 2023, overtaking drink driving at 12.0%.
Queensland expanded roadside drug testing to include cocaine in July 2023, and since then, police have detected 1,473 positive cocaine tests, equating to an average of 14 per week. Add that to the 70,000 total drug tests conducted in 2024/25, which caught 12,481 THC positives and 12,239 methylamphetamine positives, and you start to see the scale of what's been hiding in plain sight.
Then compare that to breath testing. Nationally, police conducted 10.3 million breath tests in 2024 versus just 500,683 drug tests. If you see a random breath test checkpoint every few weeks but haven't encountered a drug testing operation in years, which risk feels more important?
Catching More People Isn't the Same as Stopping Them
The cocaine screening expansion provides a perfect case study in detection versus deterrence. Since July 2023, Queensland police have caught nearly 1,500 drivers with cocaine in their system. That's 1,500 people who might have driven undetected before.
But did it reduce deaths? We don't know yet. The data needed to answer that question isn't available in sufficient detail.
What we do know is that catching people and changing behaviour are two different things. Deterrence research consistently shows that certainty of detection matters more than severity of punishment. A moderate penalty you're almost guaranteed to face deters better than a harsh penalty you probably won't encounter.
Think about drink driving enforcement. Decades of highly visible random breath testing created a pervasive sense that you will be caught, and that certainty changed behaviour.
Drug testing hasn't achieved that visibility yet. In 2023, Queensland's 21% drug test positivity rate was double NSW's, despite our state’s drug testing rates being amongst the lowest in Australia. The difference is that NSW tests more frequently, creating a greater perceived risk.
When drug testing happens sporadically, drivers mentally tell themselves it’s unlikely to happen, and adjust their risk-taking accordingly.
Lessons from Other States and Workplaces
If you work in Queensland's mining or FIFO sectors, you already know what effective drug deterrence looks like. There’s pre-employment screening, random testing and consequences that feel immediate and certain.
Workers in these industries don't avoid drugs because the penalties are harsh (though they are). They avoid them because they know they'll be tested and the consequences are guaranteed.
That's the model roadside enforcement needs to replicate, but hasn't. Queensland conducted 70,000 roadside drug tests last year. Sounds impressive until you realise there are millions of licensed drivers making countless daily trips. Your actual odds of being tested on any given drive remain remarkably low.
Compare that to workplace testing in high-risk industries, where you might be tested monthly, weekly, or even more frequently, depending on your role. The psychology is completely different. At work, you assume you'll be caught. On the road, you assume you won't.
That same worker who wouldn't dream of driving impaired on a mine site might take different risks on their drive home, simply because the enforcement environment has changed.
NSW offers another data point. With more intensive testing, their positivity rate sits around half of Queensland's. That suggests higher testing frequency prevents offences in the first place by making the risk feel real.
The evidence points to several interventions that actually reduce impaired driving:
Visible, frequent enforcement creates certainty. You can't hide from checkpoints you encounter regularly.
Graduated penalties that escalate for repeat offenders work better than harsh one-time consequences. RACQ's research supports extended vehicle impoundment for high-risk drivers, paired with mandatory rehabilitation rather than punishment alone.
Education campaigns that emphasise certainty of detection rather than worst-case scenarios. “You will be caught” deters more effectively than "You might die."
Addiction support services that address why people drive impaired, not just punish them for doing so.
The problem isn't a lack of penalties, as Queensland's consequences are already severe. The problem is that too many drivers don't believe those consequences will ever apply to them.
Also read: What are my rights if I’m hit by a drunk driver?
The Psychology Working Against Us
Several cognitive biases conspire to keep drug-impaired drivers on the road, even when they intellectually understand the risks.
Optimism bias convinces us we're better drivers than average, less likely to crash and more capable of handling impairment. Every impaired driver who made it home safely (which is most of them, most of the time) reinforces that dangerous confidence.
Availability heuristic makes us overweight risks we can easily recall. Decades of drink driving campaigns, news coverage and personal stories mean alcohol immediately springs to mind when we think of impaired driving. Drug driving, despite now being deadlier, doesn't trigger the same visceral response because we haven't been conditioned to fear it the same way.
Visibility bias shapes risk perception through what we see. Regular breath test checkpoints make drink driving feel risky. Rare drug testing operations don't. Your brain equates "I rarely see enforcement" with "enforcement rarely happens" with "I probably won't get caught."
Normalisation occurs when drug use is common in your social circle, but consequences seem rare. If you know several people who've driven after using drugs without incident, the behaviour starts feeling acceptable regardless of what the law or statistics say.
These show that knowledge doesn’t change behaviour. You can know drug driving is dangerous and illegal and still convince yourself the rules don't really apply to you, that you're the exception, or that you'll be careful.
The Human Cost Beyond the Statistics
When a crash involves drugs, the legal and insurance complications multiply even as families are trying to process the tragedy. Toxicology might show drugs present, but proving those drugs actually caused impairment at the moment of impact requires expert analysis that insurance companies and courts will scrutinise extensively.
The presence of drugs can void insurance coverage, complicate liability determinations and create legal battles that drag on for years. Innocent victims then find themselves working through claim processes while trying to heal from physical and emotional trauma.
Detecting drugs is relatively straightforward with modern testing. Proving impairment requires blood level analysis, expert testimony, and reconstruction of the timeline and dosage. Proving that the drugs, not distraction, road conditions or mechanical failure, caused the crash becomes even more complex.
For families who've lost someone to a drug-impaired driver, these legal intricacies add insult to devastating injury. The system that failed to keep that impaired driver off the road now forces them to prove, through protracted legal processes, what seems obvious.
What It Will Actually Take to Change This
The uncomfortable truth is that drug driving now kills more Queenslanders than drink driving, not primarily because drugs are more dangerous than alcohol, but because our enforcement and deterrence systems haven't adapted to the threat.
We've built a highly visible, consistent, culturally embedded response to drink driving over decades. Breath testing is ubiquitous. We've made drink driving feel risky because we've made it risky.
Drug testing hasn't reached that threshold. At current rates, most Queensland drivers could go years without encountering a drug testing operation. Until drivers believe they’ll be tested, the risk calculation won't change.
This requires consistency that makes drug testing feel like a normal part of driving, not a rare event. It requires honest conversations about which drugs actually impair and by how much, rather than zero-tolerance policies that treat trace amounts from last week the same as active impairment.
It also requires acknowledging that law enforcement alone won't solve addiction, trauma or the social factors that lead people to drive impaired. Pairing consequences with genuine support addresses behaviour at its source, rather than just punishing symptoms.
We changed the culture around drink driving. Now, the question is whether we're willing to apply the same intensity, visibility and sustained commitment to drug driving before the death toll climbs even higher.
