top of page
Search

Students for Sensible Drug Policy Aotearoa lodges formal complaints over misleading drug‑driving articles

Students for Sensible Drug Policy Aotearoa New Zealand (SSDP) has today lodged two formal complaints with the NZ Herald and 1News regarding what it describes as “misleading, inaccurate, and stigmatising reporting” in an article published by the NZ Herald on 19 December 2025 titled “Wellington meth driver with young daughter in car first to fail new roadside test.” and another, by 1News on the same day titled “First positive roadside drug test: Dad driving on meth with child in car”. Both articles pertain to the same event and make similar errors.

SSDP considers that both articles breach multiple New Zealand Media Council Principles, by presenting unverified allegations as established fact and omitting critical scientific context about the inaccuracy of roadside drug testing.

Headline presents speculation as fact

The complaints highlight that the headlines of the two articles label the driver as a “meth driver” and a “driver on meth” despite the fact that the roadside oral fluid tests used in Aotearoa cannot differentiate between methamphetamine and MDMA, and thus, there can be no certainty that the driver was under the influence of methamphetamine and not MDMA.

“A positive result … does not establish which substance, if any, was present. Presenting the result as definitive evidence of methamphetamine use is factually incorrect and materially misleading” says SSDP National Coordinator Sam Lasham.

Tests do not measure impairment

The organisation also raises concerns that the article failed to explain a fundamental limitation of the new roadside testing regime: it does not measure impairment nor whether a person is “on” drugs at the time.

Roadside oral fluid tests detect the presence of certain substances for up to 48 hours, while the actual effects of MDMA and methamphetamine last only 4 to 5 and 4 to 12 hours respectively. A positive test therefore does not establish that a driver was impaired or under the influence at the time of driving.

“A positive test may reflect prior behaviour rather than impairment … By omitting this distinction, the article risks leading readers to incorrectly assume that a positive test equates to impaired driving, which materially misrepresents the operation and limitations of the testing used in this instance” says Lasham.

Significant false‑positive rates ignored

The complaint further notes that the article failed to mention the known error rates of the testing devices. International evaluations of similar devices show that for amphetamine‑type substances, up to 28% of positive results may be false positives.

In the case reported by the two articles, the driver appears to have undergone only a single screening test, with no confirmatory laboratory or blood testing.

“There is a meaningful risk that the driver did not have methamphetamine or MDMA in their system at all. Reporting the allegation as settled fact is irresponsible and inaccurate,” Lasham says.

Public harm and media responsibility

SSDP warns that inaccurate reporting on drug‑driving issues can fuel the stigmatisation of people who use drugs and lead to public misunderstandings of the effectiveness and morality of roadside drug testing.

SSDP notes that these cases draw a stark similarity to those in Australia, during the rollout of a similar testing regime, where multiple media outlets reported on prosecuted, “impaired” drivers who were later found to have no drugs present in their system.


The full text of the two formal complaints can be found below:



 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page