One ruling of the Supreme Court which "dismantles" two fundamental points of the new Highway Code: psychophysical alteration and drug tests. Could it change the rules of the game (again)?
New Highway Code: why it is so dangerous
Salvini's new Highway Code, which came into force last December 14th, provides that you no longer have to prove impaired driving. However, to trigger sanctions, a simple positive saliva test is sufficient.
The problem with all this? THC remains in the body for several years after the last intake. So, we can test positive even if we are perfectly lucid while driving.
While on the one hand more and more consumers are equipping themselves with a saliva cleaner, which can remove THC from saliva in minutes and not let us come out positive, on the other hand the Supreme Court ruling could completely reverse the situation.
DON'T RISK YOUR LICENSE: BUY KLEANER ANTI-THC SPRAY NOW
What the Supreme Court ruling says
Even if it refers to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court n. 2020/2025 rIt addresses two fundamental aspects also of the new law.
First of all, the Court established that: "that the blood tests (of the blood, ed.) have a far greater reliability, detecting the presence of substances which, at the time of the assessment, due to the fact of being in circulation in the blood, are likely to cause the state of alteration required by the incriminating law".
Furthermore, the sentence clarified that a simple positive test is not sufficient to prove the psychophysical alteration of the driver, but it is necessary to evaluate the driver behavior in its entirety.
In fact, agents must also consider factors such as the coordination of movements, language and the person's emotional state (whether he is agitated or euphoric), to ensure that the driver is not driving under the influence of substances that (really) compromise his ability to control the vehicle.
In short, even if the sentence does not refer to the reform of the current highway code, raised new doubts about the effectiveness of the measures introduced. Doubts which, implicitly, suggest a possible legislative change.
