17 million working days are lost each year through absenteeism caused by drink and drugs

“A company's drugs and alcohol policy should make it clear that it is unacceptable to drink alcohol during work time”

Extended drinking hours coupled with the taking of over-the-counter medicines and increasing use of recreational drugs mean companies that do not have an alcohol and drugs policy in place are running the safety gauntlet. It is calculated that alcohol and drug excess by the UK’s workforce costs the NHS £3bn each year and 17 million working days are lost annually through absenteeism caused by drink and drugs.

RoadSafe supporter Telford Training Consultants says 92% of men and 86% of women in Britain drink alcohol, yet many employers are taken by surprise when an employee is found to have a drink-related problem or illness. Meanwhile, staff being unfit to work through drink or drugs should be a feature of all organisations’ health and safety policies, according to experts such as Avoidd Training and Education which says that a policy can be written for just £200.

TTC development manager John Price says: “Staff do not have to drink large quantities of alcohol to have it cause them a problem at work. Research has shown that three units of alcohol (the equivalent of a pint of Stella Artois) affects work performance by 11%. How many staff visit the pub for a sandwich and a pint or two at lunchtime? “A company’s drugs and alcohol policy should make it clear that it is unacceptable to drink alcohol during work time. Equally, an employee should not be impaired in the workplace through drugs.

“The policy should also be clear that employees should not drink alcohol before coming to work for a long enough time that all the alcohol has left their system. How long is that? It varies, but someone who has a meal and five pints of Stella between 7.30pm and 10pm would still not only have alcohol in their system at 6.30am, but would be over the legal limit to drive.”

Companies wrongly assume that the word drugs means the use of illegal substances, such as cannabis and heroin, but workplace drink and drug policy advisers highlight the dangers associated with prescribed and over-the-counter medicines that can frequently make people feel drowsy and impair their ability to drive. In 2004 – the latest year for which figures have been published – the 590 people killed in drink-drive accidents was the highest figure since 1992 ,when 660 people were killed in drink-related road crashes. The number of people killed in drink-drive related crashes fell to an all-time low of 460 in 1998.

The recent rise has resulted in calls for the UK drinkdrive limit – 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood – to be reduced, but those calls have so far gone unheeded by the government. However, unlike alcohol, there is no drug-drive limit. There are also no official statistics for crashes involving drug-drivers, but a police campaign last summer found that more than one in seven drivers stopped tested positive for drugs – more than double the percentage of those found to have been drinking. Research by the Scottish Executive suggests that around 53 adults killed in road accidents in 2004 had used illegal drugs.

The research also reveals that 1 in 10 people under 40 has driven after using illegal drugs. The main findings of research on recreational drug use found that drug-driving was prevalent among the 20 to 24-year-old age group and nearly 10% of drivers aged 17 to 39 have driven under the influence of illegal drugs. Cannabis is the most common drug to have been used by drug-drivers. While the breathalyser is well established for detecting drink-drivers, police officers presently have to rely on drug recognition techniques and field impairment testing involving voluntary physical co-ordination tests to detect drug-drivers. The Home Office is currently developing hand-held equipment to detect drugs in drivers and it could be introduced within the next 12 months following testing by Cleveland police.

Alcohol affects a person’s ability to drive safely as their reaction times are impaired, they are more likely to take risks, vision is impaired and they are unable to judge speed and distances. Drugs can affect a driver’s behaviour and body in a variety of ways – depending on the drug – for several hours. These can include: slower reaction times, poor concentration, sleepiness/fatigue, confused thinking, distorted perception, over confidence resulting in unnecessary risks, impaired co-ordination, erratic behaviour, nausea, hallucinations, blurred vision/enlarged pupils, aggression, panic attacks and paranoia, tremors, dizziness and cramps.

“A recent police campaign found that more than one in seven drivers stopped tested positive for drugs – more than double the percentage of those found to have been drinking”

Driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit or unfit through drink/drugs carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to £5,000 and a minimum 12 months driving ban, while causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink/drugs carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison, a minimum two-year driving ban and a requirement to pass an extended driving test before the offender is able to drive legally again.

A typical policy, which runs to two sides of A4, should say that all employees are “expected to be alcohol free and not impaired by drugs when at work”. Once a policy is written, a credit-card-sized version of the document should then be issued to all staff, according to Roger Singer, head of Avoidd, who has 30 years experience on the issue. Crucially it is vital to differentiate between prescribed medicines and the use of illegal drugs.

Mr Singer says employees should produce their personal copy of the policy prior to being prescribed drugs by their GP or a pharmacist. He says: “The rail industry, for example, has adopted this practice for many years so GPs and chemists are familiar with the procedure. “Often a slightly different drug will be prescribed so there is no impact on a person’s ability to drive. However, if only a drug can be prescribed that will contravene a company’s alcohol and drugs policy, then the individual’s manager must be told immediately.”

Critically, the same drugs will affect individual employees differently. For example, anti-histamines taken regularly by hayfever sufferers may not impair driving ability, while the member of staff who takes a one-off tablet for a sting may find their skill behind the wheel impacted. “It is about managing alcohol and drug use and having the awareness to deal with it both as an individual and an employer,” says Mr Singer. In Britain, the lead in establishing drug and alcohol policies has typically been taken by companies operating in the transport sector, organisations where health and safety is at the heart of the business, such as oil and pharmaceutical companies, and firms with US parent firms. However, experts agree that more and more UK organisations are waking up to the importance of having a policy in place although, says Mr Singer, many businesses continue to view the measure as a cost, not an economy.

“Every employer needs a drug and alcohol policy in place, irrespective of the size of the business”

“By having a robust drug and alcohol policy in place companies will reduce the number of sickness days taken by staff, particularly Monday morning absences. If the number of sickness days is reduced by 5% companies will save four times the cost of establishing the policy,” says Mr Singer. “Every employer needs a drug and alcohol policy in place, irrespective of the size of the business.” Supporting the policy will almost inevitably be a disciplinary procedure, which could range from a warning to the sack. As part of the initiative some companies will introduce a testing regime and screening for new recruits, while other organisations will introduce random testing.

However, says Mr Singer: “The education programme which should accompany the compiling and publication of the policy document should mean that when workplace testing is carried out a string of negative tests result.” It is a viewed shared by Mr Price, who says: “Employee involvement is vital in the process and companies must carry the workers with them so staff see a corporate drink and drugs policy as a benefit and a safeguard. If an employee has to be disciplined or sacked as a result of drink or drugs abuse the company has failed in its aims. “Employers are recognising that such a policy is a preventative tool. It is not about reacting to a problem or an accident – it is too late then and any publicity may be damaging for the employer. It is about being a responsible employer and having a drink and drugs policy as part of an all-embracing health and safety at work strategy.”

“Someone who was drinking late the previous evening could easily still be over the limit on their way to work the next morning

Equally, RoSPA says that staff with alcohol or drug problems should be treated sympathetically and in confidence, no differently from staff with other medical problems. A major concern facing organisations is how to deal with the “morning after the night before”. However, expert advice is for businesses to adopt a policy that states “if an employee is not fit to work they are not allowed to work”. RoSPA, which has published a “Driving for work: Drink and Drugs” guide, says: “Many drink-drivers are caught the morning after they have been drinking. As it takes several hours for alcohol to disappear from the body, someone who was drinking late the previous evening could easily still be over the limit on their way to work the next morning. Even if under the limit, they may still be affected by the alcohol in their body, or the hangover.”

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation says: “The facts prove that we once again have a growing problem with drinking and drug driving in the UK and there is a need to understand why, despite years of campaigning, the problem still exists to this extent. “The message is not getting through to some. It is horrifying to see that almost one fifth of drivers killed are over the legal limit. It is vital that we get to grips with the problem and find pro-active, year-round methods to stop the menace of drink and drug driving.”

Drivers call for tougher drink/drug tests
Drink driving and drug driving have been identified as the two biggest road safety concerns for motorists. In the “RAC Report on Motoring 2006”, 89% and 55% identifying these issues as a top three road safety concern respectively, requiring far greater punitive action.

There is strong support for compulsory dashboard alcolocks (81%) and for more robust tests for drug drivers, with 89% backing roadside testing by police equipped with breathalyser-style electronic devices. Roadside drug testing attracts the biggest support from the UK’s motorists, with only a tiny minority (6%) regarding it as an unacceptable intrusion. A huge 84% believe hand-held electronic equipment currently being trialled by the police would be an effective tool in clamping down on the menace of drivers high on drugs.