[Epoch Times, May 14, 2026] (Epoch Times reporter Zhuang Aijun, Taipei, Taiwan)
Recently, Taiwan has seen a series of drug-driven driving accidents in Kaohsiung, Changhua, and New Taipei City, causing serious injuries and deaths. The Ministry of Transportation recently stated that it will discuss “joint liability penalties,” requiring all passengers in the vehicle to be punished if the driver is under the influence of drugs, in order to strengthen the supervision mechanism. Scholars point out that drug-driven driving is merely the outward result of the behavior; the underlying cause is the proliferation of new drugs. Single-point amendments to the law may only address the symptoms; a multi-departmental approach is needed to build a comprehensive safety net.
According to statistics from the National Police Agency, the number of drug-driven driving cases is expected to surge from 2,619 in 2024 to 8,659 in 2025, an increase of 230.62%. It is worth noting that 3,223 cases have already occurred in the first three months of this year, exceeding the total number of cases in 2024, and police assessments indicate that a large number of unreported “black numbers” still exist. Legislators Wan Mei-ling, Yang Chiung-ying, and Hsu Fu-kuei, among others, have called on the Ministry of Transportation to strengthen enforcement and penalties in the Legislative Yuan. The Ministry of Transportation stated that it will consider incorporating a “joint liability mechanism,” allowing passengers in the same vehicle to be penalized as well, to strengthen supervision.
The deterrent effect of the law varies due to differences in addictive properties.
Although the current Criminal Code and the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act have been amended multiple times to increase penalties, with drug driving penalties comparable to drunk driving, potentially leading to life imprisonment, the overall deterrent effect remains limited. Wang Po-chi, associate professor of the Department of Criminal Justice at Ming Chuan University, told the Epoch Times that drug drivers often have a wishful thinking and drugs have strong physiological and psychological addictive properties, making it difficult for users to maintain rational judgment for extended periods. This differs from the characteristics of drunk driving, resulting in a relatively weak deterrent effect on drug users simply by increasing penalties. He cited etomidate as an example, pointing out that although the government recently reclassified it as a Schedule II controlled substance with increased penalties, many people still continue to use it with a wishful thinking. This suggests that current news reports of drug-impaired driving are likely just the tip of the iceberg, with many more cases resulting in no injuries or fatalities, or simply accidental crashes – these are the “hidden numbers.”
Wang Po-Chi analyzed that the biggest difference between drugs and alcohol lies in “withdrawal symptoms.” Under the strong physiological or psychological effects of addiction, drug users may need to maintain a continuous state of use, making it difficult for them to remain sober and rational for extended periods. This is significantly different from ordinary drinkers. Therefore, heavy penalties have a more limited deterrent effect on drug-impaired driving than on drunk driving.
Most drug-impaired driving involves “one person driving.”
Legislators advocate for decoupling drunk driving from drug-impaired driving. Wang Po-Chi believes that drunk driving and drug-impaired driving can indeed be handled separately legally, and are already gradually being decoupled in terms of testing and administrative procedures. Drunk driving is detected using breathalyzer or blood tests, while drug driving is detected using rapid testing kits or urine tests. Regarding the “joint liability mechanism,” it’s common for drunk drivers to have passengers in their vehicles, but drug driving is mostly done alone, suggesting it might be difficult to implement in practice and requires further careful consideration.
Drug driving is merely the outward result; the underlying cause is the proliferation of emerging drugs. Wang Bo-chi suggests Taiwan should emulate the United States by treating specific drug problems as “national security threats” and utilizing military and intelligence resources to disrupt overseas supply chains. Alcohol is a legal commodity, with relatively simple distribution channels and traceability; for example, convenience stores can restrict purchases by age by checking ID cards. However, drugs are illegal, transactions are completely secretive, and tracing upstream often encounters bottlenecks. The circulation of drugs on the darknet also increases the difficulty of investigation. Individual amendments only address the symptoms; a higher-level, inter-ministerial integration is necessary.
Furthermore, emerging drugs evolve extremely rapidly, and legal revisions often cannot keep up with their emergence. Moreover, the testing capacity of local police and investigative units is nearing saturation. Excessively long testing procedures may lead to legal flaws, thereby affecting the overall deterrent effect. Establishing a comprehensive security network, encompassing border control, online platform responsibility, and increased testing capacity, is key to solving the problem of drug-impaired driving.