In Russia, drivers will face responsibility for operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs that are not tied to ethyl alcohol, narcotic drugs, or psychotropic substances, yet can impair attention and reaction. This shift follows a draft law prepared by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and published on the federal portal for normative legal acts.

The proposed bill would amend the note to Article 12.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the section commonly referred to as Driving by a Drunk Driver. The new wording would introduce a ban on the use of narcotic drugs and analogues of psychotropic substances or potentially dangerous new psychoactive substances.

The draft states that language to be added to the Administrative Offenses Law would address drugs and drug-like substances that worsen attention and reaction but are not linked to ethyl alcohol, narcotics, psychotropic substances, their analogues, or newly dangerous psychoactive compounds. The goal is to close a gap in the current rules and ensure that drivers who are impaired by such substances can be held accountable, even if the impairment is not caused by alcohol.

Before these amendments take effect, the current framework clarifies that driving under the influence of drugs not containing ethyl alcohol, narcotic drugs, or psychotropic substances still falls under the relevant articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses. This clarification comes as part of an effort to align enforcement with observed real-world scenarios and to prevent ambiguity in cases where impairment exists without alcohol involvement.

The document was developed to address a gap in existing legislation as of late November. An explanatory note highlights the need for clearer rules, and the discussion has included findings from regional cases. For example, in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, substances such as gabapentin and nimesulide were noted to potentially affect consciousness and coordination in drivers, even when alcohol intoxication was not detected.

A recent ruling by the Constitutional Court has implications for how penalties are applied. It resolves a dispute over whether drivers should lose their licenses or face large fines when traces of non-psychotropic, non-narcotic drugs appear in the body. The court’s stance is that certain findings should not automatically deprive a driver of one’s rights or lead to a standard fine when those substances are present without other qualifying drugs. This ruling requires careful consideration of the broader context of impairment and the specific substances involved.

Since that decision, if a driver tests positive for a narcotic substance outside the list of recognized psychotropic or narcotic substances, authorities cannot automatically punish the person for drunk driving or refuse to proceed with the case solely on that basis. The impairment to attention and reaction, however, remains a concern and warrants examination. Notable examples discussed include medications such as phenazepam, phenibut, gabapentin, certain antidepressants, and other drugs that can influence alertness and motor coordination, regardless of a direct link to alcohol.