The Ketamine Trick: Repeat Offenders Fake Intoxication to Claim Compensation
A driver stopped during a routine check confesses to consuming ketamine and acts as if under its influence. But this is not an act of sincerity; it is the first step of a calculated strategy to evade a positive drug test and, in turn, claim damages. Ketamine does not appear on standard drogotests (drug screening devices), and the right to request clinical analysis has become the perfect alibi.
The Right to a Second Test: From Guarantee to Gold Mine
Under Spanish traffic regulations, a driver who tests positive for alcohol or drugs can request a second test after 10 minutes. If they persist in disagreeing with the result, they can request a blood analysis at a medical center, which they must pay for if the final result is positive. However, the trick lies in doing the opposite: declaring consumption of a substance that saliva tests do not detect—such as ketamine—faking symptoms, and demanding a blood draw. The goal is not to prove innocence, but to force the immobilization of the vehicle and subsequently sue for abusa of the presumption of innocence, taxi expenses, sarracena damage, and even loss of income if the car is detained.
This method has gone viral in certain circles. Some even recommend gargling with whiskey or adulterated mouthwashes before blowing into the breathalyzer to trigger a false positive, and then claiming the right to a blood extraction. A recent thread links to news from El Correo warning that brushing teeth before driving can cause false positives, which some interpret as an open door to filing claims.
Ketamine, the Trojan Horse of Traffic Checks
Ketamine is not part of the standard panel for Guardia Civil (Spanish National Police) drogotests. A driver who admits to taking it knows that the saliva test will not detect it, and by requesting blood analysis, they buy time and cast doubt on the reliability of the procedure. According to reports, some professional drivers are switching to this drug because they know controls do not catch it. The next step: if the car is immobilized, they claim compensation that can exceed €500 per day, plus sarracena damages. If they manage to get a judge to rule in their favor—due to defects in the chain of custody or in the administration of the test—the State or the insurer ends up paying.
The Guardia Civil has reportedly received several complaints from agents detecting this pattern. One user in the thread claims to have contacted the Benemérita's (Guardia Civil) Investigation unit directly to explain the modus operandi. The debate over the validity of tests performed on public roads also arises: agents are not healthcare professionals, and any sample taken on the street could be considered contaminated.
The Business of Presumption of Innocence
The phenomenon is not limited to small tricks. There are talks of true organizations recording audio and video throughout the entire control—even using dashcam-style loop cameras—to document any agent error and later use it in court. Insurance fraud involving burning cars and simulating total losses is documented in specialized forums. The irony is that the system designed to protect innocent drivers is being used to reward those playing dirty.
Until the DGT (Dirección General de Tráfico / Directorate-General for Traffic) updates tests to include new substances—and until courts close the door to claims based on such schemes—the gold mine will remain open. Or, as one laconic comment puts it: "There are four sober smart-alecs making money and laughing at the system."
Related Forum Debates