It comes as the number of people fronting courts after being hit with drug-driving charges has sparked a fiery debate on social media.

The Daily Advertiser reported on Tuesday that 80 locals appeared in court on the charge of driving with an illicit drug in their bloodstream.

None of the drivers who appeared were hit with the more serious charge of driving under the influence of an illicit drug.

The disparity between the two charges has prompted criminal lawyer David Barron, of Barron Law, to ask what the real reason was behind the lesser charge.

“If the desire is to stop people using drugs, don’t say that it is for road safety,” Mr Barron said, adding the police are just doing their job.

“I don’t understand why they have legislated this when it doesn’t have any safety value.”

Mr Barron said the influx of people with court dates is putting an unnecessary strain on the system.

“I think it is an overkill,” Mr Barron said, adding that having a drug conviction hanging over a person could stop them from travelling to other countries, as well as losing their legal ability to drive.

“No element of the (driving with an illicit drug in their bloodstream) charge suggests the person is under the influence or (affecting their ability to drive).”

Mr Barron said education programs would be a more effective avenue to reduce illicit drug use.

“The trouble is when a person gets charged for drug-driving, they are told they can’t drive for 24 hours,” Mr Barron said.

“The offender thinks they are right to drive after this period (but they are getting caught again days after this period).”

Mr Barron said it’s not just stereotypical ‘users’ being implicated in this crackdown, with a broad range of the community being charged. “Some clients have claimed they may have drugs in their system from passive smoking at a house party or a concert.”