|
Drivers suspected of being stoned will face roadside tests and compulsory urine, blood or saliva testing under a controversial law that takes effect a week from today.
Those who refuse to comply will face a minimum $1,000 fine -- the same penalty for refusing a breathalyzer test.
Police are getting their new powers to nab drug-impaired drivers after almost five years of intense debate in the Parliament.
The law, passed this year after three failed attempts, has been praised by law-enforcement and groups who say drugged drivers are escaping unpunished at a time when their numbers are climbing.
In Vancouver, the law met with mixed reviews, with some believing it borders on privacy invasion while others say it is a step in the right direction.
Realtor Eric Holm agreed police should be given the power to test drivers they suspect of being stoned in the same why they test for drunk drivers.
"If you are high, you are impaired in the same way," said Holm, adding there should be zero tolerance.
But Adam Valair, 28, said there isn't any conclusive evidence to suggest driving while stoned is as hazardous as driving while drunk.
"I think they [the government] have to show me [driving while on drugs] is really that dangerous before I accept it," he said. "I don't think I like the idea of being detained on suspicion of being stoned."
Don Ganson of Terrace praised the new law, saying it will give police more authority to deal with drugged-up drivers.
His son, Dean Ganson, and another Terrace man were killed in August 2004 when their truck collided with a semi-trailer on Highway 97, just outside Williams Lake. The semi-trailer driver was hopped up on crystal meth and cocaine.
"[If] you can get [drug-impaired drivers] off the road it is a good thing," Ganson said. "I think it is a good idea."
Beginning next Wednesday, drivers suspected of being high will be required to perform physical tests at the side of the road, such as walking a straight line.
If they fail, they will be taken to a police station for further testing by a "drug recognition expert." If they flunk the second test they well be required to give blood, urine or saliva samples.
Critics say the new law could cause more problems than it solves, particularly because there is no reliable scientific test to detect drug use. Also, while there is a measurable link between blood-alcohol levels and driving ability, research is lacking to equate drug quantity and impairment.
Another potential problem in testing bodily fluids is that tests can detect marijuana smoked several days or months earlier.
"This is going to be challenged left and right," predicted Murray Mollard, executive-director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.
Federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart and the Canadian Bar Association have also raised alarm bells.
Voluntary testing is an option in Quebec, Manitoba and B.C.
But that hardly ever happens because nobody "is going to consent to pee in a bottle" when they are not legally required, said Andy Murie, chief executive officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
David Babineau, a media relations officer for RCMP traffic services in B.C., said any legislation that is in support of RCMP initiatives is a "good thing."
"It is an ongoing battle to get people to understand that driving under the influence is such a dangerous choice to make," he said. "It is always a challenge if it is alcohol or drugs."
The number of Canadians who say they have driven after smoking drugs has almost doubled since the late 1980s, according to a study released 18 months ago by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. It said young men drive while high just as often, or even more, than they drink and drive.
Cassidy Olivier, The Province; with Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
colivier @png.canwest.com
|
