MADD Canada calls for drug testing at roadside

[NAB]

Nearly 40 per cent of drivers between the ages of 15-24 report driving under the influence of cannabis, study finds

Mothers Against Drunk Driving are calling on police officers to perform saliva tests at roadside checks, in an effort to combat driving under the influence of drugs as well as alcohol.

A recent report by two Western University law professors, prepared for MADD Canada, says drug-impaired driving is catching up to alcohol impairment, and may be even more common than drinking and driving among young people.

Since 2008, the Criminal Code has allowed for police officers to conduct a standardized field sobriety test (SFST) for physical impairment, but the report’s authors criticized the practice as being “cumbersome, expensive and readily susceptible to legal challenge ... It is therefore likely that drug-impaired driving is, and will continue to be, dramatically under-enforced in Canada.”

Erika Chamberlain and Robert Solomon argue in their paper Drug Impaired Driving in Canada: Review and Recommendations, released this fall, that enforcement would be more practical and effective if drivers were tested using saliva tests, administered like a breathalyzer, and recommends the creation of maximum limits for commonly used drugs in Canada.

According to the MADD report, young people are more likely to smoke up and drive than drink and drive.

Nearly 40 per cent of drivers between the ages of 15-24 report driving under the influence of cannabis, compared to 21 per cent of drivers the same age who report driving after drinking, as reported in the national Canadian Addiction Survey.

“It’s surprising that so many young people are driving after drug use,” Chamberlain said.

“This generation has been told about the dangers of drinking and driving for a long time, and that they understand,” she said, adding young people may not understand the risks associated with drug-impaired driving, and are also well aware that Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere (R.I.D.E.) programs of random roadside checks do not typically test for drug use.

Among all drivers, the percentage of drivers who reported driving after using drugs went up from 1.5 per cent in 2002 to 2.9 in 2006, and in B.C., 7.2 per cent of drivers during a 2010 roadside survey tested positive for drugs other than alcohol. In comparison one in 10 drivers tested positive for alcohol and 1.8 per cent had a blood-alcohol level above B.C.’s legal limit of .05 per cent.

Sgt. Randy Fincham of the Vancouver Police said this holiday season, officers have busted three alcohol-impaired drivers for every one driver under the influence of drugs. Officers rely on field sobriety tests and do have officers trained as Drug Recognition Experts.

“The consequences for being found operating a motor vehicle while being impaired by drugs is the same as it is for alcohol, including charges of refusal, impaired and the administration of roadside suspensions, as well as criminal and civil liability in the event that someone is hurt as a result of the impairment,” he said.

A breath test or drug evaluation using blood, urine or saliva takes place at the station.

In a news release from Western University, Chamberlain said a saliva test would likely be challenged under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 2010, 915 people were charged with drug-impaired driving, just 1.4 per cent of the 65,183 charges laid for alcohol impairment.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/MADD+C ... story.html

[Static]

Why drink and drive, when you cans smoke and fly.

I agree with drug testing but how would one measure the limit of highness?

[GenuinelyInterested]

Why drink and drive, when you cans smoke and fly.

I agree with drug testing but how would one measure the limit of highness?

I heard that they plan on locking to suspect in a room with a plate of 12, warm, choc chip cookies. After 1 hour they will come back and count the remaining cookies.

[cliffy1]

Those MADD folks are mad. They are right up there with the PETA folk. Every new law takes another freedom away. I'm not saying driving under the influence should be legal, but soon the bleeding hearts will have us living behind razor wire to keep us safe from ourselves. Why don't we teach people to be responsible rather than locking up everybody our paranoid little hearts fear.

[Captain Awesome]

Why don't we teach people to be responsible rather than locking up everybody our paranoid little hearts fear.

Part of enjoying drugs responsibly is not driving under their influence. Hence it's just part of the teaching process.

[theyeti]

i am medicinal it does not really talk about this . interesting i wonder what will happen here

[Smurf]

If you are medicinal to the state of impairement you should not drive. It is the same with any substance, legal or illegal.

[theyeti]

i dont get all goofy .. but how they roll this out could effect a lot of ppl . ill be waiting patiently to see what they say

[Bsuds]

You can be charged if you are under the influence of any drug that impairs your ability to drive. That includes prescription drugs!

[theyeti]

well to be fair u have to be caught . then u have to somehow let the cop know u r messed up . so for a daily smoker like me it would be less obvious . but yes could be charged with a lot of things . depends what the cops feel like doing at the moment

[fluffy]

Are there tests that accurately gauge the level of impairment with marijuana? They're running into this in the tarsands area with urine tests for marijuana testing positive weeks after use, long after any measurable physical impairment has subsided. It's also a problem that many users do not see marijuana impairment as a threat to physical functioning when in fact it does have a significant effect of reaction time and cognitive abilities. It's pretty easy to step up on a soap box and say "we should..." but the mechanism for testing has to be available for starters.

[Bsuds]

well to be fair u have to be caught . then u have to somehow let the cop know u r messed up . so for a daily smoker like me it would be less obvious . but yes could be charged with a lot of things . depends what the cops feel like doing at the moment

Don't fool yourself, the smell is very noticeable on you. An officer will pick up on that almost immediately.
You might not be impaired at the time but it could cause them to look closer at you.

[fluffy]

"Good evening officer, got any donuts in there?"

[GenuinelyInterested]

"Good evening officer, got any donuts in there?"

Your eyes look glazed and there is white powdery substance on your shirt......and what's that I smell? Is it raspberry jelly.......?

[MAPearce]

Don't fool yourself, the smell is very noticeable on you. An officer will pick up on that almost immediately.
You might not be impaired at the time but it could cause them to look closer at you.

It can be "mistaken" for other stuff..At least that's what happened to a woman who won her court case to the tune of $15k...

Anyway , I understand that blood and urine testing can reveal significant amouts of THC up to 6 months after its use. I don't see that being effective but rather an invasion of privacy.

I