NEW DRUG-DRIVING LAW GETS MIXED REVIEW IN VANCOUVER

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.

What do you think?

Tell us by e-mail at provletters@png.canwest.com, or by fax at
604-605-2223. Please include your name and address.