PROPOSED DRUG TESTING LAW USES 'JUNK SCIENCE'

Proposed federal legislative reforms aimed at cracking down on
drug-impaired drivers by allowing police to demand bodily fluid
samples is "junk science," says a Saskatoon lawyer.

"To have the ability to demand bodily substances, be it saliva, urine
or blood, for purposes other than alcohol testing, is giving a false
sense there is some mathematical basis to determine what's a safe
level when the scientific community hasn't come up with what are safe
and unsafe levels of all the many drugs that may be in various body
substances," said lawyer Mark Brayford.

Last week, the federal government tabled a bill that would allow
police officers to demand physical tests and bodily fluid samples
without a warrant from drivers suspected of being impaired by drugs.

Under the proposal, if an officer believes a driver is drug-impaired,
sobriety tests would be performed at the roadside. If the individual
fails, the officer would have the authority to repeat the tests and
conduct additional tests at the police station. Failure of the tests
would result in a demand for a bodily fluid sample.

"Currently, suspected drivers can volunteer to participate in testing.
This legislation will allow the police to require these tests in order
to apprehend those suspected of drug-impaired driving," federal
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said in a media release.

"These much-needed reforms are about saving Canadians'
lives."

In 2003, an estimated 37.5 per cent of deaths in Canada were alcohol
related, with alcohol impairment the leading cause. An additional nine
to 11 per cent of deaths were caused by drug-impaired drivers, says
MADD Canada.

Despite the legislation's good intentions, "giving a perceived degree
of reliability to testing that doesn't exist is truly junk science,"
Brayford said.

There is no consensus among the scientific community of "an impairing
level, in parts per million, for each of the many drugs that somebody
might have in their bloodstream," he added.

But Evan Graham, national co-ordinator of the drug recognition program
with the RCMP, said bodily fluid sample testing for drugs is sound.

Under the legislation, police would first have to prove impairment by
identifying the presence of a drug and its active ingredient, he said.

"If we prove the impairment and if we can prove the drug is in their
system and the drug is active . . . then the scientific community
agrees that you've got impairment, you've got the drug and it's still
cycle active and that's what's causing the impairment," Graham said.

The sample, gathered at the station, would be sent to a forensic lab,
where toxicologists would identify the drug and whether it is active,
he added.

Drug-impaired driving is an offence that can result in severe
penalties including a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if it
results in the death of another person.

For first-time offenders, the minimum penalty is a criminal record, a
minimum fine of $600 plus surcharges and the loss of driver's licence
for no less than one year, Brayford said.

While Andrew Murie, CEO for MADD Canada, admits the proposed changes
could lead to more drivers being charged, the bottom line is the
benefit to the public.

"The public health aspect of this is as this legislation gets passed
into law and people become aware of it, it actually drives down the
number of drug-impaired drivers on the roadways," he said.

"So it's not about getting convictions, it's the public health
perspective, the fear of getting caught and the police now having
these powers, people won't be so careless to think, 'Oh, I won't get
busted anyway,' and that's where you'll get the real benefits."

The legislation also calls for $6.9 million in new funding to train
officers to conduct the new tests.

But Murie is concerned the funding won't reach all levels, including
officers at the municipal level and those in an area without an RCMP
presence.

"The legislation is only as good as the amount of officers you have
trained out there in the field," he said.