Police pilot project will test systems to detect drug-impaired drivers

[inanna]

Source: The Canadian Press

Wed., Dec. 14, 2016

OTTAWA—Drivers in some jurisdictions may soon find themselves asked by police to volunteer for a saliva test, part of a pilot project aimed at detecting drug-impaired drivers.

The federal government, the RCMP and a number of police departments across the country will conduct the experiment to see how well certain roadside testing devices work to detect drugs.

<snip>

The “oral fluid” screening systems test saliva for the presence of drugs, including cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine and opioids.

The announcement comes a day after a federal task force delivered a series of recommendations about legalizing cannabis and raised questions about detecting drivers impaired by marijuana.

Read more: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/14/police-pilot-project-will-test-systems-to-detect-drug-impaired-drivers.html

[forgotmylogin]

1. This is a good thing.

If legalization ever happens, a simple test to check for impairment is a major step.

I am a wuss and usually won't drive if I have so much as cold medicine in my system, and usually won't drink unless I'm at home with no plans to drive for the rest of the night. I'd trust a stoned driver over a drunk driver, but agree that people need to stay off the road while under the influence of anything.

[inanna]

2. Oh I absolutely agree.

Also the work place.

[NutmegYankee]

3. Not all opioids impair driving. Some are low dose for moderate pain treatment.

And for that matter, many other drugs that could be detected like this do not impair a driver. This is just another way to keep the war on drugs and profit prison system stocked.

[forgotmylogin]

5. Very true

Many people cannot function without painkillers, and almost every one says to use caution while driving or operating heavy machinery.

I think the key word is "impaired". If an elderly person is driving dangerously because they are falling asleep due to inadvertently taking an extra dose of their oxycodone, that should be cause to get them off the road. If someone is well-adjusted to their medication and has a prescription for it and isn't driving like a maniac, there shouldn't be a problem.

Ideally yes, the test should only be administered if the driver is causing danger. If someone has a valid prescription for a narcotic in their system, they can still write a ticket for reckless driving. I'd think multiple offenses for reckless driving with a valid drug might be cause further testing to make sure the driver is not abusing their prescription.

[olddad56]

7. It could be a good thing, depending.

It is a good thing if it gets truly impaired drivers off of the streets. But if the authorities use it to increase revenue, and bust anyone with a detectable amount of a substance that is too low to impair driving, then it could impact a lot of innocent drivers. I take a medication each night for a primary sleep disorder. the same drug is also used to treat anxiety and seizures. It says on the bottle, do take it and drive or operate machinery. I take it at night and have been taking it for 27 years. No accidents or tickets during that time. I'm sure that my body has built up a tolerance to it, and I would imagine that it could always be detected in my body.

I have considered attempting to replace the drug with medical cannabis because the long term use of the medication is causing health problems, but then I would be driving around the next day with a detectable amount of that in my system. If I were to get pulled over right now in the state of California, and tested, I would possibly get a DUI when I would not be impaired.

If something like this is implemented with haste, it could catch people who deserve to be caught, but has the potential to snare so many people who take a medication to treat a problem and are not impaired at all while they are driving.

Given that we are about to come a lot closer to a police state in this country, I see a lot of room for abuse by the authorities if this project is mismanaged.

[forgotmylogin]

10. I agree it that the situation could be abused...

but that's why they're running trials.

Cannabis is detectable in blood tests for long periods of time because it's stored in fat cells. We don't know if the saliva test is different. I'd expect if you were given a ticket for driving under the influence of a prescribed drug of any kind, you could appeal on grounds it's medically necessary.

[immoderate]

4. I don't see how it can indicate "impairment."

--imm

[forgotmylogin]

6. Impairment is observed, which would then hopefully trigger a test.

The test only validates if there's a pharmacological reason for the impairment.

That's what I said in my previous post - if someone is taking medicine correctly and it doesn't impair them, they probably shouldn't be pulled over in the first place. They shouldn't test you for something like a broken tail light.

[immoderate]

8. Observations are subjective. It still can't measure impairment.

People get pulled over for all sorts of reasons. If somebody goes through a stop sign, are they impaired? Let's give them a test.

--imm

[forgotmylogin]

9. This is hopefully the type of thing the trial should work out.

If you run a stop sign, smell of alcohol, and have empty cans on your floorboard, that's observed, and they will test you for alcohol. The extended test should be no different.

[immoderate]

11. Hopefully. Good lawyer and all...

--imm