Police across Canada will have new powers to investigate drivers suspected of being impaired by drugs starting July 2, when penalties for driving while impaired will also go up.

Police who suspect drug impairment will have authority to require roadside physical co-ordination tests to gauge sobriety. If, in the opinion of the officer, the suspect fails, then the driver will be taken to a police detachment to be tested by a "drug evaluation expert," which all police services will likely have to train.

Neither city police officials or the South Bruce OPP media relations officer were familiar enough with the changes to comment.

However, Ontario Provincial Police Chief Superintendent Bill Grodzinski, commander of the OPP highway safety division, said Wednesday that "what we're seeing is a very significant shift . . . What we're seeing is more drug-impaired operators."

The legislation "provides police with that additional help that we want." The drug evaluations experts will have authority to demand samples of saliva, urine or blood to determine the presence of alcohol or a drug without a warrant, Department of Justice spokeswoman Carole Saindon said.

Tests on the fluids can detect seven families of drugs, although there's no specific drug impairment level as there is for alcohol.

It will take "a number of years" to train enough officers as drug evaluation experts, said Grodzinski, the chairman of an Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police committee consulted about the legislation. The drug evaluations will include measurements of blood pressure, body temperature and pulse, assess pupil size and muscle tone to determine impairment, Saindon said. The legislation allows roadside and detachment tests to be video-recorded.

The changes are part of the federal government's Tackling Violent Crime Bill, some aspects of which have already taken effect including higher mandatory prison sentences for violent crimes, making it tougher to get bail and raising the age of sexual consent.

Minimum penalties for impaired driving by alcohol or a drug will climb to $1,000 from $600 for a first offense, 30 days in jail instead of 14 upon a second conviction and 120 days in jail for subsequent convictions, up from 90 days.

Refusing or failing to comply with police demands for drug sobriety tests or bodily fluid samples will lead to the same minimum $1,000 fine and one-year driving prohibition on a first offense as would be imposed for a drinking and driving conviction.

It will also be an offense for a driver who knows or should know they have caused a fatal accident to refuse to take a drug impairment test or provide samples. The maximum penalty under that provision is a life sentence.

Grodzinski also noted new, more accurate, breath-testing equipment should be arriving at OPP detachments this fall at a cost of $2 million.

"Impaired driving continues to be the leading cause of criminal death in Canada" despite great reductions over the years. In Ontario, about one-quarter of the road fatalities are alcohol-related, according to the Ministry of Transportation.

Meanwhile, provincial legislation will target drivers with some alcohol in their system, but not enough to be charged criminally.

Grodzinski said they will be "the toughest sanctions in the country and everyone is looking at them" when they take effect, which he understands will happen this fall.

The Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act would increase roadside driving suspensions for people who blow a warning, or 0.05 to 0.08 blood alcohol concentration, in roadside tests to three days for a first offense instead of 12 hours and seven days for a second offense. The driver will also have to take a remedial course.

Third or subsequent instances incur a 30-day suspension and the driver must undergo a remedial measures course and limit their driving to a vehicle with a ignition lock requiring breath samples for six months.

The act also lets authorities seize vehicles from people who continue to drink and drive.

How is the "draconian" in the slightest? I mean, it's no different than good old random drug testing. If you're not doing drugs before or during driving, you're fine. If you're idiotic enough to get stoned or drunk behind the wheel, you deserve all you get.

Giving police a right to pull people off the road before they endanger lives should be commonplace, not considered as draconian.

North America seems obsessed with "freedom" to the point of paranoia.

Stoned drivers do not hit little girls at the Wendy's drive through. They don't cause problems at all

Minimum penalties for impaired driving by alcohol or a drug will climb to $1,000 from $600 for a first offense, 30 days in jail instead of 14 upon a second conviction and 120 days in jail for subsequent convictions, up from 90 days.

Basically, I agree entirely with Bezerko. If you're drunk or stoned and driving, you are an idiot. This isn't a 'nanny state' issue at all; you're a danger to yourself and other people.

How is the "draconian" in the slightest? I mean, it's no different than good old random drug testing. If you're not doing drugs before or during driving, you're fine. If you're idiotic enough to get stoned or drunk behind the wheel, you deserve all you get.

I doubt 75% of ALL accidental deaths are alcohol related; we love our beer down here but not that much.

If you read carefully, it says that there are no impairment levels for substances other than alcohol. Ergo, I think what that means is that if you test positive, you're in trouble no even if you're not intoxicated. I consider that draconian. You can get punished for driving 'offenses' due to drug use despite the fact that said drug use might have no bearing whatsoever on your road performance.

Indeed, when someone you know gets killed in an alcohol related accident, will you be changing your opinion? If I remember correctly, around 75% of accidental deaths in Australia are alcohol related. SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT, and stoned drivers are just as bad if not worse. How can you seriously say that they don't cause any problems?

Australia values freedom, but we also value common sense.

Can you really offer any sort of proof that it isn't as hazardous?

If you read carefully, it says that there are no impairment levels for substances other than alcohol. Ergo, I think what that means is that if you test positive, you're in trouble no even if you're not intoxicated.

The drug evaluations will include measurements of blood pressure, body temperature and pulse, assess pupil size and muscle tone to determine impairment, Saindon said.

I don't think weed, heroin, cocaine or any other drug would significantly affect your body temperature, pulse, pupil size or muscle tone days after you last consumed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I imagine those things are limited to the duration of the high or shortly afterward, and thus it would be reasonable to assume the person was still high when they were caught.

There was a dude who thought he was an "anti-helmet legislation activist", and he had a wonderful idea: "the problem is not the motorists that drive without a helmet, the problem are the car drivers who cut motorcyclists off and cause accidents that kill people."

I detest the idea that the state forces motorcycle drivers to wear helmets or car drivers to wear seatbelts. If I don't wear a seatbelt or helmet, who might it hurt? Only me. I don't want to be protected from my own will by the state. Let me put myself in danger if I'd like. It's my own business.

I detest the idea that the state forces motorcycle drivers to wear helmets or car drivers to wear seatbelts. If I don't wear a seatbelt or helmet, who might it hurt? Only me. I don't want to be protected from my own will by the state. Let me put myself in danger if I'd like. It's my own business.

That's fine, but then you must waive all responsibility from the state should you become injured. Pay your own medical bills and get yourself to the hospital.

We already do, here in America. And yes we have to pay ambulance fees, too.

That's fine, but then you must waive all responsibility from the state should you become injured. Pay your own medical bills and get yourself to the hospital. Why should the hospital send out an ambulance to someone who doesn't care to wear his/her seatbelt, when it could be sent out to a "real" accident and help a "real" victim? Waste a bed in the hospital, doctor hours, resources, money, etc. on someone who apparently doesn't care about his/her on welfare?

Also, not wearing a seatbelt leaves open the great possibility of being ejected from the vehicle. Who knows who or what your flying body might hit. More often than not, you'd probably hit nothing of importance, but does anyone want to take that chance?

I detest the idea that the state forces motorcycle drivers to wear helmets or car drivers to wear seatbelts. If I don't wear a seatbelt or helmet, who might it hurt? Only me. I don't want to be protected from my own will by the state. Let me put myself in danger if I'd like. It's my own business.

Can you really offer any sort of proof that it isn't as hazardous?

The likelihood of that happening is too insignificant to be worth considering.

Marijuana seems better in traffic than most substances but when mixed with alcohol - even legal levels - the driver's ability is drastically impaired. So, it's not that easy to rewrite the law should you want it to be "undraconian", promoting safety and following the science.

Yet the likelihood of hitting someone else in the car is not.

And what about children? Should they be seated, be able to choose or should it be the driver's choice?

How many people would actually check a box labelled "I will not use seatbelts/motorcycle helmets while driving" in an insurance questionnaire, if checking that led to the actual probablilities and costs of the habit to be reflected in the yearly invoices from the insurance company? Very, very few, I'd bet.

As far as I understand, even in the USA people don't wish to pay the actual medical bills, they pay for insurance. Insurance companies must get their money back and then some, so the extra costs from unused seatbelts can be found in the bils they send to people, no matter if they personally wear their belts or not.

That's the nature of all road rules, in order to keep the total number of deaths on roads down, the state needs to do shit like that. I hate speed limits, I feel that I'm a comfortable driver at well over 110kms an hour, that doesn't change the fact that as a whole, speed limits need to be enforced to keep the road toll down. Admittedly, seatbelts and helmets are different, because of the only significant danger is to the individual doing it (and others in the car for the seatbelts though), but it's the same idea. It is the governments job to stop people from dying on the roads, even if that means stopping people from killing themselves.

It is not that difficult. They could determine how much of a given substance is needed to impair driving, which would allow us to avoid prosecution of individuals who have only an insignificant quantity of a banned substance in their bodies. All that legislators have to do is mimic the alcohol laws.

What is that likelihood? I suspect that it is small. If there's a crash that throws passengers forward, if the rear passenger is to strike a front passenger, he must be catapulted over the front seat. He is unlikely to hit the front driver in this case because he too will be pushed forward, so the rear passenger will sail over his head.

When was it decided that it's the government's job to stop people from dying on the roads, even if that means stopping them from killing themselves? That appears to be the very thesis to which I am objecting.

It's the government's job to keep people from dying in general, that's why hospitals exist, because they're sure as hell not financially viable on their own. The road is just another place where people are dying, and in general, the public (read as annoying campaigning people) get annoyed seeing so much death due to one thing, and demand that the government fix it.

What I am saying is that as long as an individual sticks to one substance it is easy but the combinations are many and the combinatory effects are not very well-known. Research is needed, yes, but if all harmful combinations are to be properly regulated then the law will be worse than that for bookkeeping for international corporations. You shouldn't need both a lawyer and a doctor to determine if you're able to get into the driver's seat or not.

The main risk is if a passenger in the rear seat is unbelted. At a crash he'll fly forward. If the driver/front passenger is belted he might get a whiplash injury from the rear passenger crashing into his seat - or worse. This is particularly likely in low speeds, up to ca 50 kmph (seat belts don't work that well in high speeds anyway). At higher speeds it's more likely that the rear passenger is, as you say, catapulted over the front seat and thrown out through the windshield.

Hitting others in the car from the front seats aren't very likely, I would think, but I don't have any numbers for this one either. The only number I have about this is that unbelted rear passengers increase the risk of death for belted front passengers four to five times.

It's also very understandable from an economic perspective (and well, the government ought to promote local economy, right?). You just don't want some suicidal idiot blocking the highway for a rush hour or two.

Not to mention how annoying it is to sit in such a queue.

If it is too difficult to determine a limit for each drug interaction

Limit would be 0 on illicit drugs.

The limit should not be zero because there are amounts of a drug that can be in one's system that do not negatively impact driving performance. If you smoked a joint 3 days ago, it's not going to cause you to drive worse now.