Well, its nothing new really though, saliva tests have been around for a while, I didn't really have anything to add...I do now though lol. (Although, instead of making people get frustrated, and ignoring other information because 'your question wasn't answered', when your question is a tangent to begin with, you could have easily googled it and found the information. I did. And yes I assume, you will have something to say about that too.) Actually, thats not what I asked. ------------------------------------------------------------------ There are a few 'ideas' being put on the table in different areas, breathalyzers saliva, blood etc. As I have said, saliva tests have been around for quite a while, as for roadside testing new laws have been passed in my country (July 2008) that allow police to obtain warrants for bodily fluid tests, seeing that you fail their 'standardized tests', like co-ordination testing etc. As for this bus thing, its pretty frightening. At first glance it seems no worse than a RIDE checkpoint, but this is much more serious. Basically, under the new laws it gives police the right to detain you for testing if say for example they notice you are driving erratically, they pull you over, do their alcohol sobriety tests and you pass, but they still think you are intoxicated. Makes a bit of sense I suppose (supposing there were no other problems with the testing, which there are.) but the kicker is in the ways they carry out the law. With this drug bus thing and the checkpoint they've basically cut out the original determination (seeing if you are driving properly) and gone straight to pulling EVERYONE over, and at that point when it comes to drugs, there are NO RELIABLE TESTS THAT CAN BE GIVEN, for marijuana at least. So basically for 'ANY' reason a cop wants they could subject you to this further testing based on any 'reasonable/probable cause' they want. Example, you are driving home at 2am after a 12 hour shift, you are dead tired and are commuting 45 minutes. You get stopped, cop notices you look sheepish and have red eyes, and BAM drug test. Though I WILL NOTE that they require a warrant to submit you to the test. If they take you in and you immediately willingly take the test without asking if they have a warrant, then its your own fault for submitting to the test. However, if you to refuse the test and they DO obtain a warrant, then you could face a criminal charge. The problem with the immediate 'standardized tests' they administer (talking to you etc) are obvious as the previous example points out. The problem with the actual drug testing if you are detained is that they CANNOT be proven reliable. As I had mentioned previously drug tests ARE NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE IF YOU ARE HIGH OR NOT. They are ONLY able to determine metabolite levels in your system. A metabolite is the by-product of your body's metabolism of the drug, is a waste product and therefore is ejected in sweat, saliva, blood, urine, feces etc. Metabolites remain in your system for X amount of time depending on the drug and the amount you use the drug (not immediately the amount you ingest at one time). Someone who smokes pot once or twice a week will have metabolites in their system for 2-3 days, someone who smokes regularly can expect metabolites to last anywhere from 2 weeks to two months. Generally, approximately 30 days, however this depends on factors such as physical activity, health, what foods you eat etc, and not least of all the type of drug test. I think for normal and economical drug tests the threshold for detection is 500um/kg, and for more stringent tests I think the threshold is 300um/kg. What this sort of determines is the 'further back in history' the test can go. The obvious problem of this is that no matter whether you smoked the joint an hour ago or a day ago, you could still possibly test positive. This leaves big problems for civil liberty but also potentially problems in making charges stick, and could potentially cause lawsuits to be filed against authorities (actually this has already happened). Now as satanstoenail stated, there is a chance that they can try to make the test a little less unreliable (notice I did not say more accurate) by testing twice, over a period of time. HOWEVER, this would only work with certain drugs that have a VERY short half-life in the system. Why you ask? Because drug tests CANNOT determine the actual level of the metabolite in the system, they can only detect a threshold. (even when you get a drug test done at a lab, say you request it from your doctor, the results almost always only come back as a threshold) For marijuana for example, this type of tactic WOULD NOT WORK, and would not be able to be used as evidence against you, because the metabolites stay in your system for so long, they have no way of determining exactly when you ingested the drug, and if you are intoxicated, because you would just keep testing positive. Another interesting fact is that, for example, if you were to have NO pot in your system at all. You are clean so to speak. And then you smoke a joint, get in your car and drive. Subsequently you come across one of these checkpoints, and you fail a sobriety test and they take you to the bus (btw the bus is just a substitute for the station). IF all of this has transpired in the course of less than about an hour, there is a good chance that the DRUG WILL NOT BE DETECTED, as the metabolites have not yet had a chance to reach detectable levels. This also has two sides to the coin. On one hand you could squeak by the test, on the other hand it also proves that the tests are unreliable in yet another sense. It would prove another facet of unreliability in that if it takes AT LEAST an hour for it to be detected in the system, there is NO way of determining whether the person is still high or not, at the time of driving, or at the time of testing. Basically, I think when it comes down to it, its more of a deterrent than a practical application, however, I am really only focusing on marijuana for what im talking about. It costs money to administer drug tests, and even more if they are wrong and someone sues. Also, there would be a VERY huge case turnover rate as the evidence supporting these tests is almost laughable. As far as I'm concerned this is more a tactic to try and catch the odd big fish moving product, or dangerous drivers on hard substances rather than catching minnows. (In vancouver, which I know isn't quite victoria, the chief of police made a speech a while back stating they were basically going to leave personal smokers be, and even mentioned that they weren't worried about people even GROWING one or two plants for personal use. Now I know thats not policy or anything, but just adds a bit of info.) Now, I could go to the extreme side of me that could perhaps link this 'testing' to some sort of 'on the DL' initiative to try and catalogue everyone's DNA etc, or even a 'YES/NO list for history of drug use'. Which to me is far more scary than anything else I've discussed. But let's not go there, that's a different issue, and even this testing stuff is a different issue. It is really a tangent completely and has nothing to do with the actual legalization (or not) of marijuana. This new law and program unless disputed and rescinded will remain around, even long after MJ is LEGAL (and in fact the former prime minister tried twice to legalize but was threatened with trade embargoes by the nosy, world police, you guessed it, Gov't of USofA.) At least here, most of the semi-sane politicians are pro-legalization, or pro-decriminalization. There aren't many fighters for the war on MJ left around here. Testing has been around for alcohol and drugs for ages, and once again I state that there is no evidence or even REASON TO BELIEVE that anything will change if MJ is decriminalized or legalized. Couldn't agree more.