It's a good question, sir.
We base our general deterrence model and drug testing regime on that of alcohol. Unfortunately, it's taken 40 years for our community to really understand and find drinking and driving quite repugnant. It's socially unacceptable here, so few people now do it, but that's because of a 40-year testing regime.
We've been testing for drugs for over 15 years. While statistics are that for our 100,000 tests we get one in 11, that is absolutely not saying that one in 11 drivers are using drugs and driving. This is probably relevant to your question to Dr. Marcotte. Our strike rate is so high at one in 11 because we are detecting drivers committing traffic offences because of their impairment, and we pull them over and test them. Whether it's speeding or whether it's swerving all over the road, there is some activity that gets my highway patrol members' interest to pull them over. We certainly don't have one in 11 drivers driving impaired, but we do have that many who are driving in an erratic manner that causes us to pull them over.
Our testing regime is quite expensive, and we're looking at ways to expedite that. Of 9,200 positive tests last year, we forensically analyzed every single one—at significant cost—but only 2% of those people pleaded not guilty. We're trying to bring about a streamlined way of processing so we can do more testing. Our ideal number to bring in general deterrence is 600,000 tests every year, but it's cost-prohibitive at the moment.
Each of the 100,000 of those we do is $30. Of those, 9,200 go positive. We do those. They're $30. Then every single one of those 9,200 gets sent off for forensic testing at about $400 a pop.