impaired drivers should be applauded.

Drugs can affect the reactions and behaviour of drivers just as much as alcohol, but until now there has been no device available which can determine whether a person is under the influence of drugs.

However, the use of such devices has to be carefully evaluated and monitored.

The concerns raised by lawyer Mark Pettingill in yesterday's Royal Gazette are valid; cheaper devices which cannot detect when a drug has been consumed are dangerous.

Some people will argue that anyone who uses drugs and is caught should be punished. But the question here is not whether a person has consumed illegal drugs, but whether they present a danger to themselves and others on the roads.

The Police have admitted as much already and they have rightly said that the devices require more evaluation and testing. The testing should continue.

Furthermore, these devices should not become a means of random spot-checking for illegal drug users. The Police must show cause in the same way they do now with drunk drivers. In other words, the Police must be able to show the driver is not in control of his or her vehicle at the time they are stopped.

Then too the question arises of whether drivers impaired by the use of legal drugs should be prosecuted. Again, this is not an issue of legality, but a question of whether or not they are impaired. If they are, as with alcohol, they should be prosecuted.

Finally, the Attorney General and the Police must come up with a level of drug abuse which signifies impairment, just as there is with alcohol.

If all these conditions can be met -- and that is a big if -- then the devices should be introduced and used.

November 11 The rapturous welcome given to Premier Jennifer Smith and her fellow Progressive Labour Party MPs at the traditionally solemn Remembrance Day Parade on November 11 has clearly raised the hackles of veterans and others in the community.

In today's newspaper, MP Dale Butler has attempted to answer the concerns of those who were offended that a solemn day dedicated to those who gave their lives to the cause of freedom turned into an impromptu celebration.

He admitted the veterans had the right to be offended and said he considered stepping forward to try to calm the crowd, but thought better of it for fear he would be seen to be grandstanding.

But Mr. Butler also took a swipe at the veterans, who have apparently avoided the opportunity in the past to make more of their achievements. Mr. Butler is wrong to snipe. The veterans are entitled to make as much or as little of their experiences as they want. Many do not choose to speak about those events and have every right to their privacy.

But the veterans should also make some allowance for the timing of the event and the understandable exuberance of the crowd.

And we should all remember that had it not been for the sacrifices of the men and women who fought in the Second World War, there may not have been a peaceful change of government on November 9.