Statewide, that rate was lower (one in 25), but it has nevertheless been labelled "a sad reflection on the attitudes of some motorists" by police and the government, who stressed motorists were risking their own and others' lives with such reckless behaviour.

One resident who had their say on yesterday's story online said just because drugs were in one's system didn't mean they affected one's ability to drive.

"Cannabis, meth, speed (and) ecstasy may have shown up in these tests but when was it taken?" the contributor who called themselves "Mountain out of a molehill" asked, suggesting the drugs would continue to show up in tests weeks after taking them.

"Alcohol has a 0.05 limit for a reason, other drugs need to have a limit also. Just because you have it in your system does not mean you are a danger to yourself or others."

Yet already these drug-drivers have in many cases broken the law by buying and consuming illicit drugs, not to mention the roulette they've played by possibly taking pills of mystery and sometimes deadly origin.

So why would it be expected they would obey traffic laws? Why would they not take risks on the road as they have with their health?

All other things being equal, if you had the option of having yourself or your children driven by someone who does or does not have illicit drugs in their system, it begs the question, which would you choose?