ON DRIVING WHILE DRUGGED

Last week, a judge acquitted Wilno resident Rick Reimer of impaired driving,
despite the fact that he was smoking marijuana when the police pulled him
over. He was acquitted because this area of the law is foggy. It's up to
police and politicians to clear it up.

Mr. Reimer is exempt from Canada's law prohibiting marijuana use, because he
has multiple sclerosis. That exemption is just. One day, all Canadians may
be able to smoke marijuana without interference from the law, and that, too,
will be just.

But just because Mr. Reimer can legally smoke marijuana, he doesn't
automatically have the right to drive a car while under the influence of a
drug. And when Canada decriminalizes marijuana use, that won't automatically
mean users can drive under the influence, either. If there is any reason to
fear that users may be a danger on the road, there is every reason to ask
them to stay stay away from the drug while on the road.

However, one of the difficulties fogging up this issue of law is the fact
that no one can agree on whether marijuana use does indeed impair driving --
and if it does, to what extent.

Last year, a researcher at the University of Toronto reviewed a dozen
studies, and concluded that marijuana is nowhere near as likely to impair a
driver as alcohol is. For one thing, the drugs have opposite effects:
Alcohol causes drivers to speed up and drive recklessly, but marijuana
causes drivers to slow down and take more care.

Even more surprising, perhaps, are the results of two studies that showed,
through analysis of accident statistics, that marijuana users are no more
likely to cause an accident than sober drivers. This suggests marijuana may
not be a problem on the road, and certainly nowhere near as dangerous a
problem as alcohol.

Nonetheless, few drivers would want the person next to them on the Queensway
smoking up, or having just smoked up within the hour. It is a mind-altering
drug, and that fact should not be treated cavalierly when road safety is at
issue.

The same problem exists for drugs other than alcohol and marijuana.
Prescription drugs, for example, are perfectly legal, but can affect
driving. Where should law enforcement draw the line, and how can they
enforce it?

Some might argue that, in the face of such uncertainty, Canada should do
away with the whole concept of a law against impaired driving. Police could
simply stop drivers once they witnessed erratic or reckless driving. But
there are many problems with that argument, not the least of which is the
fact that police would only be able to stop an impaired driver after the
reckless driving took place.

Nonetheless, it is ridiculous to have a law that prohibits impaired driving
without providing any quantifiable definition of "impaired." There is such a
definition for alcohol impairment: the level of alcohol in the blood,
measured through a breath sample. Unfortunately, other drugs are not so
easily measured. Marijuana does not act the same way alcohol does in the
body, and is therefore not so easily tested.

And even if it is tested, there is no defined legal limit for what
constitutes impairment. This is a major problem when it comes to marijuana,
which can remain in a person's body for days. It's one thing to say users
shouldn't smoke up right before they drive, but should they be forced to
wait a week?

Creating a clear definition of marijuana-impaired driving is not going to be
an easy task. It is, however, a necessary one.
__________________________________________________________________________