PROSECUTING STONED DRIVERS IS A NECESSITY

It's a sad commentary that the use of drugs in Canada is now so
prevalent that new legislation is needed to allow police to catch
drivers impaired by drugs other than alcohol.

Starting on July 2, police will have the same powers to catch drugged
drivers as drunk drivers. Just as when police have reasonable
suspicion someone is drunk, they will be able to order a person to
participate in a drug recognition process.

The penalty for refusing is the same as refusing a breath test, a
one-year driving prohibition and a $1,000 fine; not to mention the
criminal conviction that can get in the way of things like travel and
applying for jobs.

While for many years there were fewer drugged drivers, and police did
not need drug recognition experts, that has changed. A study from the
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse has found that the number of
people driving after taking drugs has almost doubled in the past 20
years. And young men, the study also found, now drive more often
while under the influence of drugs than alcohol.

Of course, the critics have arisen -- just as they did when
drunk-driving laws were beefed up nearly four decades ago -- to say
that the new legislation contravenes certain rights and that there
are other insurmountable problems.

That's no reason to not implement such legislation. Given the
epidemic of drug use among drivers, something had to be done.

The risks are now just too great that the law is necessary to deter
the many and prosecute the few that it does not deter.

If there are problems around rights, they are sure to be tested in
the courts. Because we have police, we have judges. If there are
abuses by police, then judges are there to protect our rights. And if
this new law gives too much power, or opportunity for abuse by
police, then we should have confidence that our high courts, and the
Supreme Court of Canada, will strike down the law or the parts that
are problematic.

One of the issues around this law raised by critics is that it may
include a demand for blood, urine or saliva. One thing to note is
that it is just too early to know if that demand will be made in
every case. Police drug recognition experts may in most cases rely on
observations that do not require what is admittedly intrusive testing.

And it should be remembered that the current impaired driving laws
provide for blood samples in some cases; when there are reasonable
grounds to believe a person has caused an accident while impaired,
and they cannot take a breathalyzer test.

Much about this new law, from what are reasonable grounds to when
bodily fluids can be taken, remains to be seen. But that's the way
the law works. This issue is too important not to go ahead with it.

We seem to be living in an era of great entitlement. People forget
that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that they should not be
getting behind the wheel while impaired, whether their drug of choice
is alcohol, pot or cocaine.

Those who don't like this law need to remember that when the
population begins to abuse its freedoms, that a repressive backlash
is inevitable. This law would not be necessary if police were not
seeing so many people on the roads driving under the influence of drugs.

The problem is not that it's happening. People have likely been
smoking dope and driving since Reefer Madness came out in 1936. The
problem is that it's happening in such numbers that the risks are
great and continuing to grow that innocent people will become the
victims of people driving while high.

While the law is necessary, one thing it won't address is the culture
of entitlement and permissiveness that now seems to dominate life in Canada.

We may be free in this country, but we are not free to put other
people's lives at risk.