COMMON SENSE GOES UP IN SMOKE

Picture this: Your 19-year-old daughter is pulled over by police on
suspicion of impaired driving. She is tested for "physical
co-ordination," then taken to a police station where she is required
to submit urine and blood samples. The test results indicate the
presence of marijuana in her urine, although it cannot be ascertained
when the drug was consumed or whether she was only exposed to the
smoke -- remember Ross Rebagliati? Nevertheless, she is subsequently
charged with driving while impaired by drugs. If convicted, she loses
her licence for at least one year and receives a criminal record.

Sound far-fetched? Under Bill C-32 it isn't. Bill C-32, tabled
recently by the federal Tory government, proposes new, highly invasive
and unproven drug tests for impaired drivers and proposes new
penalties for such behaviour -- at the expense of common sense and
civil liberties.

Bill C-32 is based upon the results of a number of studies, in
particular one conducted by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation
(TIRF). The TIRF report is based largely on public opinion and a
collection of scientific articles on the relationship between drugs
and traffic accidents. The report suggests that almost 90 per cent of
survey respondents believed that drug-impaired driving was a very
serious or extremely serious problem. The report also claims that the
incidence of drug use in motor vehicle accidents is on the rise.

Taken at face value, the TIRF report appears to be an overview of
compelling science, but on closer inspection the opposite becomes
apparent. The articles that were used to compile the TIRF report are
marred by poor methodology, frequent misquotes, and provide
conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence.

Saliva and breathalyzer tests are of no use in detecting the presence
of drugs in a body. Blood is the ideal substance, followed by urine.
However, neither blood nor urine tests can demonstrate actual
impairment of functioning. Neither can pinpoint when the drug was
consumed, and in the case of marijuana, the active ingredient THC can
be detected in urine and blood samples for weeks after
consumption.

How many people actually drive while impaired by drugs? No one
actually knows that answer for sure, although self-report studies
indicate that less than two per cent of all drivers drive under the
influence of marijuana. The problem with that estimate is that it is
difficult to separate those who drive stoned from those who drive
stoned and drunk. That in turn complicates the answering of the key
question: What effect (if any) does marijuana consumption actually
have on drivers?

The answer again is variable, because it depends on the quantity and
quality of the drug consumed, how soon after consumption one drives,
and how each person reacts when under the influence of marijuana.
Studies have shown confounding results -- some studies find a slight
impairment, while in one study, marijuana users were actually less
likely to be involved in crashes than non-smokers. This study appeared
in the TIRF report, but inexplicably, was not addressed.

Despite the superficial attractiveness, we should resist the urge to
create a whole new, highly invasive legislative regime to deal with a
rare occurrence on the basis of questionable science. Such a scheme
will divert resources from enforcing other traffic laws, especially
drunk-driving laws.

This proposed law is part of the government's continuing effort to
pander to the "more law means order" mentality. Before we let it
happen, there should be strong scientific proof that there is a problem.