DRUG-DRIVING PLAN IS FLAWED

It Makes Sense To Try To Catch Impaired Drivers -- But Science Is Still
Lagging Behind The Desire

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler intends to bring in a drug-driving law by
next spring that would allow police to conduct random checks similar to
those used to catch drunk drivers.

But the checks will involve far more than simply blowing into a
breathalyser. There would be physical tests at the roadside and, for those
who fail and alcohol has been ruled out as a cause of apparent impairment,
suspects would be required to have their mouths swabbed for saliva and to
provide a urine sample on the spot. Then, they could be taken to the police
station to give blood samples as well.

This exercise is pointless, unless the objective is to scare people into
staying home if they've been smoking or sniffing. For there's no way, so
far, to determine whether someone's ability to drive is affected by drugs,
as a federal discussion paper acknowledges. There's no such thing as a
potalyser; there's no research to indicate how much of a given drug a
person can take before being legally impaired.

There's no test yet devised as a one-size-fits-all indication of drug
effects on human beings, for different drugs have different effects. And
though tests may indicate the presence of drugs in bodily fluids, the
federal paper says, there's no way of knowing whether some of them have
been there for a few hours, a few days or even months.

So how does anyone expect the courts to deal with evidence which, in the
end, is little more than the suspicion of a police officer at a roadblock?
How, with all these gaps in science, can any judge be satisfied that a
person accused of driving while impaired by a drug is guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt?

The Canadian Bar Association has warned Cotler that his proposals are so
overly intrusive and give police so much leeway that there are sure to be
challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when cases reach the
courts.

The discussion paper agrees: Suspects would be required to take part in a
process that could result in incriminating evidence and at some point would
need to be informed that they should have a lawyer present before going
further. Even so, it says those who fail to co-operate should be penalized.

At present, police rely on a driver's behaviour and witness accounts to
conclude that drugs have been used. In B.C., some police officers have been
trained to administer roadside tests, but there's no law to compel drivers
to co-operate. And when charges of drug-driving are laid, they seldom stick
in court because they're so difficult to prove.

Cotler, of course, is under pressure from groups like Mothers Against Drunk
Driving to bring in a drug-driving law with, or before, the possession of
small amounts of pot is decriminalized. Laudable is their aims are, this is
neither an effective nor just approach.

Roadside and police station drug checks should not be mandatory until tests
have been devised to measure accurately the link between drug levels, how
recently drugs have been ingested, and driving ability, so that realistic
legal limits can be set.