DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DRUGGED DRIVERS GOOD

To the Editor,

Re: Drugged driving law unjustified, News Bulletin, Nov. 18.

This letter contains a number of inaccuracies.

Drivers currently driving around stoned on "tranquilizers,
painkillers, cold medications or some combination thereof" are in
trouble if caught.

Regardless of the fact they may "blow zero" or have blood and urine
that tests negative for illegal drugs, they may be convicted of
impaired driving under the current section 253(a) of the Criminal Code.

Under the proposed legislation, drivers that test positive for trace
amounts of cannabis alone will not be booked for impaired driving as
he suggests. The investigating officer will still need physical and
driving evidence to support the charge of driving while impaired.

If the gentleman had read the proposed legislation, he would find
that it profiles a driver impaired by any kind of drug, legal or illegal.

This legislation does ignore the other sources of impairment that he
mentions when you remove over-the-counter and prescription
medications from his list, because it is aimed at strengthening the
police powers of investigation around drug impairment.

The other items fall under the jurisdiction of our Motor Vehicle Act
and the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, not necessarily the Criminal Code.

What it will do is require a suspected drug impaired driver to
undergo a mandatory examination by a Drug Recognition Expert.
Currently this is voluntary and if a driver chooses not to
participate in gathering evidence to prosecute the offence, they may
refuse to do so.

This is not arbitrary. It is focused on a significant problem that
kills and injures many Canadians each year and costs us all
significant financial loss.

Yes, it is discriminatory in a strict sense, and I welcome
discrimination against those irresponsible drivers who choose to take
my life in their hands when they drive while impaired by drugs.

Tim Schewe

Nanoose Bay