NEW LEGISLATION CAN SAVE LIVES

On Wednesday, Nov. 15 The Expositor reprinted an editorial from the
Winnipeg Free Press entitled "Drugs and driving law open to
challenge." This editorial also related directly to the recent news by
the federal government about its intention to introduce new
legislation to deal with the problem of drug-impaired driving. Lest
some think that drug-impaired driving is not a problem, it is
interesting to note from statistics that drug-impaired driving is now
more popular in California than impairment by alcohol. And trends do
have a way of moving north.

The Winnipeg editorial suggests that there are still many unanswered
questions about how proposed federal legislation would work. Would it
be legally binding in the courts? And would clever lawyers seek to use
legal arguments in order to protect their clients from a conviction?

As someone who has followed the haphazard attempts by the federal
government to arrive at meaningful legislation over the past six
years, it is interesting to note that the Harper government is going
to attempt to introduce its own bill. During the period from 2000
until 2005, two Liberal governments attempted to write legislation
under the guise of "Decriminalization of marijuana." These attempts at
developing a bill were highly bureaucratic and far less than hasty in
arriving at the kind of solutions which would result in safer roads
for the driving public.

The argument that the editorial makes about whether or not the Tory
bill will be challenged is obvious. Any bill will be challenged in the
courts by a gaggle of constitutional gurus and drug advocates.

Among the questions that will be posed will be what is the legal level
of impairment under a drug such as marijuana, prescription drugs,
etc.? Clever lawyers will also question the reliability of any machine
which is designed to read for drug recognition evaluation. Some still
will question the quality of police training. And others will even
question whether a variety of drugs are anything more than harmless
substances.

In spite of this, the federal government ought not to shrink from
introducing meaningful legislation which is designed to prevent
injuries and death. At the end of the day, the important argument is
not whether or not such legislation is legally challengeable. The only
argument is does it have the potential of minimizing death and injury
from drug impaired driving. And the answer to that is definitely yes.

Lawrie Palk

Co-Chair

Brant Brantford Impaired Driving Committee