THC LEVELS DIFFICULT TO GAUGE

The trial of James McIlwrick is a perfect example of why we shouldn't
push for the legalization of marijuana.

During his impaired driving causing death trial, it took the judge
almost a half hour to explain how the marijuana content in his body
was measured, how accurate the tests were and how comparable his
impairment was to a blood alcohol reading.

The decision was convincing, in that McIlwrick was impaired combined
with the other drugs we was taking. But it didn't offer a lot of
confidence in the way police can judge how impaired an individual is.

In court, when a drunk driver is being charged, it's pretty easy for
the judge to gauge how drunk the person was.

They have a firm number, the driver's blood-alcohol reading, to work
with. Based on that number and how the accused was acting at the
time, the judge issues a sentence.

But the level of THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana,
isn't easy to gauge like blood-alcohol levels are, as Judge Leo
Burgess made very clear.

He had to cite panels of experts who compared impairment at certain
THC levels to impairment of blood-alcohol levels. And those
comparisons are just based on averages.

Also, to get THC levels, blood has to be taken, then analysed. It
seems much more complicated than blowing into a breathalyser.

So until there is some way to do a roadside test of how impaired a
person who has smoked pot is, it should remain restricted.

There is debate on how much pot use truly affects driving, but any
impairment, even if it is slight, should be considered an impairment
by the courts.

If pot doesn't induce some type of impairment or some altered state
of consciousness, why do so many people use the drug?