DRUG IMPAIRED DRIVING LAW IS NO GOOD

Dear Editor:

This law is designed specifically to profile pot users. The young, the
poor, people of colour, and people with non-regulation hairstyles will
be tested for the simple reason that police can do it. Refusal to
comply with an unconstitutional rule is considered an admission of
guilt. This is an abomination.

Notice how police offer no proof to prove that drugs are such a huge
danger to our roads? They say that they are, and we are supposed to
just believe them, but when asked for proof, they produce none.
Marijuana, for example, can stay in the body for months, even if the
person being tested only got a whiff of second-hand smoke. Imagine
having a sip of wine, then getting popped for drunk driving five days
later to see what pot users are up against.

But trace amounts do not mean "impairment", it only means that you
used pot in the past one to 90 days. Not in the cops' eyes, though.
Any trace of pot in your system, and you are nailed, bucko.

Furthermore, although pot can impair some people, it does not impair
every user, or every time. Chronic daily users and medical users have
lower levels of impairment than the occasional toker, because, like
any medication, the user becomes accustomed to it.

Also, Canadians smoke more pot than any other country, smoke the most
potent pot in the world, admit to toking and driving more than any
other country, and have more and more cars on the road every year. Yet
our accident numbers continue to drop. This suggests that pot use
actually increases road safety. This is supported by studies done in
Britain which show that pot users drive slower and more cautiously
than non-users.

Once again, the media-addled public is being duped by police
propaganda, and giving away charter rights in the process.

Russell Barth, Federally Licensed Medical Marijuana User

Patients Against Ignorance and Discrimination on Cannabis (PAIDOC)