Cross Examination

THE FISHERIES ACT AND MARIJUANA

The federal election is on and each political party is claiming to be
different from the others. However, there are some laws that all
three political parties agree on in principle.

It appears three new laws are bound to be passed after the election,
regardless of which political party forms the government.

If you are a driver of a car and you take prescription drugs that
affect your senses, or if you smoke pot, or if you're tempted to
catch a cod illegally, read on.

Here's how each political party will deal with you after the election.

In the dying moments of parliament, although all parties supported
them, three new laws just didn't make the final stages of passage.
The Liberals, Conservatives and NDP supported the proposed laws in principle.

Last week I had the privilege to discuss and debate the content of
the three proposed new laws while attending a Canadian Bar
Association meeting in Vancouver in my position as Chair of the
Criminal Law Section in this province.

You probably have heard about the first of the three - the proposed
new law to stop drug driving by people who take prescription drugs,
over-the-counter drugs and illegal drugs.

The three political parties agree that people who take prescription,
over-the-counter, and illegal drugs should be tested at roadside if
there is any sign of impairment.

How does the new law propose to do that on the side of the road? The
police will have to give the driver mandatory physical co-ordination
tests. If the driver fails on physical co-ordination, then the driver
is asked to pee in a bottle.

Among the several physical tests administered on the side of the road
is one in which the driver will have to hop on one leg without losing
his or her balance. Another is to stand on one foot and touch the
toes of the foot you are standing on without losing your balance.

If you fail the physical co-ordination tests (that I predict half of
us couldn't perform cold sober), then you must pee in a bottle for
testing of prescription and non-prescription drugs. If you refuse to
do the tests or to pee in the bottle, you will automatically be found
guilty of impaired driving.

The second bill is to legalize the possession of moderate amounts of marijuana.

The third bill is a reinforcement of the Fisheries Act.

Apart from requiring Aunt Susie in Nipper's Harbour or Uncle George
in Joe Batts Arm to hop on one foot around a car if they are on pain
medication, the fines imposed by the other two bills for breaking the
law tell us a lot about today's politicians.

A person found with a moderate amount of marijuana on his or her
person (less than a dozen joints) will face a fine up to a maximum of $100.

A fellow caught with an illegally caught cod or some other fish faces
a maximum fine of $100,000 and/or up to a year in jail.

So, a fellow found on the wharf in Harry's Harbour with some dope in
one hand and a cod in the other will surely regret catching that cod.

Just imagine a $100-ticket for the dope and a $100,000 fine and a
possible year in jail for the cod!

It's not that a person would actually get those maximum fines, but it
identifies the importance each political party places on each
offence. The intent of parliament in passing the law is considered in
the fine and the sentence in court.

What do these proposed new laws say about our politicians in Ottawa?

One conclusion is obvious - while our political parties are against
drug-impaired driving, they are surprisingly tolerant of whacky baccy.

Averill Baker is a lawyer, whose practice is based in St. John's