STONED DRIVING'S C-SOLUTION

Whether or not you know it by name, you are no doubt aware of the
proposed Bill C-17, which is currently being discussed in parliament.
It aims to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. Among the
concerns voiced by those opposed to this legislation is that the
bill's success would lead to more drivers operating motor vehicles
while impaired.

Whether legalizing pot will actually lead to an increase in stoned
driving is debatable, but it is a legitimate concern. There is a
companion legislation to Bill C-17, called Bill C-16, that should
please both those that are wary of more liberal drug laws, as well as
those who are eager to toke without being a criminal. Although Bill
C-16 is a response to concerns about Bill C-17, the former would
actually amend laws regarding impaired driving regardless of the
substance that is the cause.

Currently there are few reliable ways to test for impairment by any
drug except alcohol, and of course it is no safer to belt back a
bottle of NyQuil before getting behind the wheel than it is to down a
six-pack and do the same. It would be unrealistic to try to determine
legal limits for any and every possible impairing substance the same
way we have set limits for alcohol. This is mostly due to a lack of
noninvasive and reliable tests, not enough research, and the differing
characteristics of common drugs. THC (the active ingredient in
cannabis) for example can be present in a person's system for several
weeks after you've last used it, though no impairing effects remain.
For these reasons it is necessary that all methods of determining
impairment be based on behavior, not blood tests.

Bill C-16 proposes that drivers stopped due to suspicion of impairment
will be subjected to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), which
evaluate divided attention and multi-tasking abilities. Though they
are not perfect measures, these tests can be used for all types of
impairment. Failing the tests will not result in a criminal charge,
but will serve as reasonable grounds to suspect impaired driving.

A driver failing to pass an SFST will be escorted to a police station
for examination by a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), who will interview
and observe the individual. Bodily fluid samples to confirm the
presence of an impairing substance will only be taken after the DRE
assesses the likelihood of impairment due to drugs, and samples will
only be taken by medical practitioners or technicians. Procedures much
like those described are already used in some provinces and parts of
the United States, where reports show DRE trained officers have
accurately determined impairment, and subsequently the substance that
caused it, in 90 per cent of cases.

Implementing this system of SFSTs and DRE evaluations will take time
and money, mostly at provincial expense. It is also possible to fail a
SFST just because you are clumsy, while someone on drugs could pass
with better coordination or luck. However, it is the only practical
and just solution to impaired driving. More scientifically rigorous
solutions would infringe on our rights; no one wants police officers
taking blood at the side of the road. The trial success of these
evaluations, coupled with common sense, make it clear that the passing
of Bill C-16 is the best way to ensure safety, and consequently, to
aid in the legalization of pot while quelling some of detractors' concerns.