MAYBE COFFEE'S THE PROBLEM

Re: "Drugged driving tests aren't foolproof," Nov. 5.

Kudos for the editorial on tests for drugged driving. Existing tests
do not measure impairment, only traces of the drug in one's
bloodstream; in the case of marijuana, the drug may have been ingested
a month ago.

Unfortunately, the editorial also calls Marc Emery's claim "absurd,"
that driving when stoned is safer than when straight. If we examine
the research, Emery's claim is supported, with qualifications.

First, marijuana does not lead to motor impairment, as alcohol does;
in fact, in fine-motor tasks, stoned subjects generally perform better
than straight. Second, marijuana reduces anger (road rage) and
impatience (whereas alcohol increases both), two primary obstacles to
road safety.

Direct research on marijuana and driving concludes that experienced
users of marijuana drive better stoned than straight, but novice users
drive more poorly stoned.

The claim by the RCMP that "scientific studies have shown that
marijuana is the No. 2 drug behind alcohol in fatal accidents" is the
truly absurd statement in this controversy. No such scientific studies
exist.

The discovery of THC in drivers involved in accidents is meaningless,
hardly better than anecdotal evidence.

Suppose I said that a high percentage of drivers involved in accidents
have coffee in their blood, would the TC agitate for a ban on coffee
while driving? It would have to have something to which to compare
this finding, such as data on whether these drivers perform better
with no coffee.

James Geiwitz,

Victoria.