IMPAIRED DRIVING LAW DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH

Editor:

Re: "Drug" driving.

The current laws prohibiting "drug" driving are good as far as they go, but
they do not go that far. It is naive to suggest legislation calling for the
imposition of more sophisticated techniques of detection and deterrence of
"drug" drivers are, as Jody Pressman suggests (The Herald, May 6),
"misguided" and that current "standard impairment tests and field sobriety
tests" are adequate.

Those suspected of "drug" driving get less than a slap on the wrist because
it is almost impossible to prove "drug" driving in court with these
so-called standard impairment tests. As it is, all that can realistically
deter "drug" drivers is a lame 24-hour suspension, which is not, as a
Herald editorial suggests, an adequate "message to drivers about their
responsibilities when they get behind the wheel" . . . "No problem officer,
I'll take a 24-hour suspension!"

Twenty-four-hour suspensions might get us safely through the night. But
what about tomorrow night, next week, next month, and so on. And what if
pot is legalized? I see cars parked all along Mayor Magrath, 3 Avenue, and
Whoop-Up Drive, temporarily "immobilized." How terribly inconvenient and
esthetically displeasing.

DON CRUICKSHANK

Lethbridge