DRUG DRIVING ALREADY ILLEGAL

We have the breathalyser. Can a potalyser be next?

A proposed federal law would give police the power to compel drivers
suspected of impairment by drug use to submit to saliva, blood or urine
samples. Existing law makes such testing voluntary.

Police across the country, opposed to decriminalizing marijuana, say the
proposed legislation is a sign Ottawa anticipates a rise in drug-addled
drivers as a result of legalizing pot, and suggest dangers on our roads
will be just one of many social ills to come.

In fact, drug users already present a hazard on the roads. A release from
the Canada Safety Council quotes a national survey in 2002 which found 1.5
per cent of drivers surveyed had used mairjuana within two hours of driving
in the past year. A study in Quebec issued that same year found cannabis
was detected in 19.5 per cent of driver fatalities. Users of marijuana say
their pot use is a matter of personal choice. But their right to choose
only extends as far as other's rights to safety on our roads.

We're just not convinced the law compelling suspect drivers to submit to
drug testing will make roads safer.

Testing someone for drug use is simply not as clear cut as testing for
alcohol. You can't just breathe into a device at the roadside to find out
whether you're under the influence of cannabis. And there is no established
legal standard for impairment, such as the 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100
millilitres of blood.

It's more intrusive, and one would guess, expensive, to screen a blood or
urine sample for a myriad of drugs or other pharmaceuticals that could be
impairing someone's ability to drive.

And why would a test of someone's bodily fluids even be necessary? Once
we've decriminalized pot, do we care if a driver's urine is laced with
tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in cannabis? As well, THC can
stay in the blood stream for weeks after marijuana use, so how accurately
will testing be in determining whether the drugs were the cause of impairment.

Rather, the decision to charge someone with impaired driving can be done as
it is now -- through the observations and discretion of the law enforcement
officer, who has already witnessed erratic driving, glassy eyes, odd
behaviour and other signs the person may not be fit to drive. The key
determination is that a driver is impaired. The cause of the impairment is
irrelevant.

The federal Criminal Code already covers impaired driving, whether that be
by alcohol or drugs. And Alberta's highway safety legislation gives police
with "reasonable grounds" the option of issuing a 24-hour suspension to
anyone whose physical or mental abilities have been impaired, whether by
booze, drugs (legal or illicit) or other factors.

Those suspensions are enough to keep impaired drivers off the road
temporarily. Such suspensions send a message to drivers about their
responsibilities when they get behind the wheel.

And until drug testing is refined and improved, existing impaired driving
laws and the consequences of a 24-hour suspension give Alberta's police the
tools they need to keep impaired drivers off the street.