NO CONCLUSIVE DATA

Regarding the Feb. 26 letter from Mr. Marc-Boris St-Maurice, wherein he
states that there is no real evidence that marijuana impairs driving: As
usual, your flippant answer at the end of his letter misleads unaware readers.

Your comment, "You want conclusive data? How about five dead Kanata kids
outside Perth in a crash caused by a stoned driver?" assumes that the
driver in question was "stoned."

That was not, and could not, be proven under current testing methods. In
rules of logical argument, this is called "begging the question," because
you assume something as yet unproven to be true. We have thus far failed to
legally equate being high on pot with being impaired. Although the driver
confessed to having smoked that evening, the only thing proven is that he
had marijuana in his system. This is not the same as being stoned or
impaired. Marijuana is detectable in the system for up to 10 days after
consumption, while its effects last only a couple of hours.

Your idea of what constitutes "conclusive data" is one of the several
faulty cornerstones regarding our outdated marijuana laws.

Paul Hansen

Ottawa

(Driving stoned is an invitation to disaster. Can't you get that through
your head?)