POT ACQUITTAL: WHAT A CONUNDRUM

Editorial - The acquittal last week of a man charged with driving while
impaired by marijuana has opened up a whole new can of worms in the entire
pot decriminalization debate.

The Pembroke man had a medical exemption to smoke marijuana as a treatment
for his multiple sclerosis. But the judge in this case couldn't tell
whether it was the pot smoke, the illness or some other factor that caused
the accused to swerve over the centre line when driving, and to slur his
speech and lose his balance when the police pulled him over.

This driver obviously posed a real safety threat to other road users.

According to the Canadian Safety Council, physicians have a responsibility
to report to their provincial transportation authority those patients who
are not fit to drive. We all know medical conditions and medications can
affect a person's driving ability.

The council suggests that similar situations would be more effectively
dealt with under provincial traffic safety regulations rather than the
federal criminal code. (Driving while impaired is a criminal offense, and
conviction requires 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.)

We think the Canadian Safety Council has an excellent point in this case.
The man was driving erratically and he also had signs of impairment. If a
conviction under the criminal code wasn't possible in this case (due to the
court's inability to determine the cause of his impairment, whether it was
the marijuana or the multiple sclerosis), then he should have - at the very
least - been charged under Ontario's Highway Traffic Act with careless
driving, improper lane changes or failing to keep the vehicle in the right
lane.

"People are less likely to fight a traffic ticket, which means that
appropriate sanctions can be applied in the interest of public safety," the
council states.

We don't think the decriminalization of marijuana for medical purposes was
meant to be used as an excuse for driving while under the influence. But
then again, how can impairment by marijuana be accurately assessed or
monitored, similar to a breathalyzer test for drunk driving?

An interesting conundrum for the courts and law enforcement.