IMPAIRMENT IS THE REAL ISSUE

I thank Bill Giesbrecht for engaging in the debate Senator Pierre-Claude
Nolin hoped Canadians would have.

The Senate committee-cognizant of societal fears and misconceptions about
the effect of cannabis on driving-dedicated an entire chapter to the subject.

In a nutshell the report concluded: "Cannabis alone, particularly in low
doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving ...
Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving ... (Cannabis does have)
a negative impact on decision time and trajectory; (however) this in itself
does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a
traffic safety risk."

In sum, cannabis users are by far safer than a tired driver or one who may
be using one of the thousands of drugs available at the local pharmacy. The
crime is in driving impaired. The impairment substance ought not matter,
alcohol, cannabis or anything else. We have a duty to ourselves and others
to know about any impairment a drug will render to our judgment, even Aspirin.

I agree with Mr. Giesbrecht that King Solomon was indeed a very wise man
and personally I, having learnt my lesson the hard way, now abstain from
alcohol. However, as reported by the Senate, cannabis does not have the
same effects as alcohol or tobacco or coffee. Any teen who has smoked
cannabis, drunk alcohol or coffee, or smoked a cigarette will consider
their own experience.

Playing video games that require great dexterity and timing is easy to do
having smoked a cannabis joint, having had a coffee or a cola soda. The
same individual may not be able to operate the "on" switch having consumed
alcohol.

I empathize with Mr. Giesbrecht's grief concerning damage alcohol has
contributed to society. However, I ask you to consider that in my community
there are now a dozen or so bodies attributable to black market forces
vying for control of a very lucrative market. They are somebody's loved
ones and we are all God's creatures. Not to mention there are a number of
Manitobans who poison themselves with adulterated street drugs and die each
year.

The comparisons to 1930s alcohol prohibition, when many went blind or died,
as well as deaths due to gangsters in charge of distribution, is eerie. The
damage done to society by prohibition is by far more harmful than the
damage done by whatever abused substance is a theme repeated throughout
history.

Were the drug laws to be struck down, truthful information could be
imparted to the children. I would never condone drug use, just as I do not
condone alcohol consumption. I believe more lives could be saved if drug
users had a safe supply and proper information available at the pharmacy.
Crime would be reduced because, absent prohibition, heroin and cocaine
would cost about the same as coffee pound for pound. At those prices, those
who lust for pleasurable experiences can flip hamburgers to pay for their
habit instead of resorting to crime.

When the gluttonous have had their fill, they can be welcomed back into
mainstream society absent criminal records. They are our brother and
sisters, our aunts and our uncles, our moms and our dads, they are sinners,
they are not criminals. In answer to the ancient Roman question of who
benefits? from restoring our natural rights, we all do.

Chris Buors

Winnipeg MB