Picking on Potheads

[qWERTY]

How can the government justify this new affront to our civil rights and liberties? There are no numbers to show that there has been an increase in drugged driving incidents, as no official study has ever been done. Remember, this is the same government that wants to crack down on a crime rate that has been steadily dropping.

Imagine this scenario: Someone is driving around stoned on tranquilizers, painkillers, cold medications or some combination thereof. The driver gets pulled over and appears - to the police officer - to be visibly "impaired." The driver blows zero for alcohol, and his urine and blood samples test negative for illegal drugs. That driver is free to go and repeat the offence.

But if the driver tests positive for even trace amounts of marijuana, which may show up in the body for up to three months after the last puff, or because of second-hand smoke, he or she will be booked for "impaired driving." This is the same as busting someone for drunk driving three days after their last drink.

Clearly, this new "drugged driving" legislation is designed specifically to profile marijuana users - especially people under the age of 30 and people of colour. How medical marijuana users will fare under this new program is yet to be seen.

The new law will likely ignore the dangers of impairment factors such as coffee, cigarette or cellphone in hand, rowdy pets and passengers, booming stereos, blood-sugar imbalances, fatigue, inexperience, bad driving habits, old age and plain old stupidity.

To focus on any one thing is arbitrary and discriminatory - and that is exactly what this new law will do.It won't matter if you are tripling your dose of a prescription medication, but if marijuana shows up in your blood, you will be considered guilty until proven innocent. So much for Canada being a "just society."

Russell Barth

Federal medical marijuana licence holder


NewsHawk: _qWERTY - 420 Magazine
Source: NOW Magazine (CN ON)
Pubdate: Thu, 16 Nov 2006
Copyright: 2006 NOW Communications Inc.
Contact: letters@nowtoronto.com
Website: Untitled

 

[SmokeSessions]

you shouldn't drive stoned anyways, i dont care how much of a "pro" you are at it.. its impaired either way.. but they have to come up with a better way to determine the status of your high... a blood test is ridiculous.. what happens if you're coming from a party where everyone was smoking around you? You'll test positive.... Stephen Harper jumped the gun on this one.

 

[Pythaglio]

Hmm, if I'm so impaired when driving, why does my insurance company charge me the lowest rates available? Why haven't I interacted with a traffic cop since 1997, and that when some asshole changed lanes when I was beside him? Since the cop said so and his insurance company paid I assume it wasn't my fault. I've been driving stoned since 1979, with somewhere near 20 of those as a professional driver. I've logged over 700k miles without incident with an active high. Sorry, it just doesn't add up.

 

[Akornpatch]

If you get in a wreck and end up in the hospital they WILL do blood tests and "accidentally" check your blood for drugs. If it turns out to be your fault you'll get drugged driving added to the charges.

I feel that until they have an accurate way of measuring current intoxicant levels they shouldn't be able to cite you for it.

 

[Pythaglio]

Any examples of this? Acknowledgement that things may be different among the various states? Anyway, not a chance in hell I end up in the hospital due to my negligence on the road. Sorry, I've got too many darn miles under my belt. It's insane to think if you continue to do the same thing that you'll get different results. Also without probable cause to think I was high doubt it would be admissable.

Regardless, it wouldn't have anything to do with being 'impaired', but would be due to the insanity of drug prohibition.