Tracknum: 2948.7.0.1.0.0.20061117074827.019c3d70 Pubdate: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 Source: Expositor, The (CN ON) Copyright: 2006 The Brantford Expositor Contact: http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1130 Author: Lawrie Palk NEW LEGISLATION CAN SAVE LIVES On Wednesday, Nov. 15 The Expositor reprinted an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press entitled "Drugs and driving law open to challenge." This editorial also related directly to the recent news by the federal government about its intention to introduce new legislation to deal with the problem of drug-impaired driving. Lest some think that drug-impaired driving is not a problem, it is interesting to note from statistics that drug-impaired driving is now more popular in California than impairment by alcohol. And trends do have a way of moving north. The Winnipeg editorial suggests that there are still many unanswered questions about how proposed federal legislation would work. Would it be legally binding in the courts? And would clever lawyers seek to use legal arguments in order to protect their clients from a conviction? As someone who has followed the haphazard attempts by the federal government to arrive at meaningful legislation over the past six years, it is interesting to note that the Harper government is going to attempt to introduce its own bill. During the period from 2000 until 2005, two Liberal governments attempted to write legislation under the guise of "Decriminalization of marijuana." These attempts at developing a bill were highly bureaucratic and far less than hasty in arriving at the kind of solutions which would result in safer roads for the driving public. The argument that the editorial makes about whether or not the Tory bill will be challenged is obvious. Any bill will be challenged in the courts by a gaggle of constitutional gurus and drug advocates. Among the questions that will be posed will be what is the legal level of impairment under a drug such as marijuana, prescription drugs, etc.? Clever lawyers will also question the reliability of any machine which is designed to read for drug recognition evaluation. Some still will question the quality of police training. And others will even question whether a variety of drugs are anything more than harmless substances. In spite of this, the federal government ought not to shrink from introducing meaningful legislation which is designed to prevent injuries and death. At the end of the day, the important argument is not whether or not such legislation is legally challengeable. The only argument is does it have the potential of minimizing death and injury from drug impaired driving. And the answer to that is definitely yes. Lawrie Palk Co-Chair Brant Brantford Impaired Driving Committee