A recent letter writer questioned the debate over Wisconsin's zero-tolerance drugged driving law. If illicit drugs are detected in a driver's system, she argued, then we know for a fact that the driver has broken the law. So why not charge that person with drugged driving? Why does it matter when the drugs were consumed, or what level of drugs were detected? The issue is that, under the zero-tolerance law, the crime committed and the crime charged are not the same crime. Detecting drugs in a driver's system proves the driver is guilty of using drugs. It does not indicate that drug use impaired his driving. [continues 74 words]
A recent editorial applauded the new drugged driving law because it allegedly brings the state's position on drugged driving in line with drunk driving. This couldn't be further from the truth. Whereas, drunk driving laws target impaired drivers (hence the word "drunk") , the new drugged driving law targets drug use. For example, it is perfectly legal to drive with alcohol in ones' system, provided the amount is not enough to significantly impair driving ability. The new drug law declares that if a driver has any amount of illicit drugs in their system they are considered impaired. This is simply a false assumption. Detecting a small amount of an illicit drug in a driver's system means the driver has used that drug. It does not mean the drug, in any way, caused the driver to be significantly impaired. Thus, the law, in fact, targets drug use, not drugged (i.e. impaired) driving. It's time to start acknowledging that people can, and do, use drugs responsibly. Our laws should reflect this by distinguishing between drug use and drug abuse. - -- Jim Allard, Madison [end]
While our state government cuts and eliminates services that benefit our communities, District Attorney Brian Blanchard is pursuing marijuana cases. This is a terrible waste of resources. "This Is My Medicine" (4/24/03) discusses one such case against Steve Wessing. Whether or not Mr. Wessing is using marijuana for medical reasons, or if he has two ounces or a closet full, has very little (if any) effect on the rest of the community. In fact, there are many people in Madison like Mr. Wessing who use marijuana. Why does this matter? Jim Allard [end]
Dear editor, I read the May 16th editorial entitled "Mayor is wrong on Drug Tests" with interest. The idea presented is that Mayor Sue Bauman should support random drug testing for firefighters because it will end the "crisis of confidence surrounding the Madison Fire Department", and because "firefighters need to be drug-free and alert on the job", and finally because "random drug testing of firefighters will help everyone". I'm not convinced there is a crisis of confidence surrounding the Madison Fire Department. Surely, some folks might be having a crisis, but I suspect most of us are completely confident in the Madison Fire Department to do its job. Indeed, I expect firefighters to be drug and alcohol free and alert on the job and I'm satisfied that they are. If there's reason to believe otherwise, I'm all ears. The fact that a firefighter uses alcohol or other drugs when they're off-duty is completely irrelevant to their on-the-job performance. Is the real motivation behind random drug testing to improve on-the-job performance? I don't think so. I really can't believe we need a drug test to determine if a firefighter is drunk, hung-over, high, or otherwise unfit for the job. If alertness and split-second judgements are important, as the editorial claims, why don't the firefighters get tested for this?. Have them play video games or walk a tight-rope. No, I think the real motivation is to control what they're allowed to do on their personal time. Is this what the editorial was really about? [continues 156 words]
She then makes a statement about the potency of marijuana and cites a number of recent marijuana-possession cases to support her claims. I've researched her premises and found that they are either false or they don't support her conclusions. First for her claim that "there are strains available today far more potent than those of a generation ago": Many such assertions (if not all) originated from a study done at the University of Mississippi. I've reviewed various reports from this study and various independent analyses of the findings. From all the information I have read, the conclusion that marijuana is more potent today is false at best and "really not true at all" at worst. [continues 164 words]
Rather the quibble about who to have mercy on, why don't we ask a much more important question: Why is smoking pot illegal in the first place? I have yet to hear a rational explanation. I'd also like to remind those of you who are disturbed by the DA's actions: Did you vote for Peter Steinberg for DA? Jim Allard [end]
