Great, but there still remains a problem. Pot stays in the body long after its intoxicating effects have waned... remember snowboarder Ross Rebliati (sorry for the butchered spelling)? When testifying to the Olympic committee about his positive test results for pot he explained he had been subjected tosecond hand pot smoke two weeks previously. While I found this explainationsomewhat laughable (the longer you do pot the longer it stays in your system) this could pose a problem for the prosecution in cases where someone had it in their system but was not intoxicated. I for one am in favour of using the reckless driving laws for enforcement. If your driving suffers (as studies have proven it does) while high, it should be apparent. No need to charge you with impaired driving - just reckless driving for the apparent effects of the intoxication. I am hopeful they will determine a way of testing whether you are impaired or not but for now I think my idea would work. Dawn ----Original Message Follows---- From: Sheldon Erentzen Reply-To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To: QL'06 newslist Subject: [ql06] CONSITUTIONAL:Ottawa considers drug tests on drivers Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:12:08 -0400 This article is particularly for Mark and Dawn who were having a lively debate on Pot-related issues recently. The article raises the issue of how we ensure pot use is responsible and safe once it is decriminalised, which was your main question if I'm not mistaken, Mark. [SNIP] Ottawa considers drug tests on drivers Canadian Press Ottawa -- The federal government is preparing to respond to provincial demands by enacting laws that would allow police to test drivers for drugs, according to a government document. The consultation paper, obtained by The Canadian Press, says the amended legislation would allow police to administer the tests to motorists suspected of being impairedby drugs. The paper, to be released Wednesday, outlines changes that have been sought for years by the provinces and police forces. The paper willbe distributed to the provinces, territories and various associations, which have one month to respond. The Justice Department has outlined several options to allow officers to administer the drug tests and gather evidence for possible criminal charges. The suggested amendments would establish a legal drug limit, the obligation to submit to tests, the possibility of providing urine, blood or perspiration samples and penalties for refusing to comply. Although it's illegal in Canada to drive while impaired by drugs or alcohol, there's no quick roadside test for drug use -- unlike alcohol consumption, which can be measured on the spot with a breathalyser exam. Under current laws, police officers can only ask drivers whether they have used drugs, but can't administer a test. "If the police officers haven't received specific training about evaluating the effect of drugs, this task can be nearly impossible to accomplish," said the document. The task isn't any easier for trained officers because a suspect can refuse to volunteer fora drug test. No law exists to force someone to take a test. Mothers Against Drunk Driving denounced the consultation paper, saying Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has pushed for the decriminalization of marijuana while failing to enact measures to discourage drug-impaired driving. "A consultation document doesn't save lives," said Louise Knox, president of MADD Canada. "Ottawa must send a clear message that it takes these things very seriously before even thinking about passing a law on decriminalization." The consultation paper also raised the possibility motorists might challenge the mandatory drug tests in court. "The legislativeproposals are vulnerable to attack under the Charter of Rights andFreedoms," suggested the document, which asks for feedback from citizens and groups. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection[1] with MSN 8. --- Links --- 1 http://g.msn.com/8HMAENCA/2734??PS=