Pubdate: Sun, 02 May 2004
Source: Ottawa Sun (CN ON)
Copyright: 2004, Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact:  http://www.fyiottawa.com/ottsun.shtml
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/329
Author: Lisa Lisle
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

HIGH TIME FOR CHANGE IN IMPAIRED ATTITUDES

New law should help make clear the dangers of drugs and driving

Just days after burying his 18-year-old son, and still grappling with the
notion he was gone, Gregg Thomson was faced with yet another distressing
question. "I was driving with my daughter and asking, 'Where did we go
wrong?' Thomson said, reflecting on all the thoughts that came with his
son's death.

Thomson's son Stan and his four close friends -- Alan Siew, 17, Dustin
Record, 17, David Rider, 16, and Homayoun Chaudry, 17 -- were all killed in
a horrific four-vehicle crash five years ago.

The teen responsible for the collision, which also seriously injured three
others, would later admit in court to smoking marijuana on the night of the
crash.

"I didn't understand why Stan would get in that car," Thomson said. "We told
them time and time again about impaired driving."

Offering a piece of that painful, yet still unsolved puzzle, Thomson's
daughter told her father that she had heard his message loud and clear ---
don't drink and drive.

"She said, 'You always talked about drinking,' " Thomson said. "That was a
wake-up call for me as to how targeted that message is."

A study conducted by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health shows that
many Ontario teens have been hearing the same thing.

'NO POWERS'

As the number of kids admitting to drinking and driving steadily declines,
the rate of kids smoking pot and getting behind the wheel has remained
constant. In fact, more teens (about 20%) admit to using cannabis and
driving than the 13.8% of kids admit to drinking and driving.

Not surprised by the statistics, MADD Canada's national executive director
Andrew Murie said the proposed drug-impaired driving legislation will help
clarify the message it wants out there.

Last week, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler introduced legislation that would
give police the authority to demand physical tests and bodily fluids from
drivers suspected of being impaired by drugs.

"They've clearly got the message from groups like ours and others that if
you choose to drink and drive the repercussions are fairly severe," Murie
said. "But they're also smart enough to know that police had no powers to
apprehend them if they smoked cannabis and drove."

Drug-impaired driving is already an offence under the Criminal Code. Like
alcohol-impaired driving, it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment
when it causes the death of another person.

But unlike alcohol-impaired driving, providing a body fluid sample was not
mandatory for those suspected of being impaired by drugs.

The proposed legislation would allow police to conduct roadside attention
tests and demand saliva, urine or blood samples if drivers fail. Refusal to
comply with the demand would be a criminal offence.

"I think this legislation is enough to say, 'If you do this, it's the same
as drinking and driving,' " Murie said. "And groups like us have to be very
vigilant in making sure that that's the message going out to students in all
the programs that we offer."

Both Murie and RCMP Const. Evan Graham, the national co-ordinator for the
drug recognition expert (DRE) program, believe the legislation will also
secure more convictions for drug-impaired driving, which will drive the
message home.

Currently, convictions for drug-impaired driving are rare. Graham said four
provinces have registered convictions, but only British Columbia has secured
convictions after trial. Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan have all had
guilty pleas.

Former Ottawa Valley lawyer and marijuana activist Rick Reimer was acquitted
last January of charges of driving while impaired by marijuana after Justice
Bruce MacPhee ruled there wasn't enough evidence to prove the multiple
sclerosis sufferer was impaired.

Graham said a DRE evaluation could have secured a conviction in a case like
Reimer's because the officer wouldn't have performed just the roadside test.
The DRE evaluation has 12 steps, including an eye examination and a series
of divided-attention tests.

While the teen responsible for the crash that killed Thomson's son admitted
to smoking marijuana before the crash, charges of impaired driving causing
death and impaired driving causing bodily harm were withdrawn because his
impairment couldn't be proven; he pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous
driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

That outcome may not have been any different even with the new legislation
since no roadside test was done and he wasn't hit with the impaired charges
until two months after the crash, when toxicology results showed trace
amounts of THC in his blood.

Since there's no threshold for drug impairment like there is with alcohol
(80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood), critics believe cases will still be
tossed out of court.

"There's no use in having the law if you don't have that legal limit or
threshold," said Canada Safety Council president Emile Therien.

"We're not against the legislation," he added. "We think it's just a matter
of putting the cart before the horse."

Yet Marthe Dalpe-Scott, program manager for the toxicology service at the
RCMP's forensic lab, believes putting that magic number in place would do
more harm than good in terms of securing convictions.

"The question with drugs, including marijuana is way more complicated,"
Dalpe-Scott said, noting the alcohol threshold was set after several
scientific studies. "Various drugs will impair at different levels depending
on the tolerance of the individual to the effect of the drug.

'FAIRLY LOW LEVEL'

"We would end up having somebody who's a brand new user of the drug and that
person may be impaired at a fairly low level in the blood while a person who
has been habituated over a number of weeks or months will not necessarily be
impaired at that same level," she added.

Although the same applies to drinking alcohol, Dalpe-Scott said individuals
will still be impaired at the same blood-alcohol level even if they aren't
showing signs of intoxication.

"If you put them in a driving situation, you will definitely detect
impairment behind the wheel," she said, noting that impairment and
intoxication are two different states.

Sobriety tests will determine impairment, while the testing of bodily fluids
will simply corroborate that drugs were in the suspect's system.

"That will be confirmed forensically by a lab with a body fluid sample,"
Dalpe-Scott said. "But the confirmation will not be for use to do a
quantitative measurement. It will be to say that what we found was
consistent with what the DRE police officer detected during the test."

Graham said false arrests will also be minimized since the suspect will have
to pass a sobriety test.

"If they pass the sobriety test, then away they go," he said.

Although marijuana can stay in your system for days and even weeks,
Dalpe-Scott pointed out that people who smoked a joint days before their
traffic stop won't be accused of being impaired.

"You will not then be under suspicion," Dalpe-Scott said. "You will be
behaving exactly as you should unless you have another substance or you've
gone to bed too late or you're playing with your cellphone. Impairment at
the wheel is caused by many, many factors. But there will not be the cause
relationship."

With the legislation in the works for the past six years, most people
believe it's the best way to go for now.

"I believe that it is at the moment the very best approach that we can come
up with to make sure that nobody is unjustly detained or unjustly accused,"
Dalpe-Scott said.

And it seems to be working in the U.S., where the National Institute of
Highway Traffic Safety found that DRE analysis was accurate 98% of the time.

"That's a really high threshold to achieve," Murie said.

With every new initiative comes the need for expert training.

The federal government has pledged $910,000 over five years for training and
the RCMP has reallocated $4.1 million to get a national DRE program under
way.

But Murie said more money will be needed, especially in Ontario and Quebec.

"Certainly what's on the table is not enough," he said. "But it's a start
and hopefully there will be more money coming out of the drug strategy for
this kind of training."

'LOT OF MISINFORMATION'

But even with that training, Canadian Professional Police Association
president Tony Cannavino said the proposed legislation won't reduce
drug-impaired driving on its own.

"This new drug-impaired driving legislation is not a panacea to improving
drug-impaired driving enforcement," he said. "Bill C-32 gives police
officers access to the best available tools that currently exist. Further
research is still required for the development of stronger and better drug
detection tools."

Graham believes police and MADD also need to do a better job of including
drug-impaired driving in their presentations at schools.

"Basically, our youth now have been bombarded with 'Don't drink and drive'
since the time they were born," Graham said. "It's hit home and as a result
they don't drink and drive.

"But the drug aspect is relatively new in that it's a growing problem. And
there's been a lot of misinformation out there about marijuana in particular
and its effects on a person and their ability to drive a motor vehicle."

But Murie said there's still a lot of work to do in reducing
alcohol-impaired driving.

"About 40% of the deaths on our roadways are still alcohol related," he
said. "The best estimates that we're getting is that drugs are about 10%."

Although no one expects the numbers to hit zero, Thomson said he's just
"thrilled" that steps are being taken to reduce the number of families
forced to go through what his has in the past five years.

"The immediate response is to want it all fixed by tomorrow and I know this
isn't going to happen," he said.

"But this will help save lives and that's the bottom line.

"That's what's important."

12 STEPS

The drug recognition expert (DRE) evaluation is a standardized procedure for
determining impairment by drugs. Here are the 12 steps involved in the
procedure:

1. A breath test to rule out alcohol as the major cause of impairment.

2. An interview of the arresting officer by the drug recognition expert.

3. A preliminary examination of the subject by the DRE expert.

4. An eye examination, which looks for involuntary jerking when looking to
the side or looking up, following a stimulus from side to side or up and
down.

5. A series of divided-attention tests aimed at evaluating the subject's
ability to multi-task, including listening to instructions while maintaining
a stance, maintaining a stance with eyes closed, walking a straight line,
turning in a prescribed way and walking back, standing on one foot in a
prescribed way for a certain amount of time, and touching the tip of their
nose with the tip of their finger as instructed.

6. The examination of vital signs (blood pressure, temperature and pulse).

7. A dark room examination of pupil sizes.

8. A check of muscle tone.

9. An examination of typical injection sites on the person's body.

10. The rendering of an opinion by the drug recognition expert.

11. An interview with the subject.

12. The provision of a bodily fluid sample. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh