By Lethbridge Herald on May 30, 2017.
A recent poll in the Lethbridge Herald asked if we readers agreed with a “court ruling that suspending licences of suspected drunk drivers violates charter rights.” The no vote tallied 59 per cent, the yes vote 41 per cent.
I don’t question voters who chose either side of this serious matter. What I do challenge is the wording of the poll. I would have substituted “impaired drivers” for “drunk drivers.”
Police are constantly being chastised for not doing enough to combat crime in this country and one of the most serious runaway crimes being committed by the widest range of people is driving while impaired — a phrase with many different interpretations.
There’s rules prohibiting driving while distracted (a serious driving impairment) — pages upon pages are dedicated to defining that category of distracted driver. We are bound by tough rules for seat belts, under-age, and over-age drivers, but nothing carved in stone to date addressing drug-impaired drivers — just “drunk drivers.
A cautious authority won’t let you take your newborn home until you prove you have a government-mandated seat for your child — but very little to protect her/him from mounting numbers of hard-addict and recreational drug users among us who choose to drive while impaired.
My concern is aimed at hard-to-detect drug impairments, a topic needing plenty of attention — to ensure citizens’ safety.
Alvin W. Shier