recently, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has focused its attention on Bill C-46, which will tighten impaired driving laws, particularly cannabis impaired driving.
While there is no disagreement that laws targeting impaired driving should be strongly enforced, and the government has taken a positive step forward in contemplating impaired driving law reforms, the proposed testing and enforcement mechanisms in Bill C-46 raise significant questions and concerns around civil liberties and human rights.
The law as proposed would criminalize Canadians who use medical cannabis responsibly – even when they are not actually impaired.
While no one should drive impaired, the proposed changes will serve to disproportionately criminalize the estimated 150,000 individuals who use cannabis legally and regularly for medical reasons, with physician support, across Canada.
That’s why it’s so disappointing that patients and patient advocacy groups, including Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana, were denied an invitation to express their views at these sessions.
The proposed changes to driving impairment laws will introduce per se limits for cannabis, similar to how we identify those driving under the influence of alcohol. While this may make sense on the surface, the science simply isn’t there when it comes to correlating cannabis use and impairment.
Unlike blood alcohol concentration, which is scientifically linked to levels of impairment, matching impairment to levels of THC – the main psychoactive component in cannabis – is still widely debated.
Determining actual impairment of cognitive, psychomotor and other functions necessary to safely drive is not as simple as measuring the presence of THC in blood. Even more importantly, the effects of THC are different from person-to-person, and THC can remain detectable within a regular user’s blood for days, potentially weeks, after it was last consumed.
It should also be said that authorized medical users are expected to follow advice from health-care providers, including safe-use guidelines, such as waiting at least four-to-six hours after consumption before driving to help eliminate risk of impairment.
However, the government’s proposal, which would set a per se cut-off of 2ng/ml THC at the lower end, would mean patients would have to stop using their medication three-to-seven days (or more) before driving, which has nothing to do with impairment.
For many patients, using medical cannabis isn’t about its psychoactive effects, but rather managing their symptoms with minimal impairment. This presents novel challenges that deserve consideration and a voice when it comes to the practicalities of “impaired” driving laws.
Given this context, do we simply allow the undisputed potential criminalization of responsible medical users without allowing them to participate in this important debate?
Allowing for a diverse and inclusive conversation can assist policy-makers in acknowledging the various experiences and realities of Canadians prescribed medical cannabis.
Without it, overly restrictive and blanket regulation that does not duly consider the most vulnerable, key affected populations will simply lead to ineffective policy and ongoing court challenges.
While the issue is undeniably complex, and medical cannabis authorization is not a licence to drive impaired, at the very least, the justice committee should be allowing for testimony from patients, physicians and scientists on how these laws may affect medical users.
If they use cannabis regularly to manage their symptoms, they will consistently test above the per se limits. This means the proposed bill would disproportionately criminalize a vulnerable and already stigmatized population under a legal system.
After all, the point of regulating cannabis is not to increase harms through laws which may overly criminalize legal medical users, but rather should be focused on undoing many of the harms which, from a medical viewpoint, have contributed to additional barriers in research, accessing medical cannabis and the ongoing stigmatization of medical use.
While there is no disagreement that laws targeting impaired driving should be strongly enforced, and the government has taken a positive step forward in contemplating impaired driving law reforms, the proposed testing and enforcement mechanisms in Bill C-46 raise significant questions and concerns around civil liberties and human rights.
The law as proposed would criminalize Canadians who use medical cannabis responsibly – even when they are not actually impaired.
While no one should drive impaired, the proposed changes will serve to disproportionately criminalize the estimated 150,000 individuals who use cannabis legally and regularly for medical reasons, with physician support, across Canada.
That’s why it’s so disappointing that patients and patient advocacy groups, including Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana, were denied an invitation to express their views at these sessions.
The proposed changes to driving impairment laws will introduce per se limits for cannabis, similar to how we identify those driving under the influence of alcohol. While this may make sense on the surface, the science simply isn’t there when it comes to correlating cannabis use and impairment.
Unlike blood alcohol concentration, which is scientifically linked to levels of impairment, matching impairment to levels of THC – the main psychoactive component in cannabis – is still widely debated.
Determining actual impairment of cognitive, psychomotor and other functions necessary to safely drive is not as simple as measuring the presence of THC in blood. Even more importantly, the effects of THC are different from person-to-person, and THC can remain detectable within a regular user’s blood for days, potentially weeks, after it was last consumed.
It should also be said that authorized medical users are expected to follow advice from health-care providers, including safe-use guidelines, such as waiting at least four-to-six hours after consumption before driving to help eliminate risk of impairment.
However, the government’s proposal, which would set a per se cut-off of 2ng/ml THC at the lower end, would mean patients would have to stop using their medication three-to-seven days (or more) before driving, which has nothing to do with impairment.
For many patients, using medical cannabis isn’t about its psychoactive effects, but rather managing their symptoms with minimal impairment. This presents novel challenges that deserve consideration and a voice when it comes to the practicalities of “impaired” driving laws.
Given this context, do we simply allow the undisputed potential criminalization of responsible medical users without allowing them to participate in this important debate?
Allowing for a diverse and inclusive conversation can assist policy-makers in acknowledging the various experiences and realities of Canadians prescribed medical cannabis.
Without it, overly restrictive and blanket regulation that does not duly consider the most vulnerable, key affected populations will simply lead to ineffective policy and ongoing court challenges.
While the issue is undeniably complex, and medical cannabis authorization is not a licence to drive impaired, at the very least, the justice committee should be allowing for testimony from patients, physicians and scientists on how these laws may affect medical users.
If they use cannabis regularly to manage their symptoms, they will consistently test above the per se limits. This means the proposed bill would disproportionately criminalize a vulnerable and already stigmatized population under a legal system.
After all, the point of regulating cannabis is not to increase harms through laws which may overly criminalize legal medical users, but rather should be focused on undoing many of the harms which, from a medical viewpoint, have contributed to additional barriers in research, accessing medical cannabis and the ongoing stigmatization of medical use.
