News location:

Canberra Today 20°/22° | Friday, March 29, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

Letters / Drug punishment should match crime

THE current consensus is that cannabis (THC) use raises your likelihood of being involved in a collision by two times unlike alcohol, which at 0.02 per cent (a legal limit) makes you six times more likely to have a collision.

quillCannabis intoxication isn’t dose dependent like alcohol, either (ie the effects don’t increase with the dosage).

I’m not proposing we legalise intoxicated drivers, my argument is that the punishment should match the crime – any amount of THC in your blood and you’re sentenced as if you’ve blown high-range BAC (which can raise your risk of collision to a whopping 20-30 times).

People are allowed to drive with copious amounts of benzodiazepines and other legal sedatives, which are far more implicated in collisions – the police just don’t test for them.

Of course, people will say “you shouldn’t have THC in your body anyway; if you get caught you deserve what you get”. By doing so they’re completely disregarding Australia’s legal system. It’s like saying “well, prostitution is illegal anyway; if you get raped, you deserve what you get”. Why do these people have less rights than others?

Politicians and police accept that medication affects different people accordingly and as such, don’t test for pharmaceutical drugs (“may cause drowsiness and increase the effects of alcohol, if affected do not drive or operate machinery”).

The punishment for THC in the blood should be nil, just like for benzodiazepines and opioids and the punishment for impairment should be increased accordingly.

If you choose to drive while impaired, you’re a bloody idiot.

Geordie Irwin, Yarralumla

Get off Trump’s back!

I’M no disciple of President Trump, but I wish people would get off his back. Such short memories. In recent times several of our prime ministers have had their parliamentary plans thwarted by the Opposition/Senate/minor parties.

At time of writing, Trump has had 16 of his 27 initiatives blocked and has had to resort to executive orders. Every president except one has issued executive orders.

Governments and oppositions may have to compromise, but in an executive sense, for opposition to retract to and remain in the hands of the non-governing for an unreasonable time can surely not be good democracy.

With very few exceptions indeed – certainly not 16 from 27 – politically unpopular initiatives, if put forward by a legitimate government, should have the opportunity to play out until the next election.

Let us pray that Trump never has to experience Harry Truman’s deepest moral dilemma over the atomic bombs. But given the North Korean president’s behaviour, who can say it can’t happen?

Colliss Parrett, Barton

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Share this

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews