People play with fire everyday they know the law and the risk, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Impaired is impaired. It can be from sleep deprivation, too much alcohol, your wife just left you, prescription or over the counter drugs or whatever. You can legally have a couple drinks and still drive. As a mature adult you use your best judgment to decide. You can also drive after smoking but they say you should wait 4 hours wink wink for those of you that think you can handle your weed. Anyways, cops are apparently trained to look for impaired drivers so either you pass their tests or your don’t. It’s pretty simple if you ask me it’s been like this for ever. Ya sometimes cops make mistakes too but that’s for the judge to decide if they’ve got sufficient evidence.
RCMP bust pot grow-op 2 days after cannabis legalized
- Thread starter gb123
- Start date
making laws designed so they can be abused, is prohibition II and far worse.
funny how some just cant rightly see when they have been blindsided.
need proof of impairment or theres nothing to stand on.
cops are gonna shoot themselves in the foot with how they fight this one in their work place.
its comin out now..slowly but surely
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
Welllll no...it's just like the picture on the bottle of ( fill in with your favourite mind altering prescription drug) that says to use caution when operating machinery...same shit, different pile. If I'm old enough to figure out when I'm impaired on pharmas, why can't I figure it out with Cannabis?...lol...may cause drowsiness...or it may not.
Last edited:
Jefferson1977
Well-Known Member
Well not exactly. They have set bullshit limits based on blood levels not correlated to any science that also unfairly targets medical or heavy users. These totally arbitrary blood levels can give you a federal criminal offense and put you in jail. The blood limits set for alcohol have extensive evidence based science behind them. The bullshit arbitrary levels they have created (2ng and 5ng/ml) for weed are based on no science at all and will cause many innocent people to be charged and convicted summarily.
Farmer.J
Well-Known Member
Not to mention, if I drive after drinking one beer and smoking 1 joint it's almost a worse offense than murder according to the new laws.
legalcanada
Well-Known Member
apparently boatguy either: a) doesn't know what 'MOST' means; or b) doesn't have the common sense to deduce what was implied.
i can take my prescription medications and drive, there's no law stopping me, unless i'm intoxicated. the thing about cannabis is you'll test over their arbitrary limit of 5ng/ml long before/after you are intoxicated. do you understand now?
TrainingPineapples
Well-Known Member
A thread in the Canadian Medical Patients section
Go away fly, me no like little flies in my vaseline
zoic
Well-Known Member
Right, then we can win in court. Do not forget to bring your science.
no issues
I can do any sobriety test in front of any judge and pass with flying colors . WIll make the crowns head spin.
until they get out their BS testing ..lol
Then it gets tossed out of court because they STILL have ZERO PROOF OF IMPAIRMENT even with their wittle tricks.
Farmer.J
Well-Known Member
What if someone who is a medical patient, who also struggles to make ends meet, gets a cannabis related impaired?
I know a lot of you say we will beat them in court, but not all of us have money to spare on lawyers and taking days off to go to court. Not to mention that an impaired could cause job loss to make personal cash flow even tighter. I feel pigeonholed by the new impaired driving laws.
Do I stop taking homegrown meds so I am clean in the chance that I might get pulled over?
Or do I continue to risk it and pray that I don't?
Sacrifice health to continue to live paycheck to paycheck?
I have considered growing a CBD only strain, but without testing you won't know for sure that there is zero thc, cause any small amount can put you up to or above 2 nanograms.
Is there even science to prove consuming CBD only strains won't give a false positive for thc on a roadside test?
I know a lot of you say we will beat them in court, but not all of us have money to spare on lawyers and taking days off to go to court. Not to mention that an impaired could cause job loss to make personal cash flow even tighter. I feel pigeonholed by the new impaired driving laws.
Do I stop taking homegrown meds so I am clean in the chance that I might get pulled over?
Or do I continue to risk it and pray that I don't?
Sacrifice health to continue to live paycheck to paycheck?
I have considered growing a CBD only strain, but without testing you won't know for sure that there is zero thc, cause any small amount can put you up to or above 2 nanograms.
Is there even science to prove consuming CBD only strains won't give a false positive for thc on a roadside test?
Last edited:
Farmer.J
Well-Known Member
That sounds logical, but they consider a D.R.E.'s opinion to be proof of impairment.
And regardless of his opinion, 2 nanograms is legally proof enough to fine you up to $1000 fine and 5 nanograms is proof enough to suspend your license, essentially it doesn't matter if you are impaired or not, the law says you are not to be operating motor vehicle with very small amounts of cannabis in your blood.
I don't agree with these laws, but facts are as medical Patients we do not have the right to drive if we medicate.
And regardless of his opinion, 2 nanograms is legally proof enough to fine you up to $1000 fine and 5 nanograms is proof enough to suspend your license, essentially it doesn't matter if you are impaired or not, the law says you are not to be operating motor vehicle with very small amounts of cannabis in your blood.
I don't agree with these laws, but facts are as medical Patients we do not have the right to drive if we medicate.
MedicatedHiker
Well-Known Member
I'd just bring a video of me snowboarding as evidence cannabis doesn't affect my reaction time.
All kidding aside, it will be struck down. The mere fact it is law is an assault to our senses.
probono on this dealeo
any lawyer would take it for free to put this one to rest and say
I DID IT!
cant pee chuck said he'd flip for part of the bill.
legalcanada
Well-Known Member
they are under no obligation to prove impairment. that's precisely why they set a limit. because it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove cannabis impairment... all they have to do is prove you were over their 5ng/ml limit and nothing else... the law doesn't say "impairment" it says "driving over the legal limit"
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Which is why the law will be challenged and not the charge. Unlike the .08 BAC limit, the 5 ng bs has no basis in science, research, fact or reality. The law needs to be "justifiable" and not unfairly infringe on our right to liberty, among other things. They need to show the law serves a purpose and this one clearly doesn't. There is no set limit on any intoxicant besides alcohol and now cannabis - how do they determine impairment by pills, coke etc? What is the limit for the active ingredients in prescription drugs? If it's possible to charge and convict drivers impaired by other substances, there is no reason the same techniques won't work for weed. It will likely come down to a constitutional challenge.
Farmer.J
Well-Known Member
I don't understand why coke, mushrooms, lsd etc they say no amount is safe to drive, but GHB (rapies) the legal limit is 25 000 000ng? I would think non toxic THC is less intoxicating than any amount of GHB. Am I missing something here?
CalyxCrusher
Well-Known Member
They also treat them as though they're the same. Alcohol is metabolized and your BAC returns to normal in 24hours at MOST. And that's being obscenely generous. Cannabis however is not metabolized like alcohol, the THC metabolites are stored in your bodyfat.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
You guys and Quebec need to fight that with non-compliance. Cultivation is federal law and even Trudeau said the provinces would be in violation by removing that right from it's citizens. Surely there has to be a lawyer who would take on the government in a constitutional challenge....