Canadians? Who's from the Great White North?

Can anyone supply more details about the new laws with getting caught "high" while driving... Do they issue a DUI? I know they've begun cracking down in York Region (Ontario). All I know is that Stephen Harper announced it, and it's been all over the news.. but no specifics.. Supposedly they can now do blood tests on the side of the road... violating our human rights within the Canadian Charter of Rights And Freedoms...
 
I b smokin that atomicskunk white widow sweet shit and still smoke that m39 evry now in then just to taste tha thc and also smokin that apaculco:Rasta: and i from tha maritimes ctown newbrunswick lol no joke:laughtwo: :cool: :smokin: :headbanger:
 
I'm in NB as well.. Drop me a Pm if you see this sometime drf33lg00d.
 
Thought you might be interested in this...


Love and stuff,


Alison
xx



Letters: letters@macleans.ca

Reefer madness?

Amid criticism that it violates freedoms and relies on shaky science, the Tories' bill to crack down on drug-impaired drivers faces an uncertain future


Kady O'Malley, Macleans.ca |

Updated Monday, December 18, 2006, at 15:15 EST


OTTAWA - For supporters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving who showed up in Kitchener last month for the launch of the 19th Annual Project Red Ribbon Campaign, it must have seemed as though Christmas had come early.

Not only did the event draw the Prime Minister, but when he took the stage Stephen Harper announced that his government would be bringing in legislation to combat drug-impaired driving - a priority that has topped MADD's legislative wish list for years. Harper then turned the microphone over to MADD Canada Chairperson Marjory LeBreton, the Government Leader in the Senate and one of Harper's closest political confidants, who lost her daughter and grandson to a drunk driving accident in 1996.

"It is particularly gratifying to be part of a government that will work with MADD to take meaningful steps to save the lives of innocent Canadians," LeBreton told the crowd.

A month later, working with MADD has become a slightly dicier proposition. And even before a swirl of controversy had enveloped the charity, courtesy of a Toronto Star report on its fundraising and accounting practices, the Conservatives' impaired-driving bill was raising the ire of critics.

Many of the same people had raised concerns over C-16, a similar bill put forward by the Liberals in 2004 as a bookend to their since-abandoned initiative to reduce penalties for pot posession. But despite the new government having the benefit of legislative hindsight, courtesy of extensive expert testimony before the committee that studied C-16, the new bill preserves virtually every one of its predecessor's more contentious measures.

One notable concern that remains unaddressed is the absence of scientific evidence on what quantity of which drugs constitutes impairment. And then there's the problem that even the most sensitive drug tests are unable to determine exactly when a drug entered the system - and consequently, whether it would be having any effect whatsoever on the user by the time he or she got behind the wheel.

"Collecting and testing bodily fluids may simply result in the collection of potentially stigmatizing personal information without furthering the goal of detecting drug-impaired driving," Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart warned in her testimony on C-16.

At a subsequent committee meeting, Canada Safety Council president Emile Therien reminded MPs that a drug doesn't have to be illegal to cause a dangerously high level of impairment in drivers. "Even over-the-counter drugs can reduce driving ability. Antihistamines can cause drowsiness and poor concentration," he noted, calling the original bill "premature."

"Tranquillizers or cold remedies, such as cold tablets, cough syrup, and sleeping pills, can reduce driving ability," Therien said. "Combinations of medications can also produce unexpected side effects and bad reactions ... The federal government must seriously assess whether it wants to criminalize persons (many of them seniors) who drive under the influence of prescribed and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals."

The ultimate result, according to the original critics of C-16, would be police having almost unlimited discretion to determine which drivers would be tested - either at the scene or via blood samples - for illegal drugs. Meanwhile, defendents would have little leeway to argue that at the time of arrest, their driving abilities had been entirely unaffected by the joint they smoked a few hours before heading out to the Quickie Mart for munchies. And senior citizens with a pristine record might find themselves thrown into a cell at the local police station if caught with the wrong combination of drugs in their system.

Based on those concerns, the revamped C-32 might actually have made things worse.

Not only does it ignore the absence of any empirical standard on what constitutes "impairment"; it also includes a new measure preventing defendents from challenging blood test results in court. That could effectively prevent them from putting forward the defence that the test had picked up traces of past drug use from days or even weeks before the arrest.

That won high praise from MADD CEO Andrew Murie, who condemned the use of the "unsubstantiated, self-serving testimony of an accused impaired driver." But Canadian Drug Policy Foundation spokesperson Eugene Oscapella, who spent considerable time studying the original bill, seems to disagree. While he shares the ultimate goal of reducing impaired driving, he's aware that it can be difficult to tell whether an individual is in fact impaired - or that the impairment was caused by drugs, not something entirely different.

"You have to be careful when you attribute an accident to drugs, because you can't always tell whether that was the cause," Oscapella told Macleans.ca. "It could be due to lack of sleep, emotional upset, or any number of other factors."

According to New Democrat Joe Comartin, who serves as his party's justice critic, Liberal members on the committee have already indicated they want to look at the possibility that the law could result in Charter challenges. But the Windsor MP himself doesn't share that concern.

"It's an interpretation of what evidence is admissible," Comartin told Macleans.ca. "It wasn't originally considered as such by the Charter, but the Ontario Court of Appeal and other courts have upheld those interpretations, so the only way to get around it is through legislation."

So far, the Liberals haven't officially come out against the bill. In the press release issued in response to the PM's announcement, they criticized Harper for cutting the budget for RCMP training, but said nothing about the proposed legislation itself. The only Liberal MP to go public with his concerns has been West Vancouver's Blair Wilson, who admitted in an interview with a local newspaper that although he supports the concept of the bill itself, he's aware of the legal minefield that could result.

"The challenge with drug-impaired driving is we don't have the scientific agreement on what the appropriate legal limit is for drugs," Wilson said. "The fortunate thing is, we do have the Charter to backstop us. The first charges will definitely be tested and will move up the chain if the police force takes it too far."

Critics of the new bill can take solace in the possibility of it meeting the same fate as its predecessor. According to Comartin, there is almost no chance the Justice Committee will get around to studying it until well into the 2007, possibly as late as February. Should Parliament dissolve for a spring election, the legislation is unlikely to pass in time.

Even if the Conservatives are re-elected with a majority - which would give them far more control over how committees go about their business - it's unlikely the bill would make it through Parliament before 2008, at the earliest. By then, perhaps science will have caught up with the government's push to get drug-impaired drivers off the road.
 
High All!!!
and happy almost Canada Day!

Originally from the east coast but will be celebrating and 420nin' down at the lake tomorrow in the dirty dirty! That's Oshawa Ontario it is!

Nice to greet you'all :)
Peace from canmiss
 
I was going to start a new topic to see if there were any fresh faced Canadians up in here. I just joined a couple days ago. Representing the far East!

I'm here, because I am out of weed(six days now), and I am struggling to understand the peace I felt when I was high. I just don't believe it when i'm sober. Even when I read what I wrote whilst high, I'm all.. "NAH.. there's no f****** way I was that peaceful." But I know, self honesty peaks when i'm high. and I can't argue with that.

say,..
anyone else terrified of apathy?

Anyway, I'm just entering the path of agriculture, so hopefully, eventually, I will have fields of love all around me. That way I'll never forget.

you guys remember this one?:
YouTube - Soundgarden - Black Hole Sun)

..i was in grade 8 when it came out.
sweet lord I should be farting dust by now.

peace
 
I am new here today. I reside in SW Nova Scotia and smoke stuff grown locally. We don't discuss the strain much, if its good its good. If it is so so its so so. I was told that my last big bag was white gorilla. Anyone ever heard of this.
I have 2 plants outdoors this year.
 

Similar threads

The Holy Mackerel
Aloha from the Great White North.
Replies
3
Views
647
Keith Lake
Keith Lake
H
checkin in from up north, Michigan
Replies
7
Views
825
Roseman
R
Pinch
Seed Strain Supplier list
Replies
0
Views
7K
Pinch
Pinch
Smokin Moose
800 Cannabis Strains - recently updated
Replies
9
Views
14K
mywaygrow
M
Akornpatch
Genetics guide!
Replies
3
Views
6K
safeman
S
Back
Top Bottom