quote:

Originally posted by djole071 and how does extasy impair your driving?

you have obviously not seen people on E.

quote:

Originally posted by StereoPrincess you have obviously not seen people on E.

LMAO!

___________________
- rabbit.joker [funny¿rabbit] | www.rabbitjoker.com |www.ddtt.org

Dark Dirty Tech Tribal. | Hands in air (trance) and feet on the floor (house).

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker LMAO!

well, it is obvious.

I usually feel fine after a night of clubbing and "medicine"(Ecstasy)use when I have the 1 hour drive back home from Toronto.
Sure I feel a little sketchy the entire day, but I doubt the reaction time is any different then if you where really tired.

___________________
Martin - Trance Religion -

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker This product is what police forces are going to use to include drug screening at RIDE checkpoints, traffic stops, street patrols, etc. Drugwipe 5 http://www.securetec.net/cms/front_...lang=2&client=1 DrugWipe®5 for rapid detection of drugs in body fluids (sweat, saliva) and on surfaces. DrugWipe®5 - simultaneous detection for o Opiates o Cocaine o Amphetamines/Methamphetamines (Ecstasy) o Cannabis

Well that kinda sucks I can imagine cops waiting outside Guv at closing time swiping every person they think looks skecthy (which is just about everyone at that time).

When is this going to start being used in Canada?

___________________
Whatever it may take I keep on trying.

^^ easiest way to fill their quotas.

___________________
SHUT UP AND DANCE !!

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker It's coming to a RIDE / traffic stop near you.

that doesn't mean it will stand up in court

to further explain my point...and this is ALL merely my opinion

convicting for DUI for alcohol is "simple" in that there are established blood alcohol limits and the police can test accordingly, whether via breathalyser or blood tests.

while it is true that DUI does NOT just cover alcohol, but other forms of impairment, such as drug induced impairment, successfully convicting DUI for drugs is much more difficult in that it becomes a subjective charge.

The cop CLAIMS that you are impaired...and can certainly charge you...but the onus is on them to prove that you actually were on drugs AND that you were impaired.

so this new testing may solve the problem of proving that your are on something...but does it concretely establish that you were *impaired*? are there going to be established limits of what constitues an impairment level for *each and every* drug out there?

if not, I'd take it to court in a heartbeat and my money says you'd have the charge thrown out.

"yes your honour, I had ecstasy in my system. I think that makes me guilty of possession of MDMA, but I strongly disagree that I was impaired".

see the problem? get ready for a *massive* court backlog as any intelligent person (who wasnt' completely fucked out of their mind) will fight these charges.

i.e. possession does not equal impairment...and this test merely indicates possession. So unless there is legislation stating that ANY level of ANY of these drugs constitutes impairment...then we're back to where we are now in that DUI is difficult to prove for non-alcohol related cases.

it WILL get people off the road though...as cops have discretion to issue 24 hour suspension, impound the car, etc.

deterrent tool...but conviction tool? I can't see this working on it's own.

no?

best be making sure those pupils aren't dilated anymore...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT to further explain my point...and this is ALL merely my opinion convicting for DUI for alcohol is "simple" in that there are established blood alcohol limits and the police can test accordingly, whether via breathalyser or blood test. while it is true that DUI does NOT just cover alcohol, but other forms of impairment, such as drug induced impairment, convicting is much more difficult in that it becomes a subjective charge. The cop CLAIMS that you are impaired...and can charge you...but the onus is on them to prove it. so this new testing *may* solve the problem of proving that your are on *something*...but does it concretely establish that you were *impaired*? are there going to be established limits of what constitues impairment for *each and every* drug out there? if not, I'd take it to court. "yes your honour, I had x mg of MDMA in my system. I think that makes me guilty of possession of MDMA, but I strongly disagree that I was impaired". see the problem? get ready for a *massive* court backlog as an intelligent person (who wasnt' completely fucked out of their mind) will fight these charges. i.e. possession does not equal impairment...and this test merely indicates possession. no?

Very well put sir.

it's going to be interesting.

I support efforts to keep anyone off the road who is unfit to drive and dangerous to other drivers...whether due to being drunk, high, having poor vision, havig poor motor skills, overly agressive/negligent, etc.

just properly test for it without leaving gaping loopholes for them to get off.

(and make it mandatory for the police show up in court, FFS!)