|
On the spot drug test via sweat and/or saliva (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NuERA |
i drive "baked" as you guys put it, all the time, and i don't have a problem with it...well, for me atleast, but everyone is differnt, which brings me to my point.
as we all know different people react differntly to different substances. some people can 'handle' their booze well, others cannot. some people can smoke all the weed in the world and then address congress while others smoke 1 small joint and they cant be ina room with another human being. some people can down 8 pills in a night and can go do a reading at church on sunday, while others do 1 pill and can't figure out if they are in Toronto or Montreal. everyone is differnt.
however as far as the law is concerned there is no way to gauge this, nor would it make logical sense to do so. so in their mind its better to be safe than sorry and just get all the sketchies off the road.
you cant let your objections to this new law be fueled by the fact that YOU perosnally dont want to get burned. think of the greater safety for the community. |
|
|
| Stingray |
Driving stoned makes you a way better driver!
So cautious! :toothless |
|
|
| simms327 |
| quote: | | some people can down 8 pills in a night and can go do a reading at church on sunday, while others do 1 pill and can't figure out if they are in Toronto or Montreal |
LOL!!!! :stongue: |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| Are there any documented cases of someone actually getting tested, tried and conviected because of being tested via these wipes without them being in a car or driving? |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by NuERA
some people can down 8 pills in a night and can go do a reading at church on sunday, while others do 1 pill and can't figure out if they are in Toronto or Montreal. |
bwahahahahahahahahahaha! |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
conviected because of being tested via these wipes without them being in a car or driving? |
Not in Canada. They aren't used here (yet). |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by NuERA
some people can down 8 pills in a night and can go do a reading at church on sunday |
:D I've done that!!!!! |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by LittlePoonzgirl
If you already consumed all of it, you arn't in possession. |
Not true....your body is still in possession of the intoxicant. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
Just take a cab :toothless |
The cost of the cab ride would cost more then the possession charge. Besides, I don't trust those toronto cabbies. I can drive better while asleep then them. |
|
|
| sixonethree |
being the entity that i am,
i would fail this swipe test without even a swiping. all it would need is the swab just to come into contact with the air and i would be finished. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by loca
Direct quote from what RJ wrote:
In other words, you'll get charged for possession if they get a positive result for drugs.
People are concentrating too much on the fact that the cops give you that test when you're driving. They can also give it to you when you are walking should they decide you look like you are on something. |
the police need reasonable and probable grounds to suspect you have illegal weapons or drugs to even detain and question you on the street, nevermind ask you to produce ID, explain where you're going, etc...you could (in theory) walk away from a cop on the street if they arbitrarily tried to detain/question you without explaining themselves.
A driver can be pulled over at police discretion and MUST produce ID/driver's lic., insurance, ownership, etc. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
the police need reasonable and probable grounds to ... ask you to produce ID |
You are wrong with respect to the above. Police require no grounds to request that someone indentify themselves. Police only require reasonable (not probable, they let the crown worry about that) grounds to LAY CHARGES.
Police asking questions is within their realm of "proactive policing".
Failure to comply with request for ID (or "hey mr. public - what are you up to" questioning)? Beyond "failure to identify", not complying could give reasonable suspicion (acting nervous, flighty, etc) for being under the influence of drugs/alcohol. |
|
|
|
|
