|
BANNED: Stoned Driving
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Misanthrope |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/National/home
| quote: |
GLORIA GALLOWAY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Drivers who get behind the wheel while stoned on drugs will be targeted in new legislation to be announced today by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, sources have told The Globe and Mail.
Mr. Harper will unveil the legal changes in Kitchener, Ont., where he will be accompanied by Senator Marjorie LeBreton, whose daughter Linda LeBreton-Holmes and her 12-year-old son Brian were killed more than 10 years ago by a drunk driver.
Mr. Harper will announce that the Criminal Code will be amended to allow police to apprehend and test drug-impaired drivers, something that previous Liberal governments had tried unsuccessfully to enact, government sources said.
That is the very least that the Conservative government plans to do, said Andrew Murie, the chief executive officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada.
Related to this article
Latest Comments Comments
* Maybe they should include cell phones as an impairing substance...
* Perscription drugs? Prescription narcotic drugs? Poppy seeds...
* I worry a little when I hear Mr Murie of MADD excited that they...
* The problem with these tests, is the huge variation among different...
* 64 reader comments | Join the conversation
Follow this writer Follow this writer
* Add GLORIA GALLOWAY to my e-mail alerts Globe Insider
The Globe and Mail
Mr. Murie will be at the announcement today and will have a brief private meeting with Mr. Harper.
Police officers have been asking for this type of power for many years but scientific tests have not been available for roadside use to accurately determine what substances a drugged driver has smoked, ingested or injected.
Mr. Murie said the introduction in the United States of what is known as a drug recognition evaluation has eliminated that roadblock in recent years.
"It is a series of tests that look for families of drugs," he said. As the driver performs the tests, a skilled officer will usually be able to tell what kind of drug is causing the impairment. Then a bodily fluid is demanded to confirm the result.
When the evaluation, plus the officer's assessment and the analysis of the blood or saliva sample, is presented to a court, Mr. Murie said, "it's been proven successful to get a conviction."
But he said he hopes Mr. Harper takes the initiative to be announced today several steps further.
There is speculation that the government will add at least one, and possibly three, new enhancements to existing drunk-driving legislation, he said.
"If it comes through," he said, "it will be the most comprehensive breakthrough [against drunk drivers] in 10 years."
First, Mr. Murie said, there is talk the government will remove the possibility for someone who is found to have a blood-alcohol reading of more than .08 per cent -- the legal limit for driving -- to introduce evidence that he or she could not have been as impaired as a breath analysis machine suggested.
People who blow over the limit but bring six friends to court to say they had just one or two beers can plant seeds of doubt in a judge's mind. Those cases are dropped 60 to 70 per cent of the time, Mr. Murie said. MADD hopes "they are going to close that loophole," he said.
Second, he said, police may be given the right to demand that any driver who is involved in a crash be tested to determine if they had consumed more than the allowable level of alcohol.
And third, a private member's bill currently before the House that would create a separate offence for someone whose blood alcohol limit is below .08 but above .05 per cent may be added to the legislation. It was introduced by a Conservative from British Columbia and Mr. Harper could turn that into a government-backed proposal, Mr. Murie said.
He will be anxiously awaiting the full announcement, he said. If all of the suggested initiatives are introduced by the government, Mr. Murie said, "I will be on cloud nine."
|
|
|
|
| The Highroller |
| Hmmm. I wonder how else these drug testers could be or will be used... |
|
|
| NuERA |
| quote: | | 12-year-old son Brian were killed more than 10 years ago by a drunk driver. |
ummmmm?
they were starting to try this out in australia when i was there (mind you it was drug driving in general, not just pot).
to me i think the biggest challenge would be the amount of time a person could test positive for thc. some poor guy smokes a canon with his friends friday night, drives home saturday morning and gets busted for drug driving? |
|
|
| Elendil |
| Honestly, I've never agreed with stoned-behind-the-wheel. I don't care how many people say it, when you're stoned, you do NOT have the same reaction time. Its plain and simple. If you are planning to operate a motor vehicle, you shouldn't be doing drugs. EOS. |
|
|
| beefy k |
I agree, too many people think driving stoned is ok.
its not. but a legislation isn't needed. just awareness. |
|
|
| Euphorica |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
Honestly, I've never agreed with stoned-behind-the-wheel. I don't care how many people say it, when you're stoned, you do NOT have the same reaction time. Its plain and simple. If you are planning to operate a motor vehicle, you shouldn't be doing drugs. EOS. |
i agree |
|
|
| Playa24_7 |
| yeah they are talking about driving while high on a variety of different drugs, not just pot. They so far have no full proof test, to test exactly what drug your on, but it's in the works, and it will happen. |
|
|
| _EuG_ |
they should put a cruiser at the exit of the lcbo parking lot beside guv to check everyone... and another cruiser at the entrence/exit to cherry beach
they will make a killing in fines |
|
|
| cenik |
I'm willing to bet that if this becomes law it will, in time, be ruled unconstitutional.
I'm sure everybody--or at least most people--already know that it is currently illegal to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated by marijuana, right? |
|
|
| capo tutti di |
| As posted earlier I think the biggest problem or debate is going to be over how long ago was it in your system, for example a night of clubbing possibly having a skittle or two, then a week later getting pulled over and being tested when infact traces of mdma lasts I believe something like 3 weeks between uses. I don't disagree that they will have a system or methods to catch someone but i think more than one device, methods or steps would be needed to finally charge someone as officially impaired...lol |
|
|
| Chris Allen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
Honestly, I've never agreed with stoned-behind-the-wheel. I don't care how many people say it, when you're stoned, you do NOT have the same reaction time. Its plain and simple. If you are planning to operate a motor vehicle, you shouldn't be doing drugs. EOS. |
QFT |
|
|
| tatgirl |
| Yes, I have serious doubts in the accuracy of this test. Sounds like a giant net to trap any drug user (recreational, past use, etc...) who drives a car. Sounds very unconstitutional to me. |
|
|
|
|
