[ql06] Re: CONSITUTIONAL:Ottawa considers drug tests on drivers
- From: mark bumstead <2mab8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:47:52 -0400
Interesting. Not surprisingly, I disagree that Dangerous Driving (s.249(1)
of the CCC) is more appropriate than Impaired Driving (s.253).
And imagine that it is for that same tired old reason: anything carried to
the extreme is silly and dangerous. Dangerous Driving carries a penalty of
5 yrs (249(2)) or less, while Impaired carries graduated punishment with
fines less than $600 and jail time ranging from 14 days to 5 yrs. (255(1)).
It seems heavy handed, and may not survive the Oakes test, if challenged in
relation to the punishment for alcohol based events. "Had I been drunk and
not stoned ..."
I agree, however, that there needs to be appropriate metrics put in place
that can tell how impaired one is AT THAT MOMENT, not how stoned you were
two weeks ago.
Mark
P.S. I preferred the alternative argument that being stoned was part of the
culture and therefore should be part of the scoring. If you can't do it as
it is done in the wild, are you really doing it at all?
>To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ql06] Re: CONSITUTIONAL:Ottawa considers drug tests on drivers
>
>
>
>Great, but there still remains a problem. Pot stays in the body long after
>its intoxicating effects have waned... remember snowboarder Ross Rebliati
>(sorry for the butchered spelling)? When testifying to the Olympic committee
>about his positive test results for pot he explained he had been subjected
>tosecond hand pot smoke two weeks previously. While I found this
>explainationsomewhat laughable (the longer you do pot the longer it stays in
>your system) this could pose a problem for the prosecution in cases where
>someone had it in their system but was not intoxicated. I for one am in
>favour of using the reckless driving laws for enforcement. If your driving
>suffers (as studies have proven it does) while high, it should be apparent.
>No need to charge you with impaired driving - just reckless driving for the
>apparent effects of the intoxication. I am hopeful they will determine a way
>of testing whether you are impaired or not but for now I think my idea would
>work.
Other related posts:
