You will be caught (drinking and driving)

OTTAWA – If you choose to get behind the wheel after drinking, you will be caught under incoming federal impaired driving rules, the ministers responsible are cautioning. This direct warning comes in light of new drunk driving rules coming into force in two weeks, during peak holiday party season.

"The likelihood of getting caught is about to increase exponentially," Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Minister Bill Blair told reporters on Parliament Hill on Tuesday.

A slate of changes specific to alcohol impairment were passed in June as part of Bill C-46, the drug impaired driving bill that coincides with the new law legalizing cannabis.

Related Stories

• Early data suggests no spike in pot-impaired driving after legalization: police
• Supreme Court limits when accused drunk drivers can get breathalyzer logs
• Tory senators lead opposition to random roadside alcohol testing

Photos

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Jody Wilson-Raybould (right) looks on as Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Bill Blair speaks about drinking and driving laws during a news conference in Ottawa, Tuesday December 4, 2018. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld


An RCMP Constable holds a breathalyzer test in Surrey, B.C., on Sept. 24, 2010. (Darryl Dyck / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

The legislation amended Canada's impaired driving laws to allow police officers to conduct mandatory roadside alcohol breath tests on drivers they pull over, without requiring a suspicion that the person had been drinking. Though in order to pull someone over, the police need to have lawful cause to do so.

If a person fails this screening, showing they are over the legal limit, secondary tests would be taken at a police station to determine, for evidentiary purposes, the person’s blood alcohol concentration. The changes also make it illegal to drive within two hours of being over the legal limit, with tougher penalties for doing do.

"Unfortunately what we have over the past number of years is people have come to realize that they can bluff their way through those spot checks," said Blair, who has years of experience doing these kinds of tests in his past life as a police officer.

He said in the past people have been able to deny having consumed alcohol, or disguise their breath, preventing police from forming the reasonable suspicion to require the driver to take an alcohol screening test, but that ends with these new rules, which he called a "game changer."

The changes passed in June, but this portion of the legislation is coming into force on Dec. 18, just in time for the busiest holiday party season, and when ride programs are in full force across Canada.

Departmental officials speaking on background with reporters about the incoming changes say they expect the new mandatory alcohol screening permissions to be a powerful deterrent to drunk driving, and will make roads safer as a result.

On average, four Canadians are killed each day by drunk drivers.

"If you get behind the wheel of your car while impaired, you will be caught," Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said, noting that similar rules are in place in over 40 countries worldwide.

During the legislative process, serious concerns were raised over the constitutionality of the mandatory testing, with Conservatives in the Senate seeking to remove the provisions allowing for these random tests to be done without grounds.

Facing questions about the constitutionality, Wilson-Raybould said she is "100 per cent confident" that it doesn't violate the charter, pointing back to the charter statement she issued, which lays out federal lawyers' arguments for why the legislation is compliant with the constitution.

But Wilson-Raybould said she has "every expectation" that this law will be challenged.

There was an emotional moment during the announcement, in which the representative from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Gregg Thomson, turned from the podium and shook Blair and Wilson-Raybould’s hands, thanking them on behalf of his family and others for bringing in these new changes.

Thomson's son and friends were killed in a crash involving a drunk driver.

"Thankfully you don’t know, I hope, the impact of what this will have on us," Thomson said, calling it the most significant step he's seen taken in his years advocating against drunk driving.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/you-will-be-caught-ministers-vow-ahead-of-compulsory-breath-tests-for-drivers-1.4203905

NOTE: They still need probable cause to swab you.

I solved that problem... been sober for 10 years. The cannabis thing might be a problem, but I doubt it.

Big time, they will make criminals out of breathing air like they have with carbon. It follows.

I gotta say I'm pretty stunned at the number of folks who try to get away with drinking and driving. I mean they must think they can get away with or why would they even try it. Or we have an extra large number of pure stupid people in our midst. Seems insane to me in this day and atmosphere.
What grinds my ass is they lump us cannabis users into the same drunk tank.
Of course they'd never just think " well maybe we should NOT be selling this stuff (booze ) "
Opps forgot....tons of money too be made on alcohol........sorry.....now you victims just stop your whining will ya. some of ya's just gotta die is all.

The Hippy said:

I gotta say I'm pretty stunned at the number of folks who try to get away with drinking and driving. I mean they must think they can get away with or why would they even try it. Or we have an extra large number of pure stupid people in our midst. Seems insane to me in this day and atmosphere.
What grinds my ass is they lump us cannabis users into the same drunk tank.
Of course they'd never just think " well maybe we should NOT be selling this stuff (booze ) "
Opps forgot....tons of money too be made on alcohol........sorry.....now you victims just stop your whining will ya. some of ya's just gotta die is all.

Click to expand...

I am not impaired by Cannabis, and fuck you if you think I am.

Jefferson1977 said:

I am not impaired by Cannabis, and fuck you if you think I am.

Click to expand...

Booze stupid ........... booze...not weed!
did ya miss that part?

The Hippy said:

Booze stupid ........... booze...not weed!
did ya miss that part?

Click to expand...

Yep I did, lol. I was replying to the gov.

The Hippy said:

I gotta say I'm pretty stunned at the number of folks who try to get away with drinking and driving. I mean they must think they can get away with or why would they even try it. Or we have an extra large number of pure stupid people in our midst. Seems insane to me in this day and atmosphere.
What grinds my ass is they lump us cannabis users into the same drunk tank.
Of course they'd never just think " well maybe we should NOT be selling this stuff (booze ) "
Opps forgot....tons of money too be made on alcohol........sorry.....now you victims just stop your whining will ya. some of ya's just gotta die is all.

Click to expand...

I said right from the beginning of the cannabis impaired driving hype around legalization, that if they were truly worried about reducing impaired driving and traffic deaths, they would target the substances known to cause the vast majority of the problems. There is no history of cannabis ever being an issue with traffic deaths before they found a way to turn it into a revenue stream.

VIANARCHRIS said:

I said right from the beginning of the cannabis impaired driving hype around legalization, that if they were truly worried about reducing impaired driving and traffic deaths, they would target the substances known to cause the vast majority of the problems. There is no history of cannabis ever being an issue with traffic deaths before they found a way to turn it into a revenue stream.

Click to expand...

Exactly...if a dog was biting my leg I'd eliminate the dog. Problem solved.

They've got ENDLESS problems with booze but they sell it as fast as you can buy from the greedy fuck wads booze stores. NEVER any talk of maybe not selling it. I know...a dumb idea right. Back to the dog comment above though.

They're are enacting and discussing laws banning smoking weed basically ANYWHERE, but meanwhile some little fence on a sidewalk indicating a patio outside a restaurant alcohol is served openly and in front of the precious children to see...OMG..shield their eyes will ya!!!!!

This country is so fucked how am I supposed to take any of their crap seriously. I can't follow these stupid lemmings of the cliff with them.

Jefferson1977 said:

Yep I did, lol. I was replying to the gov.

Click to expand...

buds again

It's called "100 days of heat" in the United States. Enhanced patrols for DWI around holidays .

quit drinking when I was 30 2 over 80s in two weeks in my early twenties. Not proud but came from a family who drank..Thought it was normal lol
NOT


Lost a Friend today ..from drinking.. They found him ..dead . Had been dead a few days.
addictions....specially government regulated ones..etc suck ass
Died a miserable lonely drunk

TRUELY SUCKs!

gb123 said:

quit drinking when I was 30 2 over 80s in two weeks in my early twenties. Not proud but came from a family who drank..Thought it was normal lol
NOT


Lost a Friend today ..from drinking.. They found him ..dead . Had been dead a few days.
addictions....specially government regulated ones..etc suck ass
Died a miserable lonely drunk

TRUELY SUCKs!

Click to expand...

Sorry GB.......sad to hear that. RIP to your friend.
My point exactly...they sell booze merrily and look at what it does...FUCKIN KILL PEOPLE
But they don't actually care.

I wrote this a month before legalization....
Cannabis Impaired Driving
September 6, 2018 by Author
And the Provinces’ Demand for Extra Funding

Does Legalization Increase the Risk to the Public, or is this Reefer-Madness 2.0?

One of the most contentious issues facing all sides of the cannabis legalization process is the issue of cannabis-impaired drivers. Opponents of legalization are claiming there will be a sudden increase in risk to public safety on the roads due to legal cannabis use. The proponents are claiming they are mitigating that risk by introducing new tests and increasing penalties. Neither side is able to produce any statistics to show that cannabis-impaired driving has been a serious problem in the past even though Canada has one of the highest cannabis usage rates in the world during prohibition.

Medical patients are justifiably concerned they going to have to choose between medicine and mobility.
Many of the uninitiated may not understand the effects of cannabis and certainly not the intensity or duration of intoxication. It is almost impossible to explain as no two people experience the same effects. Unlike alcohol, the effects of cannabis are fairly short-lived and a person can expect to be ‘sober’ in about 90 minutes. This time varies from person to person, and heavier users will be less affected and for shorter a duration. A medical patient using 10 or 20g /day may never feel ‘high’. THC is fat-soluble and collects and is stored in the body’s fatty tissue. This can result in a person testing positive for cannabis use weeks or even months after they last used. When we think about impaired driving, the first thing that comes to mind is alcohol. Alcohol intoxication is relatively easy to test for. Science has found that a BAC of .08% is a point where impairment is likely to occur, and this is widely accepted by society as a whole. While alcohol is by far the cause of the bulk of impaired driving arrests, crashes and fatalities, there are many others using our roads while under the influence of many other substances. Many of these are prescribed medications and despite warnings on the bottles, it is very rare for a person to be charged for such an offense unless their actions have caused an accident. The reason for this, in large part, is the lack of scientific evidence that points to a certain level where impairment is probable. The courts are very black and white.

While the Trudeau Liberals have come out and said 2ng is the magic number that indicates impairment, there is no evidence to back that up. A medical user would need to stop using their medicine months before getting in the car. Given the characteristics of cannabinoids and their ability to accumulate and remain in the human body for extended lengths of time, trying to find a number that can be used similar to the standard .08 Blood Alcohol Content, is impossible. There is no such number that will prove cannabis impairment.

Politicians are grabbing at straws in an effort to satisfy the public insistence for a tool to use to stop cannabis users from driving high, so they latched on to something they think the public is going to swallow with 2 ng. With the correct wording, “driving over 2 ng cannabis” rather that calling it “impaired”, they will do nothing to make the roads safer, but will certainly initiate countless court challenges and it will add a new revenue stream for local police departments at the expense of sober, law-abiding citizens.

Let’s have a look at a few scenarios:

1) Joe ingests some cannabis before bed to alleviate his insomnia. He
sleeps well and rises fresh and ready for work. On the drive in to work
he is pulled over and subjected to a drug test. He tests at 3ng and is
charged with impaired driving. What about alcohol? Is a severe hangover
not an impairment?

2) Pete goes out for drinks after work to celebrate a
co-worker's
retirement. He takes a cab home around 11 and set's his alarm for 6 am.
He is tired and a little hungover in the morning and gets into a
fender-bender on the way to work. He blows .05 on a portable
breathalyzer and is not charged. Is the cannabis user, Joe, a bigger
danger?

None of us wants to share our roads with anyone impaired by any substance, but neither do we want to persecute people who are not impaired. Setting an arbitrary number like 2 ng, which has absolutely no correlation to impairment, will not achieve the stated goal of taking impaired drivers off of our roads. The only test that will determine impairment by cannabis, imho, is a good old fashioned ‘roadside sobriety test’. Follow the pen, walk the line, touch your nose, and answer a few questions. If a person’s motor skills are not affected and they are able to carry on a conversation, that would alleviate most concerns of impairment. Every cop can do it, no expensive testing devices required.Why is it then, that there is such a demand for new funding to combat something that posses such little risk of impact on society? Cannabis users are being unfairly demonized as irresponsible menaces months before legalization takes effect, while alcohol continues to be the killer. Legalization is being viewed by provincial and municipal politicians as an opportunity to extort money from Ottawa. Impaired driving is one area under provincial jurisdiction that they assumed would have enough public support to force Ottawa to provide extra funding. They have also claimed an impending explosion in marijuana addicts and the necessary ‘education programs’ to prevent the surge in cannabis-addicted people, requires more money. All of these sound like responsible governance until you do a little poking around with a baloney meter.

Cannabis is non-toxic, non-addictive and carries no risk of overdose, beyond extreme sleepiness, regardless of amount ingested. There is are no withdrawal symptoms associated with stopping cannabis use.

When we look at the most widely used legal drug, caffeine, the contrast is stark. 3200 mg of caffeine ingested at one time is enough to kill an adult human. The withdrawal from caffeine results in headache, irritability, sleeplessness, confusion, nausea, anxiety, restlessness and tremor, palpitations and raised blood pressure Pure caffeine powder is sold in boxes of 124g, or 124,000mg, more than 39 times the lethal dose, without a prescription and without an application or approval from Health Canada.

Given the scourge of alcohol-related violence and deaths, combined with the addictive properties of caffeine and it’s widespread use, I am shocked that the provinces and cities haven’t demanded increased funding to combat those problems that currently exist before over-reacting to a situation that doesn’t exist at present and is likely to never to be a problem.

The answer, once again, is greed. These elected vultures and their associated police departments are worse than any marijuana dealer I’ve ever dealt with – except that one guy who ripped me off in Edmonton in 1987. Nah, what am I saying, he only got $30, governments are after millions.
There is no evidence to show that legalization will result in any added strain on existing resources, and in fact with legalization comes a dramatic reduction in cannabis-related crime.There is no sincerity or credibility on the part of politicians when they cry for more money for a non-existent problem. Over a half-billion taxpayer dollars have been spent or pledged for the implementation of the legal sale of cannabis, something that has been happening across this country for more than 70 years. Let that number sink in; $500,000,000. Imagine what that could have done for health care, homelessness or education.

The debate and court challenges over drivers accused of being impaired by cannabis will start almost immediately and will continue for years. The only beneficiaries of this flawed legislation will be the lawyers.
Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!