Ksa
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,095
There was a meeting in Ontario that discussed the impact that the 2017 legalization of marijuana in Canada will have on Drug Driving laws and how the new laws would be enforced by Police. Top findings:
Drug impaired driving is increasing as a safety problem. In 2010, nearly as many drivers died in road crashes after using drugs (34.2%) as those who had been drinking (39.1%).
Young people continue to be the largest group of drivers who die in crashes and test positive for alcohol or drugs.
They also brought up some problems:
- The designated driver, who abstains from alcohol, but who accepts pot from their friends "so he could also get something out of it";
- Implementing a new roadside drug test in the next 2 years, which involves the Police officer collecting saliva;
- How even low doses of THC deliver maximum impairment;
- How a survey showed that not only young people will consume, but also baby boomers, who retire and wish to spend their time more creatively, so Police can't screen out anyone;
- They also mentioned how prescription drugs are an important source of impairment as users feel they are not in violation of any laws and they never read the label on the bottle.
- They said what's most concerning is that 50% of THC users think they can drive safely while stoned;
The consensus among the experts is that a zero tolerance should be imposed on THC while driving. They said:
"We take their license and sent them to jail for alcohol DUI, so they got the message, they understood, and we need to deliver the same message for pot"
So their logic is, some dudes die in a car accident. We test for drugs and find that oops, 43% of them had some form of drug in their system. Ok. But if they don't know how many people actually use drugs within a population, how are they establishing a relation? Like, if 43% of the population uses some form of drug, and when they test the dead dudes they find the average is 43%, it doesn't mean anything and no relationship can be found to say drugs caused the fatality. I mean, 43% of road users who die in a car crash drove used vehicles with over 150,000 Km, why can't THAT be the cause?
It's also the way they approach THC users who volunteered to do the survey is quite worrying. You have guys who drove for 5-30 years and have no at fault claims, maybe 1 or 2 not at fault claims with their insurance company. They claim they can drive on THC. Experts say they have a problem because they shouldn't think that they can? Hello? The dudes can drive. They are not believing anything they are stating fact, that they have no at fault claims with their insurance company for 30 years. So that group of people, saying they can drive safely, have clean insurance records, but they are treated like they are a problem.
I'm saying what is the problem? There's sober people who have 13 at fault accidents in the past 10 years, they are denied comprehensive and collision coverage and are only given by law coverage, and they are OK! Because they are sober. Well, I wouldn't want to drive next to a sober guy like that! If I had the option to take one of them off the road I would take off the sober guy! Not the stoned one!
Debate.
Drug impaired driving is increasing as a safety problem. In 2010, nearly as many drivers died in road crashes after using drugs (34.2%) as those who had been drinking (39.1%).
Young people continue to be the largest group of drivers who die in crashes and test positive for alcohol or drugs.
They also brought up some problems:
- The designated driver, who abstains from alcohol, but who accepts pot from their friends "so he could also get something out of it";
- Implementing a new roadside drug test in the next 2 years, which involves the Police officer collecting saliva;
- How even low doses of THC deliver maximum impairment;
- How a survey showed that not only young people will consume, but also baby boomers, who retire and wish to spend their time more creatively, so Police can't screen out anyone;
- They also mentioned how prescription drugs are an important source of impairment as users feel they are not in violation of any laws and they never read the label on the bottle.
- They said what's most concerning is that 50% of THC users think they can drive safely while stoned;
The consensus among the experts is that a zero tolerance should be imposed on THC while driving. They said:
"We take their license and sent them to jail for alcohol DUI, so they got the message, they understood, and we need to deliver the same message for pot"
So their logic is, some dudes die in a car accident. We test for drugs and find that oops, 43% of them had some form of drug in their system. Ok. But if they don't know how many people actually use drugs within a population, how are they establishing a relation? Like, if 43% of the population uses some form of drug, and when they test the dead dudes they find the average is 43%, it doesn't mean anything and no relationship can be found to say drugs caused the fatality. I mean, 43% of road users who die in a car crash drove used vehicles with over 150,000 Km, why can't THAT be the cause?
It's also the way they approach THC users who volunteered to do the survey is quite worrying. You have guys who drove for 5-30 years and have no at fault claims, maybe 1 or 2 not at fault claims with their insurance company. They claim they can drive on THC. Experts say they have a problem because they shouldn't think that they can? Hello? The dudes can drive. They are not believing anything they are stating fact, that they have no at fault claims with their insurance company for 30 years. So that group of people, saying they can drive safely, have clean insurance records, but they are treated like they are a problem.
I'm saying what is the problem? There's sober people who have 13 at fault accidents in the past 10 years, they are denied comprehensive and collision coverage and are only given by law coverage, and they are OK! Because they are sober. Well, I wouldn't want to drive next to a sober guy like that! If I had the option to take one of them off the road I would take off the sober guy! Not the stoned one!
Debate.
Last edited: