Canada: Police exercise new law targeting drivers on drugs

E-llusion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
5,969
Location
ALASKA
On the roads, the waterways and from the air, police marked this long Thanksgiving weekend by targeting speeding drivers, careless drivers and drunken drivers.

Drugged ones, too.

But recognizing the symptoms of a stoned driver is no simple task. Motorists suspected of alcohol impairment have long been compelled to blow into a breath analyzer and/or provide a blood sample. But under an amendment to the federal Criminal Code passed in July, the threshold has widened substantially.

Now, a police officer who thinks a driver might be high on drugs can make that person perform a roadside test, or rather 12 of them, listed on the federal Department of Justice website.

Those tests are administered by a police officer, specially trained in drug recognition, who gets summoned to the scene.

That's what happened to a 27-year-old Toronto woman in the downtown core last week, when she crashed her Ford Mustang into a stationary car that had just been in a collision and was being examined by police.

After a dialogue with police, she was put through an extensive battery of tests and subsequently charged with drug-impaired driving and with possession of a banned substance - ketamine, a heavy sedative used in both human and veterinary medicine.

Her roadside arrest was one of the first of its kind in Ontario, but is unlikely to be the last.

The drug-testing apparatus uses samples of blood, saliva or urine and is described as extremely reliable, but complex.

With alcohol, signs of impairment are relatively easy to spot.

The biggest giveaway is usually the odour of the booze, harder to disguise than often realized. Slurred speech is another telling signal, along with the inability to walk in a straight line.

But symptoms of drug use are typically far more subtle. And within the Toronto Police Service, there are still only about half a dozen experts fully trained in its intricacies, though several dozen more are in the pipeline.

So what hoops must the suspected drugged-driver jump through?

"It's the full gamut," said Sergeant Tim Burrows of Toronto police's traffic unit. "They do the [alcohol] breath test right away, to eliminate that as a possible factor, then they'll do eye tests, balance co-ordination tests - all the 12 steps."

And if, as happened last week, the suspect shows signs of being high on drugs, there follows a trip to the police station for a detailed examination of what's in his or her system, through analysis of either urine, blood or saliva.

The suspect can choose which of the three tests he or she prefers. In this instance, the woman opted to provide a saliva sample. But it doesn't make much difference, Sgt. Burrows said, because all three fluids will yield an accurate reading.

"There's seven categories of drugs - cannabis, for example, houses marijuana, hash, hash oil - and what they get back [from the results] is the category," he said.

The whole process, he says, is "spectacular. By the time they're done with the person and done all the evaluations, they'll pretty well know that person inside out."

So will there be a sudden flood of drug-impaired drivers before the courts?

Sgt. Burrow's colleague, Constable Brett Dixon, doubts it.

"For most people narcotics are a recreational use, and people who are severely dependent on drugs usually aren't driving," he said.

Ontario Provincial Police launched an aggressive enforcement campaign on major highways over the weekend, but as of last night had yet to compile the number of drivers charged with drug impairment.

There were two deaths on Ontario highways resulting from motorcycle accidents in Huntsville and in the London area. Another three people died Saturday when a pickup truck veered off the road and rolled over about 30 kilometres outside Renfrew, northwest of Ottawa.

--------------------------------------------------------
Police exercise new law targeting drivers on drugs

TIMOTHY APPLEBY

October 14, 2008

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081014.DRIVING14/TPStory/National
 
Good. I hope Canada realizes how much money and time they are wasting with something so worthless.

Instead of the PD spending money on all of these ridiculous tests, why not legalize drugs and tax it to gain money?

Or am I missing something here?
 
I feel/act high even when I'm sober. Granted I'm not Canadian, how would this affect me if I was? Would I ever be able to drive?
 
Jester-Race said:
Good. I hope Canada realizes how much money and time they are wasting with something so worthless.

Instead of the PD spending money on all of these ridiculous tests, why not legalize drugs and tax it to gain money?

Or am I missing something here?

As a citizen of Canada, the only real concern I have with drug legalization is the difficulty of stopping impaired drivers. Even if drugs were legalized and taxed, as you put it, it wouldn't preclude testing for impaired driving. As far as I'm concerned, this is a step forward. People should be free to do drugs specifically BECAUSE it doesn't hurt anyone else. Impaired driving goes directly against this idea. How could ANYONE feel entitled to drive when completely fucked on drugs?
 
Last edited:
JUST DON"T DO HARD DRUGS AND DRIVE!!! I totally agree with that!! Even though I am very very to my hearts soul dedicated to let people "Live and Let Live," an automobile is not a toy and if YOU FUCK"N PEOPLE CAN"T EVEN DRIVE SOBER USING A CELL PHONE, then I couldn't god dam imagine what some of you people drive like while high on hard sedatives like ketamine... I MEAN WHO THE FUCK DRIVES ON D KETAMINE!/!?! This lady deserves what she gets, I just hope the punishment isn't worse than the crime leading the accused to be financially tortured and ruined by the unrelentless empty stomach for the money of its people. I have driven stoned probably about 1000 times in my life and never had an accident, not even one!!!! I swear on my life!! This is because of practice and being comfortable with oneself using such a medicine as cannabis. Its extremelly rare that you see somebody kill somebody else, or seriously total there car on cannabis.... PERIOD! Even Dr. Weil the renowned Holistic Medical Doctor with his new Book, Chocolate to Morphine, will describe whe a medicinal cannabis and regular user of cannabis who uses the drug often, begins to fine a level of comfort using the drug which in turn can be practiced and perfected and be used to operate motor vehicles saftley... WITHOUT A DOUBT THIS IS TRUE!!! I"M A LIVING EXAMPLE!!! Although I do not smoke nearly half as much as I used to in my early twenty's and teen years, once I hit 27 really everything slowed down and I realized what was really important in my life. I rarelly do drive stoned now a days but when I do, I am not a dangerous weapon on the road, if anything I"m a way way way for careful and aware driver than most people who drive sober... Just look at the socer mom with the cell phone and 3 kids in the car racing to get to practice and honking at all that are in there way.... Look at the busy multi millionaire in his bently or benz with a cell phone to his ear and flying down a 30-45 mph zone. These people don't signal and disregard the law.


A PERSON UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CANNABIS, or low dosage of opiates should not be the target unless they cannot handle there drug by there ability shown to operate a motor vehicle safely. Most can, and for the few that cannot, well then you deserve what you get..... When you risk the lives of innocent people in anyway I feel the arm of justice should come into play!!! If you self medicate and live a peaceful life in your own domaine where you pay for, and help contribute to the economy, well then thats another story.... IMO Most drugs are ok, and should be legal and available to purchase legally threwe the gov't..... But when you are under the influence and then get into a "CAR," well then, I consider you a possible "VIOLENT," offender. Its a fine line.... Ketamine should defenatly not be aloud to be used while driving, its more dangerous than alcohol almost.... it makes so dizzy and slow.... this lady makes all look bad who ever used a substance...
 
E-llusion said:
The suspect can choose which of the three tests he or she prefers. In this instance, the woman opted to provide a saliva sample. But it doesn't make much difference, Sgt. Burrows said, because all three fluids will yield an accurate reading.
[/url]
Speaking from multiple personal experiences I have to say that saliva samples are not nearly as accurate as urine or blood. Four times I've taken and passed saliva tests. All four times I had smoked weed up until the night before. Two of those times I had done oxy less then 48 hours before, and one of those two times it was a twelve-panel test. Maybe my spit is just special or something. It's just word of mouth but I've heard you pretty much have to be high at the time to fail (for pot at least) a saliva test. Anybody else experience this?
 
Let me think about this,
Lets say i drive 300 km per week ( week ends included )
For sur 275 km of those im high, other 25 im strugglin to roll a joint while driving.
Way2goharper?
 
Oh Canada.
I wonder if I should take Canada off my list of countries to expatriate to...
 
Yeah,shit man. I smoke pretty much every day. Usually I don't drive while high but I don't think people should be punished for something they did last night after a nights sleep.

If they can accurately assess impairment at the time then I guess I'm OK with it. I wonder if it will hold up once someone challenges it in court? That will be the test. Especially with cannabis.
 
What if I smoked yesterday and get pulled over while sober today and get tested? Cannabis can stay in the system for quite a while. I protest I was sober but they say the tests show otherwise. How will they be able to tell if I'm high or not?

edit: I realize another poster may have already raised this point....damn hahah


We must get the scientists working on the tube technology! bout time eh?
 
when she crashed her Ford Mustang into a stationary car that had just been in a collision and was being examined by police.

ok, lets be honest, its not about "how I can be a little high and still be fine"

They aren't pulling people over because they suspect them of being on drugs, its cause they are driving badly. Now, whether they are driving badly because of alcohol or because of drugs isn't really the issue beyond Canada's need to be able to prove that you were driving inebriated. and if driving inebriated makes you do stuff like ^^^^ then Im all for reliable field tests.

That being said, im sure canada is better than WI, when the cops would pull us over basically because we were teenagers, make up an excuse, then search our vehicles. If they had had a reliable roadside test for drugs, they damn sure would have used it and alot of relatively innocent people would be in jail right now.
 
Opioid420z said:
A PERSON UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CANNABIS, or low dosage of opiates should not be the target unless they cannot handle there drug by there ability shown to operate a motor vehicle safely. Most can, and for the few that cannot, well then you deserve what you get.....

You see, that's the issue here, if you smoked a joint 2 days b4, and for unrelated reason got into an accident but you 'look like a stoner' hence they test you, comes back positive and you get convicted for 'drug driving' even though you well know you were not under the influence at the time of accident.

I do not condone drugged/drunken driving of any kind, but above example illustrates how this legislation could be stretched to convict completely innocent drivers.
 
I love seeing some hippity fuck that dont know shit doing a report on the local police stations.

THey always make some remark thats so uninformed. AND to add to it quiting the cop he says there all accurate LOL he is a funny guy. I think he knew just as well that saliva test sucks and if the cop kept them around long enough on the side of the road and shit theres no way they gonna catch him with a saliva.

AS for driving on k....I dunno I personaly havent bc ied be scared ied nod off or something maybe and wreck lol. I did drive and drink ALOT BUT I STOPPED.and i still went to jail, Its rather fun to drive on diffrent drugs I drove on acid one time and my car was stuck on a crub, i dont think i made it more than a mileodly enough i was laughing so hard usualy i just get a sover driver to take me around places with i do rc's or trip on something its more fun for me
a TExas highway patrol man stopped me one night and took me to jail bc he thought i was on prescription drugs. I was completely sober but now they can take blood at a correctional center, so I refused. and It should be dropped soon the judge laughed at the tape.

ANd they do it alot.
I get pulled over and everytime the cops
Where are you going, Where are u coming from, Do you have anything in the car, Have u been arrested,
and sure enough if u give them the wrong answers they call the prob cause to search and then if they catch u with some shit they try for a drug test and if not your also charged with dui. I always thought canada had fairer laws then america but I guess now they will becom just as fucked up or maybe at least the cops
 
You see, that's the issue here, if you smoked a joint 2 days b4, and for unrelated reason got into an accident but you 'look like a stoner' hence they test you, comes back positive and you get convicted for 'drug driving' even though you well know you were not under the influence at the time of accident.


Yep, that will be the test.

Some poor sucker is going to have to fight it right up to the supreme court. They already know cannabis stays in the system for ages. They will need to prove inebriation at the time of the accident.

I suppose that is what all those stupid balance tests and touch your hand to your nose bullshit is supposed to solve.

My bet is it will be found unconstitutional, a violation of privacy and quack science unless they can come up with a reliable, replicable test that doesn't pick up last weeks toke.
 
Why don't they just lock up the drivers who cause accidents, be they sober or not, and leave everyone else alone?!?!?! The otherwise law abiding citizen who is caught driving while slightly under the influence is treated more harshly than a bad driver who causes a death!
 
Why don't they just lock up the drivers who cause accidents, be they sober or not, and leave everyone else alone?!?!?!
Ummm, because a lot are unintentional and don't cause any physical harm?
 
demand non-chemical sobriety tests!

I think a better way to go about sobriety testing would be to come up with a procedure to test drivers' awareness, reflexes, ability to understand signs and directions pertinent to driving, etc., and leave out chemical tests altogether. Driving ability is the issue in question when drivers are evaluated for sobriety, so test it directly.

In reality it doesn't matter what chemicals an individual has in their blood, it matters how those chemicals affect their ability to drive. Marijuana is a perfect case of this: When some people get high they trip out - they're in another world - they're seriously dangerous if they get behind the wheel. On the other hand, for many people, smoking ganja causes little or no impairment - less of an effect than the distraction of talking on a cell phone or adjusting the radio. I'm pretty confident that there's even a significant minority who drive better w/ a little cannabis.

My general point also holds true with alcohol - there is no question that you could find someone who is a menace to society if they drive at a BAC of .03, but you could also find some rare individual who is not impaired after two 40's of Old English. There is enough individual variation that laws specifying illegal chemicals and concentrations necessarily miss their mark. Any given chemical standard will both land functionally sober people in jail and exonerate some people who really shouldn't be driving.

Maybe the 12 step test they talk about could be a good start towards relying more on actual tests of impairment than on chemical tests. They just need to expand on that and eliminate the saliva/breath/blood tests entirely. If somebody's trying to drive while functionally intoxicated we should be able to prosecute them whether or not they fail a drug/alcohol screening; if they're functionally sober, then they're not doing anything legitimately wrong.

It's a shame MADD & other off-the-deep-end prohibitionist groups would oppose anything like what I'm proposing, because if properly implemented it would actually make our roads safer while promoting personal responsibility in regards to alcohol and other drugs.
 
I got arrest for "drugged driving"..... in the us that is.... my passenger got caught with weed. He accused us of being high, seperated us and said my boy said we had been smoking all night long (which I knew was a lie, in fact I wasnt high on weed he had just picked some up.... I was on heroin) and I refused blood tests and spent 4 days locked up cause I had max bond and I lost my license for a whole year for refusing the blood test...... and I still won the case...... bullshit. :X :X :X
 
Top