www.ckom.com/2024/05/09/cannabis-confusion-sask-drivers-grapple-with-zero-tolerance-law/
Sask. drivers grapple with zero-tolerance cannabis law
Analysismonths for some bodies
As a daily user, after work when I don’t need to drive, I will always have THC in my system. I’d legitimately like to do a blood test to see what my sober daily levels are at. I’d never drive high but I also don’t want to be accused of driving high due to my daily use
It's not about being impaired or high. It's about using a no-no substance according to the province.
You’d show a high level of thc in your blood, whether you feel stoned or not. And even if you didn’t use weed for two weeks, you’d probably still test positive. I’m also a daily user and tried it once during a t-break. 2 weeks in and I was positive for thc.
Same!! And building off of this how those levels change during and after hard exercise. THC is absorbed into fat, and if I’m burning fat to keep the legs spinning when going out for a 120km bike ride, am I high on more than just endorphins and life? Would be cool to know
If I didn't smoke weed for a month I would still fail a blood test. 🤣
I'm a daily pot smoker, I wouldn't smoke and drive even if I'm pretty sure I could do it safely, albeit stupidly slowly.
I recently got prescribed gabapentin though, and it makes me dizzy, and go "whoah, I shouldn't be driving". But nowhere on the bottle does it say "do not take this and drive". My doctor didn't warn me not to drive. Nor did my pharmacist. And I doubt there's any roadside test for this drug.
Weird priorities. As long as a doctor gives it to me I can drive high I guess.
Same with getting alot of jobs, you have to quit or cheat the tests.
Saskatchewan
That should say it all
Yeah, until there's a chemical test that can specify exactly when you last smoked, this is what there is. Better safe than simply let people smoke weed and operated heavy machinery and cars.
Cant stop getting high? Get used to riding the bus.
14 hours after smoking...don't even care about impairment and will suspend your license for the the presence alone. That's pretty maddening.
But apparently this is how it also works in Ontario? They just don't do arbitrary roadside tests like they are in Saskatchewan
Ontario quickly, smartly, did away with the so-called roadside testing kit that was rushed to market. The Crown was having an impossible time proving the accuracy or effectiveness of the results. Expert witnesses were being called to disprove claims about “if it’s in your body you’re impaired” and cases, that are hybrid-offences most judges don’t want clogging the overworked system anyway, got tossed. Not to mention the vast difference in public safety impact between alcohol and marijuana and operating motor vehicles (both are bad don’t do either).
You can still absolutely get arrested for driving while high in Ontario, it’s just not what the police are after around here. It’s the fries with your arrest order.
Like i always say, if you’re gonna do something illegal just stick to 1 thing at a time.
One crime at a time!
This message has been brought to you by McGruff the Crime Dog!
This is truly the way.
Nah, go big or go home!
Is the law the same that the detection limit is 0?
It doesn’t seem like impairment even appears relevant to the issue in SK. The law is you can’t have a detectable level of the substance in your body so actual impairment is besides the point (according to police and presumably the province).
It’s now 2-5 ng/ml blood = Official Caution (not charged but you’re in the system now) Over 5 ng/ml is DUI.
Your blood has to be tested at the station (unless they have one of their big ride check trailers up) so you’d still have to fail the vibe check once pulled over for a random stop.
In case you didn't know, you're already "in the system" as soon as you're stopped. Your warning, your every interaction with police is "in the system" for them.
Blood THC levels are proven to be arbitrary in terms of measuring impairment. So you can be over or under 5 ng and be sober or be impaired. Blood THC only reliably tells you someone invested THC within the last week.
You aren't getting criminal charges though. This sgi wanting these tests. And people are only getting a suspended license, their car impounded and left on the side of the road for a ride. That's why this is so messed up. I get if someone is impaired, yeah they need to get them off the road, but that's not what's happening here
Makes sense. No test would ever work, or hold up in court.
I think the issue is in SK, the law is about presence of the substance in your body. Nothing to do with impairment. So it apparently does hold up
Our premier killed someone and left the scene of an accident. No criminal charges, no loss of drivers license. Yet I can have my license suspended if I smoke marijuana within 72 hours of driving. 🧐
Welcome to Saskatchewan
So SK took the legally allowed but imo underhanded route. Same as what Ontario did to “get around” separation of powers with drink driving punishments.
The theory goes driving is a regulated activity with no statutory right. The provinces are free to impose and enforce whatever requirements they deem fit to authorize use and access of public motorways. So, SK has said “we’re not even bothering engaging with impairment level vs blood content. Part of the rules for being allowed to drive now include having zero cannabinoids in your bloodstream. Don’t like it, take a bus.”
imo it ends up being a weird bit of constitutional overreach that’s saved by its purpose and the fact “driving laws” start getting into the messier areas of how we approach/draft/enforce the criminal law in Canada. It’s arguably applying a criminal sanction for a regulatory offence but involves an area of law dealing with quasi-criminal activity. There’s probably one or two appeals working their way through the SK system but, if it’s like ON, they’ll fail. Appellate judges here were open to the “even if this is barely constitutional, it’s in line with a framework the Court has been fine with for decades and serves the greater public good of safe streets.”
Actually kinda fascinating because it’s really one of the few areas where all the fictions of how the law functions in practice smash into each other.
Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
I like this TED talk! Can I bother you for any background reading. I’m curious
Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise by Stewart and Manson combined with Drinking and Driving Law in Canada by Doroshenko and Lee. The latter just for a more detailed explanation of how these offences are legally/constitutionally constructed and administered.
I’d contact the research help email for your nearest law library and ask if you could get excerpts from books or just recommended a targeted primer piece or journal articles on the subject of like “division of powers and legal enforcement as it relates to the constitutionality and enactment of criminal sanctions for regulatory offences and the concept of the quasi-criminal law.”
You could also just say fuck it, blow $120k and get it all taught to you over 3 years but ultimately end up forgetting half. Not recommended.
This is one of those the pearl clutchers don't care if rights are trampled on because DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE
Except it stays in your system for months ffs lol
Until someone court challenges it.
You can't challenge what's happening right now. You aren't given criminal charges, and it states that zero tolerance, so you can't appeal. It's sgi who is taking your license and car, not the police. They are the ones that got the police to give out the tests on their behalf if a driver breaks a law. They are trying to get a lawyer to go after sgi for breaking the rights of people since the police are only suppose to administer these tests if there is signs of intoxication. Not every person who speeds or runs a stop sign.
The thing is this is sgi requiring them, not the police so you don't get criminal charges and can't go to court to fight it. And there's officers that have told people they clearly aren't impaired but did the test anyways and they got their license suspended.
Very stupid. Enforcement should be about impairment. That’s the whole point.
The whole point of this law is to try to make people afraid to actually use cannabis despite it being legal.
Sounds like Saskatchewan has lots of free time in its justice system, because these cases are easier to beat than a radar gun ticket if you're not actually visibly impaired.
You can't beat it if it's not a criminal charge. Police aren't charging you with anything. They are testing you because sgi told them to and sgi has zero tolerance rules.
I guess they figure it’s worth it to try to deter people from using cannabis. They can’t make it directly illegal since that’s a federal matter, so this is their way of trying to do it indirectly.
I don't get why they're trying so hard. Most of the evidence out there says cannabis users aren't a danger on the roads. It doesn't cut their inhibitions like alcohol or hard drugs can, it makes them terrified of driving so they drive at like 5kph, which is stupid and annoying, but way less of a threat than someone on prescription painkillers, which isn't enforced and has no roadside test.
It has nothing to do with driver safety, and everything to do with wanting to discourage people from partaking in cannabis in general.
You are so wrong.
About which?
I guess they figure it’s worth it to try to deter people from using cannabis. They can’t make it directly illegal since that’s a federal matter, so this is their way of trying to do it indirectly.
This is exactly why people say decriminalization is often better than legalized. Legalizing it, brings all types of bag of worms with it.
It's the same thing with prostitution, places that are legalized, often have more cases or abuse of bringing people in through the sex trade vs decriminalization.
Ontario only has zero tolerance for cannabis in certain cases, specifically drivers under 21, drivers without their full licence and drivers of certain commercial vehicles.
See and that's what sask should have. Not what's actually happening. Medical users have been around legally before anything was legal. No one was worried then because police looked for impairment. So now the people who need it and are responsible to not drive high are the ones affected the most.
Yes, but the feds were the ones that made that possible.
Meanwhile in BC whenever I got the grocery store I can get a big whiff of the people smoking up in their vehicles as I walk through the parking lot...
They just don't do arbitrary roadside tests like they are in Saskatchewan
OPP in the Toronto area is.
If your a heavy chronic user dun that stuff aty in the system for like 30 days I have no idea I don't smoke
Depends on your metabolism and body fat content. The levels in the blood can fluctuate and increase if the person decided to diet, and never feel high but still fail a test. Super heavy users can take up to 4 months, add to that large reserves and you theoretically could go a year for some bodies.
Honestly, I think if it's truly impairing the driver, then it will cause said driver to commit other offences that they can be pulled over and ticketed for. In those cases, the impaired driver will likely give off signs that they aren't fit to drive.
This. But sgi says they need swabbed and alcohol tested no matter what if they get pulled over. They aren't leaving that part up to the police like they should be
In SK, cannabis driving laws aren’t about impairment, they’re about the substance being detected in your body. So if you smoke weed before bed one night, you can get pulled over sober 3-4 days later and have your license revoked and vehicle impounded. This is happening to people.
While the process seems murky to some, the Saskatoon Police Service said the law is clear. In Saskatchewan, there is a zero-tolerance law for driving with drugs in your body.
And from CBC:
A veteran Saskatoon criminal defence lawyer says frequent cannabis users are correct to be concerned. Mark Brayford said he knows many cannabis users see the driving laws and application as unfair.
"If you're smoking pot four times a week, you're going to have to resign yourself that you can't legally drive a car. It's that simple," he said in an interview.
Totally a technique to punish cannabis users and nothing to do with safety. Puritan SK laws in a province where many MLAs have drinking and driving offenses and the premier literally killed someone drinking and driving. Brutal.
Edit to add: Correction, it’s not proven that he was impaired when he killed her, though he wasn’t tested and has two previous DUIs. So people will think what they think.
Someone needs to take this to the Supreme Court. The only reason anything should be illegal to drive on in the first place is because it causes impairment. Claiming not to care about impairment kind of undermines the whole justification thing for laws and stuff. Like, you literally ensure the only possible reasons for enforcing this law are your own shits and giggles.
The people with means to fight this generally don't have the issue. Police target poor people.
I used to say "Saskatchewan has more churches than grams of weed" before legalization. A very vocal number of people are really against weed in Saskatchewan, or at least a large number of people are very opinionated about saying what people should be able to do. It is pretty funny considering how much they love to drink and drive in that province. Buncha religious hippocrates.
I wonder how much money they make from impounding fees, too.
There have been two kinds of cops since legalization; the kind that either got advance word it was coming down the pipeline and started investing in/opening their own cannabis businesses after a career of giving people criminal records for smoking it, and cops like the ones in SK who are apparently still stuck in the 'jazz cabbage melts your brain and turns you into a psychopath' era of drug control.
Reminds me of that add with the guy in the drive through lane. That could have been produced by the director of "Reefer Madness".
"Jazz cabbage" is a new one on me. Bravo.
It's become a favourite. Rolls off the tongue.
And here I was all smug when I heard about "the electric lettuce."
Lmfao I love "jazz cabbage" and it's totally making its way into my vernacular.
On the take or not on the take.
"There have been two kinds of cops since legalization; the kind that either got advance word it was coming"
Advance word as in the Liberal leader saying he would legalize it if elected, getting elected then pushing forth the legislation?
As in the police and politicians who got advanced word when plans were set in motion, and prior to a public announcement.
Look it up, you might be surprised who partook in insider trading.
There was a whole bunch of steps that the process took, and if anyone didn't see it coming, then that's on them. It's not like the government just met privately with politicians and law enforcement, had some secret meetings, then announced one day "we're going to legalize weed!"
Again, as in 'prior to any public announcement'.
Insider trading.
Ok, so what do you consider to be the "public announcement"? The first time Trudeau said that if his party won, he'd legalize weed? The introduction of legislation? If you couldn't see it coming, you're probably not suited for business.
"I have to do what my boss tells me." There's no morality. They are hired goons.
I smell a Charter case coming...
and the premier literally killed someone drinking and driving.
Small correction: The premier has convictions for drinking and driving, and he was involved in an accident where someone died, but there's no actual evidence that alcohol was involved in the fatal collision.
He left the scene after he was involved in a fatal collision and left a child in the car with his dead mother.
Fuck Scott Moe.
Holy fuck I didn’t know this. What an absolute sack of shit.
How the hell did he get elected?
Originally he wasn't elected, he was appointed the position when brad wall stepped down.
Since then he has been re elected, lots of die hard Sask party people here.
Have you ever talked to the Saskatchewan electorate? As long as he isn't brown it's ok to do vehicular manslaughter.
You’re right. It’s hard to keep up with all the offenses.
But five years after his first drunk driving arrest and three years after his second drunk driving arrest, Moe was involved in a third incident in 1997, a horrific accident near his family’s farm outside Shellbrook which killed a woman named Joanne Balog…
Moe has denied alcohol was a factor in the 1997 crash.
I was told he drinking at his house shortly after. Couldn't prove he was drunk before and now he is seen drinking as an alibi.
Can't wait for someone with a medical MJ license to take this thing to court and get this overturned
This is pretty sad. There are so many things that can lead to worse driving impairment - like say, having completely ass-cardio and being tired all the time.
So cannabis producers should work on developing technology to allow law enforcement to adequately test for impairment.
Well, anyone could— not sure cannabis producers are tech / human physiology experts. Though you’d think legislators would hold off on throwing the book at people until such tech exists.
Thr vastly better solution to this is to test/evaluate for impairment directly rather than inferring it.
Being too tired should carry an equally heavy penalty to being DUI.
That sounds like asking a bakery to control people’s diabetes!
That's insane. They shouldn't be giving people dui's and impounding their cars until they can accurately test for impairment.
Thousands of people are going to end up with unwarranted DUI's. People are going to lose their jobs due to suspended licenses.
Edit: no idea why my reply posted a million times lmfao
Our construction safety organization was trying to find a breathalyzer for weed, and wanted to make that a mandatory course for managers lol. It clearly didn't go through
When this shit was legalized, even the freaking Army was fine with it as long as you didn't smoke 24 hours before operating a vehicle or 12 hours before your shift.
If they can't accurately test, then they shouldn't be testing at all. The law should be about impairment rather than just a substance being detectable in your body.
Cannabis isn't a new thing. Everyone knows it can be detected quite a long time after all the effects have gone away.
24 hours is the standard for the RCMP (as of this year). If it’s good enough for the RCMP, it should be good enough for everybody.
Honestly, I think the RCMP should be held to a higher standard than civilians. Pretty much no one is impaired by weed even just 6-8 hours after smoking. 24 hours still would essentially mean a driving ban for a ton of people.
Smoking a joint when you get home from work at 6 pm would mean you aren't allowed to drive yourself to work the next morning.
Edit: no idea why my reply posted a million times lmfao
The admins are high right now. Reddit's posting isn't working.
Test all the cops. Lets see how many of them are "drug free"
Most firefighters and emergency responders I know are cannabis users— many of them daily users, related to PTSD. Apparently SK politicians think they should all lose their jobs
As a paramedic in Ontario I can confirm lots of medics use cannabis outside of work for pain, stress or enjoyment. Our direction from management when it was legalized was to show up sober and ready to do your job. Same as with alcohol and it was left at that.
Wild that in Saskatchewan that advice would be telling your workers to potentially break the law
At least it isn't a DUI. Its an impoundment and a fine, and demerits. And a course. But it isn't a federal charge like blowing over can be.
Not that it's not stupid and unfair
I wonder if a medical exemption applies in this law?
Not that I know of and not based on the Bartlett anecdote in this cbc article
This is still the same province with a Premiere that got drunk and killed someone?
Apparently he says he wasn’t drunk when he killed her but he wasn’t tested either. Does have 2 DUIS tho
And besides the premier,
Almost 10% of Sask. Party candidates have been convicted of drunk driving
So it's not surprising they're not calling for zero tolerance for alcohol despite that having around ten times the crash risk of cannabis.
The very same.
These tests do not measure impairment, at best, they measure lifestyle. Cannabis detection actually measures “metabolites” of thc in the body What is a metabolite? When a drug has been consumed, the body breaks down the drug, in order to eliminate the drug from the body. During this “breakdown” chemical alteration to the main drug occurs and therefore creates a different substance; a metabolite
So if you take the test while you’re high(before it breaks down) it could have a negative reading?
A little ironic as Scott Moe has frequently got behind the wheel hammered, that the same government is against someone driving a week after having a joint.
Between this, and some other issues with sask, it's become clear the Moe government creates rules/law shaped by their personal morality code, not based on any science or common sense.
They also are liable to change direction at the drop of a hat (or more accurately at the deposit of an out of province political donation)
Anyone else getting real tired of people being dicks for the sake of being dicks?
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read about. I have seen people get hammered one night, and be super hungover the next day and driving. Even being hungover from alcohol slows your reflexes, impairs your judgment and ability to react or problem solve. Nothing would happen to them if police pulled them over.
Yet, someone who is completely sober the next day after one evening joint can lose their license? Insanity. Another backwards decision from the Scott Moe government.
This is already a thing for truck drivers, 0 tolerance. Smoking weed and driving is a DUI, regardless. The problem is they have no limits to how much weed is too much for a person while testing saliva, two to five-nanograms-per-millilitre of THC in a person's blood was set by Ottawa as the limit, everyone is different and has a different tolerance to weed. If someone has low tolerance, such as a first time user, they could be impaired while a seasoned smoker would be fine. It will be up to the cops discretion as to make judgment if someone is impaired, nothing changes. If a cop has suspicions that you are impaired from anything you will be tested and possibly detained and charged, nothing has changed. And after a heavy night of drinking then driving in the morning could most definitely lead to a DUI, it’s happened to others I know.
My understanding is that the laws against impaired driving are separate from driving with detectable cannabis or cocaine in your system.
Having some sort of impaired driving laws is reasonable. Having laws that don't even care about impairment, that are virtually impossible for the average person to measure and therefore assess the risk of driving is not reasonable and breaches multiple principles of fundamental justice. In my opinion. Which is not legal advice.
- Take a cab, have a friend drive you, take transit.
Impaired driving doesn't just mean alcohol.
The real problem with the new DUI laws that were implemented shortly after cannibis was legalized is that the process of testing for impairment is basically voodoo magic.
You stand there and follow a light back and forth with your eyes, sometimes for minutes. If your eyes don't track smoothly even once, it's a sign of impairment.
Then after bouncing your eyes back and forth for a while and making you dizzy, they put you through some walking / balance tests. You make a single mistake, it's a sign of impairment.
I've seen videos of people who performed these tests perfectly, and were still arrested. If a cop is convinced you're impaired, they'll always see signs, and will testify to it. It's ultimately up to their judgement. They will do a blood draw and can blame any substance in your system (even caffeine) for your impairment.
The tests are subjective for a reason, the cop can always claim he saw something suspicious
Start of recriminalization
I suspect this sort of thing is a constitutional challenge waiting to happen, given how unreliable testing can be.
Of course, this is Saskatchewan, where the constitution is optional. Good luck, friends.
The leader of the opposition is practically encouraging conservative governments to treat it as optional. Our institutions weren't built to handle bad faith.
Zero tolerance is rarely workable. However Trudeau legalized it and we know Moe feels about him.
To test to see if they are currently high the officer should place a piping hot pizza pocket next to the driver, and then measure pupil dilation.
CBD they can't detect correct?
Not that it really does anything.
Most CBD products has some THC in it.
Isn't CBD a counter or a neutralizer to THC though?
For example if you have had to much THC and you are greening out or you have the spins... don't they say you can take CBD to bring the high down?
Yes, but as per the article:
Staff Sergeant Patrick Barbar, who spent more than a decade with the Saskatoon police traffic unit, said there is a common misconception when it comes to roadside testing for cannabis.
“When we do a drug swab for THC, that’s not testing for impairment. You can’t test for impairment with a machine. We’re testing for presence of THC,” he explained.
Well, if the entire point is no inebriating substances at all, then anyone with a cold who took some medication before going to work should probably not do that either. Says right on the label not operate any sort of vehicle or heavy machinery.
Saskatchewan has a lot of allergens, so allergy meds are commonly taken, even when they don't need them... (some can be abused).
Since that group can no longer drive, they no longer can work despite taking a perfrctly legal substance, cause they can't get to work. The commute is too far to walk, bike and there is no transit unless you are in a city.
Now, let's bring the drunks into the conversation.
Enough said.
Barbar said individual use guidelines don’t exist, and won’t be issued any time soon because everyone’s body is different.
Gee. Maybe this wouldn't be a problem if we actually tested for impairment. Of course, then we would discover just how many "impaired" people, actually aren't, and how many "unimpaired" people should probably never operate a motor vehicle at all, sober or not.
Weed now virtually illegal in sask! Woo.
Another draconian law, brought to you by the party of small government!
So the SK premier - Scott Moe - killed someone due to his own shitty driving and passes this law. And wouldn't comment when asked about it. A coward and a massive hypocrite.
https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/saskatoon/2020/10/6/1_5134917.html
Anyone else beginning to think that most of our elected leaders in this country are garbage people?
Sask has always been backwards there. Nice people but a little behind the times.
The provincial government is ideologically and morally driven in basically every aspect of their governance.
Another reason to not be in SK
Sadly not helpful for those of us who live here and are trying to make the place better
It's Criminal law, so federal not provincial. Applies in BC too.
No, the zero tolerance rule is Saskatchewan-specific legislation.
That's why the RCMP officer in the article was so emphatic that when they impound your car and suspend your license, no criminal charges are laid, the punishments are purely administrative in nature and appeals are not in court, but a quasi-judicial "independent board" known as the Highway Traffic Board.
Ottawa set a threshold for criminal consequences at two to five-nanograms-per-millilitre of THC in a person's blood, but roadside swabs test for THC in saliva, not blood.
It's up to the provinces and territories to decide how to enforce THC-related driving laws. Saskatchewan adopted a zero tolerance policy. Drivers who test positive for THC on a roadside test face an immediate suspension.
Thank you for this, Op. ✌️
Fucking unhinged MADD zealots!
No amount of arbitrary vengeance will turn back the clock.
Are the cops that bored?
Doesn't even make sense. I never drive while impared but I've been smoking semi regular for years, would never pass one of these tests lol
Well shit, who should we vote for to fix this lol?
Ndp should step it up. It’s been their historic efforts that got cannabis legalized in the first place!
I would need public promises, and the vote is theirs, sick of hairbrained reefer madness bs.
Yuppp. It’s an easy vote grab and easy fix. Use your supply and confidence agreement to do something easy and useful. Sask NDP can grow even an ounce of courage and run on doing the same on their end
Yeah, I mean, at this point I would vote in Hitler himself if he promised it.
Hey don't hate, it's basically what's in power right now. Half the province smokes it, and these maniacs want all their licenses lol.
funny how much less problematic it was when it wasn't legalized
This is beyond absurd. You could literally shoot heroin the evening before and pass, but fail because you smoked a joint 2 days ago.
There has to be a base line established.
This is health Canada's fault for putting in dumb values for impairment. And Sask is just following it to the last xtreme. Health Canada fucks most things up just look how they dropped the ball last year with baby Tylenol. Health Canada should update this but they won't
The Liberals should update this if they want to responsibly bring in cannabis legislation that doesn’t cause undue harm to people.
Sask NDP, go make the Liberal-NDP coalition do something about it. Cannabis is a classic NDP issue.
It was better in Saskatchewan when it was illegal!
Pierre Poutine will make pot illegal again. It’s written on the wall.
And give up the tax revenue? Hardly.
Nor to mention killing small businesses and putting people out of work.
If it made such good sense economically why were they so very staunchly opposed to it?
Ideology.
Yeah abortions too probably. Anything the Republicans do gives him an erection.
How will he get to that with gay marriage, abortion and all the other stuff that gets brought up before every election to ban first? Or will he just go straight for the weed?
He can do all of those with enough time. Poilievre is one of the least wacko in the Conservative party and that says a lot.
I switched my down vote to an up vote. That was pretty good.
Obviously, this is a problem, but how are people getting 'caught'? If you're driving normally and don't admit to smoking weed 2 days before, how could they have probable cause to get a blood draw?
They use the unreliable cheek swab not the blood draw, which they can do roadside. They often set up random checks on weekends— and they’ll for sure have a random check stop on the highway headed to the lakes next weekend for May long.
Apparently Saskatoon police are stopping people who leave dispensaries but Regina police have confirmed they are not doing so.
Cop just has to claim he can smell cannabis and test you. Dude posted recently about having a new car and not smoking in 15 years and cop still tested him.
If you smoked within the last few days the swab test will show that and give them cause to test your blood. Now you have a DUI.
Cops in canada have pretty insane power if you look deep into the laws that they have to follow. Even recently with sask making a breathalyzer mandatory without reasonable cause is similar.
I don't think anyone should drink and drive but it is abit crazy that a cop can pull you over if you are driving fine and say "you were driving eradically" and breathalyze you.
Same goes for cannabis, cops barely need probable cause here, how often it happens I don't know but it is technically possible.
Even if you are being interrogated by a cop at a station, they don't have to stop talking to you if you request a lawyer. They just get in contact with your lawyer then keep questioning you.
Agreed. We have mandatory breathalyzer testing in Alberta for any infraction.
Know a guy who got pulled over last year for a burnt out tail light, bam breathalyzer.
He passed, but cop had zero reason to believe he was impaired. If you deny the breathalyzer, that's an automatic dui. The logic being if you were sober you would have no reason to decline a test.
Now, I've never killed anyone, but if the cops could randomly search my house for evidence any time they wanted, and if denying them entry without a warrant or probably cause meant I automatically got charged with murder, I would be pretty upset.
The mandatory alcohol test is in the federal criminal code. The zero tolerance for THC in your system regardless of impairment is unique to Saskatchewan.
It’s random stops and testing. Even if you say you don’t smoke weed.
We have random alcohol and drug driver testing in Australia (as in they pull you over randomly at a road stop, no reasonable suspicion of impairment needed). The random alcohol testing I agree with but the drug testing is a disgrace. This is coming from someone who’s only taken recreational drugs a couple of times their life. Cannabis is still illegal here but medical marijuana is pretty popular.
They say don't drive for six hours after consuming cannabis. 14 hours is almost certainly fine.
no its not. Its completely ridiculous.
Can you just refuse a swab? It's not like it will hold up in any court anyway.
No. It’s a demand not a request. If you refuse you are processed for a refusal which is the same as failing.
Obviously, this is a problem, but how are people getting 'caught'? If you're driving normally and don't admit to smoking weed 2 days before, how could they have probable cause to get a blood draw?
There was a recent CBC article that said three years ago there were about 50 people who lost their licence due to the zero tolerance administrative penalty, then last year it was over 1500. Im assuming that’ll be even higher in 2024. Edit: sorry I thought you said how many people are getting caught. How is that the police have to have a “reasonable suspicion” of drug use and then use a roadside oral swab. Per stories posted repeatedly on here, cops will just say they smell weed and then ask for a swab. There’s no criminal charges it’s just the three day suspension plus fines plus have to attend a DUI class, even though the swab doesn’t show impairment only the presence of thc.
If you read the article, the person interviewed was pulled into a random roadside checkstop and tested. The officer administering the test admitted she was sober and appeared fine.
Canadians are insane.
Mostly just the Tories.
This is essentially a ban on smoking pot if you ever drive a vehicle. It can take days to weeks to pass a test.