Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Washington voters approved legalized marijuana


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#61 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,538 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:36 PM

If someone is greatly influenced under Marijuana, a police officer could find out just by observing their actions. Of course that would not be enough to charge them, but it would be enough for the police officer to dub as suspicious and take that person in for a test. This of course is only if they don't possess some portable technology.

now that it's been deemed legal in 3 states (even if not federally) new tests to determine inebriation will be developed, including portable technology similar to a breathalyzer (in portability/in the field testing, not necessarily a breathing for testing device). the first R&D firm to develop this tech will own a monopoly on what will likely become a multimillion dollar industry, especially as more states follow suit (and eventually federally, once enough states pass their own laws).
  • 0

#62 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,669 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:40 PM

I was however sad to see how easily this passed in comparison to gay and lesbian right to marry.



*Unless you're gay. Then you're on your own :rolleyes:


Agreed for a second I was afraid Washington voters were going to send the message that anyone can get high legally but only straight people can get married. Happily both bills passed in the end.
  • 0

Play Clash on Clans on your phone? Join the CDC Clan "happycanuck".


"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/


#63 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:19 PM

Smoking marijuana can cause cancer.

Smoking cigarettes can cause cancer.

Chewing tobacco can cause cancer.

Going outside can cause cancer.

Smoking pole can cause cancer.

Almost anything can cause cancer.

As far as marijuana is concerned, less chances of cancer from consuming it using other methods besides smoking it.

As far as legality is concerned, it should be legalised and un-taxed. Clueless as to this tax fetish. Laws regulating it's use in public? Yes. Tax it? No.


I like the idea of extracting the THC and making hash, then folks can make brownies instead of having to inhale pot. The crap goes into your lungs at 700 degrees F .
  • 0
Posted Image

#64 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,208 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:22 PM

Good for them. A step in the right direction.
I wish he were able to hold a referendum on the matter. It would pass with flying colours, especially if it were limited to BC.
But that won't happen anytime soon I'm sure.
  • 0

Jagermeister.jpg


#65 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:31 PM

It's a federal issue and with that American republican loving nazi Harper in charge that will never happen.

Edited by Gumballthechewy, 07 November 2012 - 01:37 PM.

  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#66 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,538 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:32 PM

It's a federal issue and with that American loving nazi Harper in charge that will never happen.

unless the feds in america choose to do the right thing and legalize it, that is. if that were to happen you can bet your sweet booty harper would steamroll a legalization bill through ASAP to keep up with america.
  • 0

#67 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:52 PM

unless the feds in america choose to do the right thing and legalize it, that is. if that were to happen you can bet your sweet booty harper would steamroll a legalization bill through ASAP to keep up with america.

Like the federal government in the US, Canada would first have to repudiate the international agreements that pertain including the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (which includes cannabis).

While it is notionally possible under the UN Convention (as some legal academics have argued) to decriminalize small amounts of cannabis for personal possession all activities surrounding its growth, production and distribution would still be subject to criminal laws.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#68 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:14 PM

Like the federal government in the US, Canada would first have to repudiate the international agreements that pertain including the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (which includes cannabis).


I'm thinking there's a good chance Obama will instruct the DEA to give Washington and Colorado an exemption from federal marijuana laws. Now that he's re-elected he doesn't have to worry about the political implications, he is himself a former smoker, and it's within his powers as chief executive. It wouldn't be clearly outside the Single Convention to do so, because the federal laws remain on the books. Besides, the UN has no mechanism of enforcement against America even if they wanted to do something about it, besides writing a strongly worded letter or talking them down in an annual report.

So what's to stop Obama and Federal law enforcement from telling Washington State, okay you guys, you set up your pilot program for comprehensive regulation of marijuana - licensing, production, distribution, sale, all of it - have an exemption, we'll see how it goes for you. Maybe Washington or Colorado's marijuana policy becomes the Romneycare to an eventual federal program - it's happened before.
  • 0

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#69 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:20 PM

I'm thinking there's a good chance Obama will instruct the DEA to give Washington and Colorado an exemption from federal marijuana laws. Now that he's re-elected he doesn't have to worry about the political implications, he is himself a former smoker, and it's within his powers as chief executive. It wouldn't be clearly outside the Single Convention to do so, because the federal laws remain on the books. Besides, the UN has no mechanism of enforcement against America even if they wanted to do something about it, besides writing a strongly worded letter or talking them down in an annual report.

So what's to stop Obama and Federal law enforcement from telling Washington State, okay you guys, you set up your pilot program for comprehensive regulation of marijuana - licensing, production, distribution, sale, all of it - have an exemption, we'll see how it goes for you. Maybe Washington or Colorado's marijuana policy becomes the Romneycare to an eventual federal program - it's happened before.

Seems unlikely as data shows near record high arrest totals for marijuana possession:


Police made 853,838 arrests in 2010 for marijuana-related offenses, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. The annual arrest total is among the highest ever reported by the agency and is nearly identical to the total number of cannabis-related arrests reported in 2009.
According to the report, marijuana arrests now comprise more than one-half (52 percent) of all drug arrests in the United States. An estimated 46 percent of all drug arrests are for offenses related to marijuana possession.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#70 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:01 PM

It's a federal issue and with that American republican loving nazi Harper in charge that will never happen.


Republicans are the opposite fo Nazi's . Republican believe 'might is right' at the individual level and are more in tune to anarchy at the upper levels. No regulation , no rules no nothing.

Nazis were national socialists , and you got all kinds of social benefits,-as long as you were their kind of German that is. If not, well we all know what happened after that.

Jews were considered 'scum' . Ignorant and intellectually weak. Jewish way of thinking was terrible for everyone as a whole. They were greedy parasites who could care less about anyone but their own greed. Jews were to blame for all kinds or wars. It was the jews thinking that got everyone killed. They were war mongers. They were capitalist pigs . Jews had their own 'religion' which was itself ignorant .

Jews were simply bible thumping money grubbing bigots who cling to their guns and religion.and have an antipathy for those not like themselves.

Sound familiar ?
  • 0
Posted Image

#71 butters

butters

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:53 PM

Sound familiar ?


Not really, despite your concerted attempts.
  • 1

#72 No5Butcher

No5Butcher

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined: 11-September 11

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:26 PM

As far as marijuana is concerned, less chances of cancer from consuming it using other methods besides smoking it.

As far as legality is concerned, it should be legalised and un-taxed. Clueless as to this tax fetish. Laws regulating it's use in public? Yes. Tax it? No.


Marijuana will never be made legal without the same sort of sin taxes that we have on liquor and cigarettes being applied. The tax generation is one of the big selling points on making it legal to begin with.
  • 1

#73 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,286 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:29 PM

The government realizes that pot is something people can grow right?

How are they gonna know if the ounce that people are carrying around was grown or bought legally from the government?

Something tells me the government bud will be weak. Just a hunch.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#74 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:29 PM

unless the feds in america choose to do the right thing and legalize it, that is. if that were to happen you can bet your sweet booty harper would steamroll a legalization bill through ASAP to keep up with america.


Don't get your hopes up. Harper has stated that he is allergic to marijuana smoke. You don't really think he would put the will of the majority of the country over his own personal interests, do you?
  • 0

#75 No5Butcher

No5Butcher

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined: 11-September 11

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:31 PM

Next up: Crystal Meth.

'No wai.'

'Yeah? Well that's what they said about pot.'

When it comes to sin taxes, Where do you draw the line? Prostitution? Underground gambling including dog fights etc.? Happy pills? Crack cocaine? Whatever.

Certainly gangsters don't want to lose all these markets to the government, but if pot is legalized, where are these guys going to turn for their profits? Likely harder drugs. Like crystal meth.

In the end, it's a person's choice. You're probably not going to switch from weed to crystal meth. But your kids might be pushed into it a bit harder down the road. We'll see.


If the final outcome of the brothel cases are that they are made legal, I wouldn't be surprised to see them heavily taxed. As for prostitution in general, while it is legal I am unaware of there being any special taxes on it.

And Quebec has shown that you don't need illegal substances for gangsters to find a way to make money.
  • 0

#76 Primus099

Primus099

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:15 PM

Lots of hurdles to get over to make this actually happen. State laws and fedral laws are different. The DEA can at any time come and arrest anyone they want and detain them for any amount of pot they have on them because marijuana is still considered a schedule 1 drug federally.
  • 0

#77 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,538 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:34 PM

The government realizes that pot is something people can grow right?

How are they gonna know if the ounce that people are carrying around was grown or bought legally from the government?

Something tells me the government bud will be weak. Just a hunch.

just like people can grow tobacco and make their own alcohol, laws prevent them from doing so though. growers will be sanctioned and controlled. and as long as there is more than 1 grower, there will be competition for "the best" weed, meaning they will be trying to grow the best (strongest) they can. of course there will be some crappy discount stuff out there trying to capitalize on cheap consumers, but there will still be the custom high end varieties too. you'll have to pay more for them though.
  • 0

#78 Primus099

Primus099

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 12

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:50 PM

Posted Image
  • 0

#79 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:09 PM

If someone is greatly influenced under Marijuana, a police officer could find out just by observing their actions. Of course that would not be enough to charge them, but it would be enough for the police officer to dub as suspicious and take that person in for a test. This of course is only if they don't possess some portable technology.

That is not true.

The police officer would offer testimony of what he observed as general demeanour, impaired behaviour and judgment and then it would be up to the judge to to decide if the evidence was sufficient to convict. That is how things were done for many years.

Under the Criminal Code you can be convicted of impaired driving even if you do not blow over .08 - all the breathalyser does is establish a statutory benchmark where no evidence of impairment need be led.


Section 253(1)(a) makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle or to have care or control of a motor vehicle while that person's ability to operate is impaired by the alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two.

Section 253(1)(b) makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle or to have care or control of a motor vehicle while that person's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is in excess of 0.08 percent (representing 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

A person may be charged with either or both of the offences under section 253.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 09 November 2012 - 10:11 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#80 Mr. White

Mr. White

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,554 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 12

Posted 10 November 2012 - 10:12 AM

Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image
^VanCauck93^

#81 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:01 PM

Taking a page out of the playbook of the evangelical Christian anti-abortion movement... the Bible (aka Book of Fairy Tales) supports the legalization of marijuana. Even a whole bunch of different versions of it. Unlike the abortion issue.

Verily... per Genesis 1:11-12

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
(New International Version)

11 God said, “I command the earth to produce all kinds of plants, including fruit trees and grain.” And that’s what happened.
12 The earth produced all kinds of vegetation. God looked at what he had done, and it was good.
(Contemporary English Version)

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
(King James Version)

11 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth”; and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
(21st Century King James Version)

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.
(American Standard Version)

11 God said, “Let the earth grow plant life: plants yielding seeds and fruit trees bearing fruit with seeds inside it, each according to its kind throughout the earth.” And that’s what happened.
12 The earth produced plant life: plants yielding seeds, each according to its kind, and trees bearing fruit with seeds inside it, each according to its kind. God saw how good it was.
(Common English Bible)

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
(English Standard Version Anglicised)

11 God said, “Let the earth put forth grass, seed-producing plants, and fruit trees, each yielding its own kind of seed-bearing fruit, on the earth”; and that is how it was.
12 The earth brought forth grass, plants each yielding its own kind of seed, and trees each producing its own kind of seed-bearing fruit; and God saw that it was good.
(Complete Jewish Bible)

11 Let the earth, he said, yield grasses that grow and seed; fruit-trees too, each giving fruit of its own kind, and so propagating itself on earth. And so it was done;
12 the earth yielded grasses that grew and seeded, each according to its kind, and trees that bore fruit, each with the power to propagate its own kind. And God saw it, and found it good.
(Knox Bible)

11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, after [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good.
(New American Standard Bible)

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce plants. Let them bear their own seeds. And let there be trees on the land that bear fruit with seeds in it. Let each kind of plant or tree have its own kind of seeds.” And that’s exactly what happened.
12 The land produced plants. Each kind of plant had its own kind of seeds. The land produced trees that bore fruit with seeds in it. Each kind of tree had its own kind of seeds. God saw that it was good.
(New International Reader's Version)

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
(New International Version 1984)

There are lots more at this link for comparison:
http://www.biblegate...version=NIV1984

I wonder if my point was too subtle for the Christian evangelicals???

And Wetcoaster surveyed what he had wrought... and Wetcoaster saw that it was good.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#82 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,031 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 November 2012 - 03:31 AM

^ Already know the legal status of marijuana at the federal level has to do with lack of control over the crop versus tobacco and not anything else. There's never been a legitimate reason for it's legal status, and I can't imagine how much money and prison space could have been saved if the US government didn't stupidly attempt to control it so fervently.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 November 2012 - 03:33 AM.

  • 0

#83 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:01 AM


Edited by Gumballthechewy, 12 November 2012 - 03:02 AM.

  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#84 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,031 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:17 AM

That is not true.

The police officer would offer testimony of what he observed as general demeanour, impaired behaviour and judgment and then it would be up to the judge to to decide if the evidence was sufficient to convict. That is how things were done for many years.

Under the Criminal Code you can be convicted of impaired driving even if you do not blow over .08 - all the breathalyser does is establish a statutory benchmark where no evidence of impairment need be led.


Section 253(1)(a) makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle or to have care or control of a motor vehicle while that person's ability to operate is impaired by the alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two.

Section 253(1)( B) makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle or to have care or control of a motor vehicle while that person's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is in excess of 0.08 percent (representing 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

A person may be charged with either or both of the offences under section 253.

What the.. ?

- Tystick is talking about observation used as grounds to conduct a test, nowhere did he imply a guilty conviction in a court.

- No person in Washington state, or any US state, would be charged under the Canadian criminal code :huh: I'm at a loss as to why you cited it.

Edited by zaibatsu, 12 November 2012 - 03:19 AM.

  • 0

#85 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:13 AM

What the.. ?

- Tystick is talking about observation used as grounds to conduct a test, nowhere did he imply a guilty conviction in a court.

- No person in Washington state, or any US state, would be charged under the Canadian criminal code :huh: I'm at a loss as to why you cited it.

What the... ?

The statement was framed as a generality but in any event BC and Washington state operate under the same statutory criminal code regime in respect of operating a vehicle while one's is impaired by alcohol or drugs

There is no test for marijuana impairment because of the pharmacology of THC which is where the discussion began about this.

In Canada like Washington state, observations of driving conduct and general observations of impaired judgment and operation by a peace officer would be sufficient to ground a charge and if believed and passes the criminal standard of proof would ground a conviction for drug impairment as it always has been.

In Washington state like Canada, there is a statutory presumption of driving under the influence of alcohol when a person has a reading of breath or blood beyond an alcohol concentration of 0.08. However for other drugs the statutory presumption is inapplicable as set out in Washington state criminal code. Do try to follow along.


RCW 46.61.502

Driving under the influence.

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

(b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or

© While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.


(2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 12 November 2012 - 11:16 AM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#86 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,031 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:10 PM

What the... ?

The statement was framed as a generality but in any event BC and Washington state operate under the same statutory criminal code regime in respect of operating a vehicle while one's is impaired by alcohol or drugs

There is no test for marijuana impairment because of the pharmacology of THC which is where the discussion began about this.

In Canada like Washington state, observations of driving conduct and general observations of impaired judgment and operation by a peace officer would be sufficient to ground a charge and if believed and passes the criminal standard of proof would ground a conviction for drug impairment as it always has been.

In Washington state like Canada, there is a statutory presumption of driving under the influence of alcohol when a person has a reading of breath or blood beyond an alcohol concentration of 0.08. However for other drugs the statutory presumption is inapplicable as set out in Washington state criminal code. Do try to follow along.


RCW 46.61.502

Driving under the influence.

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

( B) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or

© While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.


(2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.

There may be variability in proving impairment from the officer's side but that's why they have DRE's as I'm sure you're well aware :lol:, but once again how a judge/jury looks at proving impairment is not what the poster you were responding to was talking about but grounds for initiating a test which, for no reason, you're five steps ahead of. Do try to take your own advice and follow along, and don't get butthurt when someone corrects you on a pretty obvious mistake.

Edited by zaibatsu, 12 November 2012 - 01:14 PM.

  • 0

#87 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:32 PM

There may be variability in proving impairment from the officer's side but that's why they have DRE's as I'm sure you're well aware :lol:, but once again how a judge/jury looks at proving impairment is not what the poster you were responding to was talking about but grounds for initiating a test which, for no reason, you're five steps ahead of. Do try to take your own advice and follow along.

There is no test for marijuana impairment comparable to a roadside screening breathalyser - unless you mean some variant of a field sobriety test (walk a straight line toe to toe, extend our arms outward at shoulder level and bring each arm in and touch your nose, etc.

I am quite familiar with the Drug Recognition Expert process. The Drug Recognition Expert uses a 12-step procedure in performing the evaluation to reach an opinion as to drug impairment levels once a potential drug imparied driver has been identified by an arresting officer:

1) Breath test to rule out alcohol as the primary cause of impairment

2) Interview of the arresting officer

3) Preliminary examination (includes the first of three pulses)

4) Eye examinations (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Vertical Gaze Nystagmus and the ability of the eyes to converge)

5) Divided attention tests (SFSTs plus finger to nose and Romberg balance test)

6) Vital signs examinations (blood pressure, temperature, second pulse)

7) Darkroom examination of pupil sizes (includes examination of nasal and oral cavities)

8) Muscle tone

9) Search for and examination of injection sites

10) Statements and interview of the suspect

11) Opinion of the DRE

12) Toxicological sample (urine and oral fluid or blood)


And as the RCMP itself has noted in respect of a DRE opinion:

The toxicological sample is sent to a forensic laboratory for analyses to confirm or refute the findings of the evaluator. The mere presence of a drug in the sample does not constitute sufficient evidence to charge a person as being impaired by a drug. The evaluation must show impairment, indicia consistent with one or more drug categories, and the evaluator’s findings must be supported by the toxicology.


So my original observations stand.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 12 November 2012 - 01:33 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#88 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,031 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:05 PM

There is no test for marijuana impairment comparable to a roadside screening breathalyser - unless you mean some variant of a field sobriety test (walk a straight line toe to toe, extend our arms outward at shoulder level and bring each arm in and touch your nose, etc.

I am quite familiar with the Drug Recognition Expert process. The Drug Recognition Expert uses a 12-step procedure in performing the evaluation to reach an opinion as to drug impairment levels once a potential drug imparied driver has been identified by an arresting officer:

1) Breath test to rule out alcohol as the primary cause of impairment

2) Interview of the arresting officer

3) Preliminary examination (includes the first of three pulses)

4) Eye examinations (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Vertical Gaze Nystagmus and the ability of the eyes to converge)

5) Divided attention tests (SFSTs plus finger to nose and Romberg balance test)

6) Vital signs examinations (blood pressure, temperature, second pulse)

7) Darkroom examination of pupil sizes (includes examination of nasal and oral cavities)

8) Muscle tone

9) Search for and examination of injection sites

10) Statements and interview of the suspect

11) Opinion of the DRE

12) Toxicological sample (urine and oral fluid or blood)


And as the RCMP itself has noted in respect of a DRE opinion:

The toxicological sample is sent to a forensic laboratory for analyses to confirm or refute the findings of the evaluator. The mere presence of a drug in the sample does not constitute sufficient evidence to charge a person as being impaired by a drug. The evaluation must show impairment, indicia consistent with one or more drug categories, and the evaluator’s findings must be supported by the toxicology.


So my original observations stand.

Your observations? :lol:

The only part that addressed that person's post is in bold, and it took 3 responses plus weeding through a bunch of crap, I don't see much observational skill to be in awe of, more like irrelevance. All they were talking about is identifying impairment (in the few ways an officer can) to proceed to those steps. I'm not sure if you're under the impression that posting a bunch of details from G to Z is going to scare me away from pointing out your inability to follow along with the poster you're responding to who is all the way back at A, but have fun there reaffirming.. whatever it is there you're trying to prove. Did you convince yourself?

Edited by zaibatsu, 12 November 2012 - 02:06 PM.

  • 0

#89 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:16 PM

Your observations? :lol:

The only part that addressed that person's post is in bold, and it took 3 responses plus weeding through a bunch of crap, I don't see much observational skill to be in awe of, more like irrelevance. All they were talking about is identifying impairment (in the few ways an officer can) to proceed to those steps. I'm not sure if you're under the impression that posting a bunch of details from G to Z is going to scare me away from pointing out your inability to follow along with the poster you're responding to who is all the way back at A, but have fun there reaffirming.. whatever it is there you're trying to prove. Did you convince yourself?

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. So be it.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#90 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,031 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:37 PM

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. So be it.

Hey, they even admitted it wouldn't fly in court and might not be enough to press charges, but that poster's assertion you made a rebuttal to was about an officer in the field identifying an impaired driver to proceed to any next steps, then you went off on a tangent about the court while telling them "that's not true". lolwut? You sure it's me with reading comprehension issues? I got what that poster was saying just fine, it was you who went on a wild tangent, and boy do you have an ego problem after someone tries to reiterate their post three times.

Edited by zaibatsu, 12 November 2012 - 02:39 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.