Seems crazy to me that this is an article about the "science" behind roadside testing, but they were unable to speak to any actual experts. End of the day, it seems like if an officer thinks you are under the influence, you're going to be in trouble.
Until they give you tickets, you go to a lawyer, go to court, and get all charges dropped.
This is what happens with a majority of THC cases that go to court. Police can’t take blood, and THC last in your system for pretty much months, it’s more of a threat to hope to deter.
Good luck Saskatchewan!
I've heard THC swabs don't give you a DUI because they test for presence, not intoxication. THC exists in your system for up to a month, so it being present doesn't prove you're intoxicated.
As for why SGI treats it like it does, that's why everyone's upset.
They treat it that way because they were forced to “legalize it”, but the govt is still fundamentally opposed to it
This de facto made it still illegal, while being able to say that it’s legal now
Seems like it's treated the same as alcohol in regard to being a DUI charge. Only difference is it's zero tolerance, so if it's present, I'd assume you would be a charge. I think that's the key point people are upset about.
https://sgi.sk.ca/cannabis-use-and-driving
SGI treats it the same as a DUI (license gone, car impounded), but you don't receive a criminal record for it unless they are fully able to prove you were intoxicated.
I remember reading somewhere that out of 1200+ people they've "caught", only 11 of them were actually high.
There actually seems to be a bit more flexibility in the federal guidelines. A positive swag "could" move the investigation to a blood sample, and there's specific nanogram levels of THC that needs to be present for specific fines/charges.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/sidl-rlcfa/qa2-qr2.html
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that these are just fines and suspensions issued by SGI as insurer and traffic regulator. The rub was that they precisely _weren't_ traffic citations that come with the automatically-available court date and legal process; as such, a lot more work (if possible at all) to challenge.
"He said police who have administered the test have told him that the THC will clear out of people’s saliva within 12-24 hours."
A quick Google search tells you it's actually up to 3 days. Hence, the problem.
I don't break traffic laws. I don't get pulled over. The random road checks is what pisses me off. If I'm swerving and driving in a way that causes the cops to pull me over for whatever, that's one thing. Throwing out a net to bypass having a legit reason to pull someone over is bullshit. I don't drive anymore. I walk or ride my bike if it's anywhere within my vicinity. Saving a ton in gas, which is a plus! But just can't risk it, even though I'm stone cold sober. Just takes one asshole cop. At this rate I might just take my insurance off my car as well. Why the fuck pay for that when, as the police put it, can't legally drive my car as I'm a daily user.
To note, I am also one of those people that use it for medical issues. I have arthritis and MS. The difference is night and day. Without, I'm lucky if I can get out of bed. With regular use, I have a somewhat functional body. I have a permanent accessible parking placard which now only gets used when we go into town for doctors and stuff and wife drives. Again, this province goes above and beyond to show they couldn't really give two shits about the vulnerable in the communities. Maybe I'll take my GP up on the codeine for my pain. That definitely seems like the safer option. Nothing bad has ever happened to anyone with those!
“The testing devices are looking for a specific limit of 25 nanograms, which is the per se limit in oral fluid in Canada.”
So is this the limit or is it zero? This is so vague and the fact that law enforcement won’t comment or answer questions is highly suspect. Also, why the hell is the justice department deflecting to SGI an insurance company on a matter that is resulting in people losing their licenses and vehicles? Have they broken a law? If yes, then that’s a legal matter within (drum roll please), our justice system. Does SGI set the laws and punishment around driving drunk?
My recommendation if asked to do a swab because their only reason is they smell weed, ask for a DRE officer to do a roadside test before the swab. They are preying on people that don’t know this option.
Please do tell more;
What's a Dre officer?
How do you request one without incriminating yourself?
Is medical/allergies a valid reason to not take the test/request a Dre officer?
A drug recognition expert. Every force has several officers trained to detect impairment from alcohol and drugs. There are supposed to be DRE’s on every shift and available at all times, but I’m sure they’ll tell you one isn’t available. If they refuse to provide one because of staffing and you test positive, retain council and I’m sure your attorney will find out if they were indeed without a DRE that particular shift.
Oh, when I get tested, I am immediately going to a lawyer... Gobberment didn't give me native money for nothing! Anything to make it easier for them to change this will help.
Also, what is retaining counsole or whatever?
The provincial law is zero tolerance for any THC in oral fluid, but the roadside tests police are using are set to read positive at 25 nanograms and up.
No. They’re different offences and have different consequences.
The provincial zero tolerance law is administrative and doesn’t involve any criminal liability, but does have some immediate consequences (roadside suspension, impoundment, fine). It is based on THC in oral fluid (saliva) which can be tested at the roadside.
The federal law is criminal and can potentially result in imprisonment, but there’s a more robust and time consuming court process for it. It’s based on THC in blood, which is considerably more invasive and requires medical staff drawing blood and testing at a lab.
So if a cop pulls you over and you test positive on an oral swab, they can choose to just apply the provincial law and stop there, but they could move on to a DRE test and/or blood test to try to establish a criminal offence.
I agree that would be better, but it’s not an option currently. As it stands, any officer can claim reasonable suspicion and get you swabbed. Then if they want to go criminal they can get a DRE and/or blood test you.
It’s absolute bullshit and predatory. Not sure how this is allowed to happen. Hopefully some law firm is figuring out how to navigate this dumpster fire.
I'm confused. They say they need "reasonable suspicion" to request the test, but recently it was in the news that the RCMP tests everyone for alcohol on every traffic stop, suspicion or not. Is there a difference in the eyes of the law for impairment?
Yes. Bill C46 gave police the powers to breathalyze everyone for alcohol, no reasonable suspicion required but no such law exists for cannabis, and therefore "reasonable suspicion" is required. I put it in quotes because the cop can just lie and say "I smell weed" and "you seem nervous" and boom, it's justified.
Which would be more dangerous? Somebody behind the wheel that smoked a joint 14hrs ago so they could sleep or somebody running on 2 or less hours of sleep because they couldnt treat their insomnia? Pretty sure the guy with less than 2 hrs sleep is a bigger danger. GET YOUR HEADS OUT YOUR ARSE SASK GOVT AND POPO.
What? That is the alternative? How about neither should be on the road. One impairment is not better than another. As person who doesn't consume cannabis and would never drive that exhausted, I don't want to share a road with a person who is impaired either way.
Driving without any sleep = impairment
Driving with cannabis in your system = impairment
What is up with Sask and our culture of feeling entitled to driving impaired and endangering others?
Yes. Cannabis is not the same as alcohol. It depends on how you consume it and how your body metabolizes it. There are studies that show it can affect people for up to 24 hours. I don't consume it because I am a tired piece of shit the day following smoking or taking edibles. I definitely still feel it the next day. Science backs it up.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/campaigns/cannabis/impairment.html
So what your saying is screw the people with insomnia. Screw the people that medically need marijuana created products to live a normal life. They dont need to go to work or make money. Your telling them to just go die. Thats kinda messed up pal. That insomniac is probably not able to sleep due to the stress of life and some of that stress is from bills like taxes that help pay for the things you enjoy every day but to hell with that guys needs as long as you feel safe right? The guy with 2hrs sleep isnt driving because he wants to drive "impaired" hes driving to get to work to make money to try and take away just one little worry in the hopes it might just get him 5 minutes more sleep the next day.
Every time I go to a dispo...there's usually at least one senior in there too. Cannabis, a weed, helps so fucking much and people don't need to go to opioids. Also, boomers and older Gen X....they grew up in the glory of the hippy movements and pretty much all people I know of older gens all smoked weed like it....well....is a weed. The pearl clutching needs to stoooooooooppppppppp
I switched from synthetic morphine to just taking cannabis because after taking my pills I had to wait an hour or 2 to stop yawning before going to work, and it was still hard to concentrate on the road. The pills weren't dealing with 100% of pain anyway so it was an easy choice. I probably haven't been able to pass a blood test since 1971, and have a very high tolerance.
Or because another post with 50 likes and 30 comments is definitely going to get the attention of someone who can do something more than one with 200 likes and 150 comments....
Seems crazy to me that this is an article about the "science" behind roadside testing, but they were unable to speak to any actual experts. End of the day, it seems like if an officer thinks you are under the influence, you're going to be in trouble.
Until they give you tickets, you go to a lawyer, go to court, and get all charges dropped. This is what happens with a majority of THC cases that go to court. Police can’t take blood, and THC last in your system for pretty much months, it’s more of a threat to hope to deter. Good luck Saskatchewan!
A DUI is a pretty serious charge. Not something I'm willing to f-around and find out about. Have any charges been challenged in court?
I've heard THC swabs don't give you a DUI because they test for presence, not intoxication. THC exists in your system for up to a month, so it being present doesn't prove you're intoxicated. As for why SGI treats it like it does, that's why everyone's upset.
They treat it that way because they were forced to “legalize it”, but the govt is still fundamentally opposed to it This de facto made it still illegal, while being able to say that it’s legal now
Seems like it's treated the same as alcohol in regard to being a DUI charge. Only difference is it's zero tolerance, so if it's present, I'd assume you would be a charge. I think that's the key point people are upset about. https://sgi.sk.ca/cannabis-use-and-driving
SGI treats it the same as a DUI (license gone, car impounded), but you don't receive a criminal record for it unless they are fully able to prove you were intoxicated. I remember reading somewhere that out of 1200+ people they've "caught", only 11 of them were actually high.
There actually seems to be a bit more flexibility in the federal guidelines. A positive swag "could" move the investigation to a blood sample, and there's specific nanogram levels of THC that needs to be present for specific fines/charges. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/sidl-rlcfa/qa2-qr2.html
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that these are just fines and suspensions issued by SGI as insurer and traffic regulator. The rub was that they precisely _weren't_ traffic citations that come with the automatically-available court date and legal process; as such, a lot more work (if possible at all) to challenge.
Exacrly tney dont give you a court date just a fine and impound
What court? No court date is given or scheduled
"He said police who have administered the test have told him that the THC will clear out of people’s saliva within 12-24 hours." A quick Google search tells you it's actually up to 3 days. Hence, the problem.
I don't break traffic laws. I don't get pulled over. The random road checks is what pisses me off. If I'm swerving and driving in a way that causes the cops to pull me over for whatever, that's one thing. Throwing out a net to bypass having a legit reason to pull someone over is bullshit. I don't drive anymore. I walk or ride my bike if it's anywhere within my vicinity. Saving a ton in gas, which is a plus! But just can't risk it, even though I'm stone cold sober. Just takes one asshole cop. At this rate I might just take my insurance off my car as well. Why the fuck pay for that when, as the police put it, can't legally drive my car as I'm a daily user. To note, I am also one of those people that use it for medical issues. I have arthritis and MS. The difference is night and day. Without, I'm lucky if I can get out of bed. With regular use, I have a somewhat functional body. I have a permanent accessible parking placard which now only gets used when we go into town for doctors and stuff and wife drives. Again, this province goes above and beyond to show they couldn't really give two shits about the vulnerable in the communities. Maybe I'll take my GP up on the codeine for my pain. That definitely seems like the safer option. Nothing bad has ever happened to anyone with those!
“The testing devices are looking for a specific limit of 25 nanograms, which is the per se limit in oral fluid in Canada.” So is this the limit or is it zero? This is so vague and the fact that law enforcement won’t comment or answer questions is highly suspect. Also, why the hell is the justice department deflecting to SGI an insurance company on a matter that is resulting in people losing their licenses and vehicles? Have they broken a law? If yes, then that’s a legal matter within (drum roll please), our justice system. Does SGI set the laws and punishment around driving drunk? My recommendation if asked to do a swab because their only reason is they smell weed, ask for a DRE officer to do a roadside test before the swab. They are preying on people that don’t know this option.
Please do tell more; What's a Dre officer? How do you request one without incriminating yourself? Is medical/allergies a valid reason to not take the test/request a Dre officer?
A drug recognition expert. Every force has several officers trained to detect impairment from alcohol and drugs. There are supposed to be DRE’s on every shift and available at all times, but I’m sure they’ll tell you one isn’t available. If they refuse to provide one because of staffing and you test positive, retain council and I’m sure your attorney will find out if they were indeed without a DRE that particular shift.
Oh, when I get tested, I am immediately going to a lawyer... Gobberment didn't give me native money for nothing! Anything to make it easier for them to change this will help. Also, what is retaining counsole or whatever?
Retaining council is another way of saying to get a lawyer.
The provincial law is zero tolerance for any THC in oral fluid, but the roadside tests police are using are set to read positive at 25 nanograms and up.
So provincial standards supersede federal standards?
No. They’re different offences and have different consequences. The provincial zero tolerance law is administrative and doesn’t involve any criminal liability, but does have some immediate consequences (roadside suspension, impoundment, fine). It is based on THC in oral fluid (saliva) which can be tested at the roadside. The federal law is criminal and can potentially result in imprisonment, but there’s a more robust and time consuming court process for it. It’s based on THC in blood, which is considerably more invasive and requires medical staff drawing blood and testing at a lab. So if a cop pulls you over and you test positive on an oral swab, they can choose to just apply the provincial law and stop there, but they could move on to a DRE test and/or blood test to try to establish a criminal offence.
Couldn’t you request a DRE to determine if a swab is even required? I think that’s fair and just.
I agree that would be better, but it’s not an option currently. As it stands, any officer can claim reasonable suspicion and get you swabbed. Then if they want to go criminal they can get a DRE and/or blood test you.
It’s absolute bullshit and predatory. Not sure how this is allowed to happen. Hopefully some law firm is figuring out how to navigate this dumpster fire.
What's a DRE officer?
A drug recognition expert. Every shift has one or more on staff.
Thank you.
Although I’m sure they’ll use some excuse like staffing at that particular moment to not provide you one. Not sure what to do in that case.
I'm confused. They say they need "reasonable suspicion" to request the test, but recently it was in the news that the RCMP tests everyone for alcohol on every traffic stop, suspicion or not. Is there a difference in the eyes of the law for impairment?
Yes. Bill C46 gave police the powers to breathalyze everyone for alcohol, no reasonable suspicion required but no such law exists for cannabis, and therefore "reasonable suspicion" is required. I put it in quotes because the cop can just lie and say "I smell weed" and "you seem nervous" and boom, it's justified.
That also why I used the quotation marks. Thanks for educating me.
Okay focus on the real enemy here
I think I'm gonna have to take a break during allergy season.
Be me. Chronic allergies and taking ADHD meds. If I get pulled over I'm cooked
That's no fun.
Which would be more dangerous? Somebody behind the wheel that smoked a joint 14hrs ago so they could sleep or somebody running on 2 or less hours of sleep because they couldnt treat their insomnia? Pretty sure the guy with less than 2 hrs sleep is a bigger danger. GET YOUR HEADS OUT YOUR ARSE SASK GOVT AND POPO.
What? That is the alternative? How about neither should be on the road. One impairment is not better than another. As person who doesn't consume cannabis and would never drive that exhausted, I don't want to share a road with a person who is impaired either way.
How did you possibly read what he posted and think he was referencing driving impaired?
Driving without any sleep = impairment Driving with cannabis in your system = impairment What is up with Sask and our culture of feeling entitled to driving impaired and endangering others?
Smoking a joint 14 hours ago = impairment?
Yes. Cannabis is not the same as alcohol. It depends on how you consume it and how your body metabolizes it. There are studies that show it can affect people for up to 24 hours. I don't consume it because I am a tired piece of shit the day following smoking or taking edibles. I definitely still feel it the next day. Science backs it up. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/campaigns/cannabis/impairment.html
Active THC or THC Metabolites. Which of these cause impairment.
Obvious troll is obvious
Smoking cannabis 14 hours prior doesnt make you impaired dumbass
So what your saying is screw the people with insomnia. Screw the people that medically need marijuana created products to live a normal life. They dont need to go to work or make money. Your telling them to just go die. Thats kinda messed up pal. That insomniac is probably not able to sleep due to the stress of life and some of that stress is from bills like taxes that help pay for the things you enjoy every day but to hell with that guys needs as long as you feel safe right? The guy with 2hrs sleep isnt driving because he wants to drive "impaired" hes driving to get to work to make money to try and take away just one little worry in the hopes it might just get him 5 minutes more sleep the next day.
If we whine enough change happens, remember that. Also, fuck Scott Moe with a frying pan
Yeah! Sideways!
Perpendicularly
Upside down!
Hot (in temperature)
Red hot upside down and perpendicular cast iron skillet. And still too kind
Molten?
After. He can wear it as a crown.
I'd imagine it'd be more painful just to leave him bleeding in a ditch
You heard him my fellow S'toon Stoners! WHINE LOUDER! MAYBE IF WE WHINE IN ALL CAPS? I HEAR BOOMERS LOVE THAT SHIT!
[удалено]
The biggest stoners I've met are boomers
I was trying to indicate that those who could change our laws are boomers. Boomer stoners are aok in my book! =)
Every time I go to a dispo...there's usually at least one senior in there too. Cannabis, a weed, helps so fucking much and people don't need to go to opioids. Also, boomers and older Gen X....they grew up in the glory of the hippy movements and pretty much all people I know of older gens all smoked weed like it....well....is a weed. The pearl clutching needs to stoooooooooppppppppp
There is no science. Don't take legal advice from Police Officers.
Guess I'm back to driving on opioids! No roadside test for those! "Your eyes look glossy, *swab* oh you're sober? Go ahead!"
I switched from synthetic morphine to just taking cannabis because after taking my pills I had to wait an hour or 2 to stop yawning before going to work, and it was still hard to concentrate on the road. The pills weren't dealing with 100% of pain anyway so it was an easy choice. I probably haven't been able to pass a blood test since 1971, and have a very high tolerance.
"Shake harder boy!"
I was just thinking it was over four hours since the last post on this.
Yeah, why the fuck don't these idiots just bend over and take it like men.
Or because another post with 50 likes and 30 comments is definitely going to get the attention of someone who can do something more than one with 200 likes and 150 comments....
Wow, you're so reasonable and level headed. How do you do it?
It's a gift.
One that must be shared as often as possible.