Canibus and Motorcycles October 2018

Discussion in 'Canada' started by Steve G., Oct 15, 2018.

  1. GreatWhiteNorth

    GreatWhiteNorth Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Oddometer:
    5,855
    Location:
    Winterpeg - site of flatness beyond belief
    I'm far more worried about distracted drivers on their cell phones, than I am about someone driving drunk or high.
    Steve G. likes this.
  2. Also Ran

    Also Ran Adventurer

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Oddometer:
    58
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Cell phones-tablets-beeping GPS screens and gadgets all over an interior are an issue on a daily basis with sober drivers. We've already had to deal with prescription meds, pot, booze and just plain old stupid for at least 45 of my 55 years. Years ago the thought was that there was no road side for weed so smoke'm if you got'm. Just don't have any with you. Now with the new rules in place that thinking is out the window and may in fact deter people who previously would have. Just a thought.
  3. Also Ran

    Also Ran Adventurer

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Oddometer:
    58
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    They can both be pretty deadly so I'd be plenty worried about all of'm.
    edwin, GreatWhiteNorth and Steve G. like this.
  4. GreatWhiteNorth

    GreatWhiteNorth Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Oddometer:
    5,855
    Location:
    Winterpeg - site of flatness beyond belief
    A friend had said to me things would probably be worse in some ways after legalization. With the new laws, that came into effect yesterday, some would argue that this is exactly what has occurred. Now there is a presumption of guilt before innocence, without just cause. Welcome to Police State 1.0. A friend sent this to me. I can't of course vouch for it's accuracy:

    For all the people posting about the new Impaired Driving laws coming into force on Dec 18, please allow me to summarize the changes, as well as the current state of the law, and hopefully clear up a lot of confusion. I am an experienced criminal defence lawyer who does a lot of Impaired Driving cases, so I have some idea what I'm talking about. [UPDATED, see below]

    Alcohol:

    - The police already have the authority to stop you without any suspicion, simply to check if you are licenced and sober. (This has been upheld as constitutional - although it infringes our section 9 right against arbitrary detention, the court found it a justified infringement under section 1)

    - The police can now make a demand you blow into a road-side screening device without any suspicion whatsoever . (Before this week they needed "reasonable suspicion of alcohol in the blood" - ie. smell on breath, admitting to having a drink etc..)

    - As it was already, if you refuse to blow you have committed a criminal offence on par (or worse) with Impiared Driving in its consequences and you will be arrested for Refusing a Screening Demand. You DO NOT have a right to talk to a lawyer before you answer the screening demand.

    - As it was already, if the police have "reasonable grounds to believe" your ability to drive is impaired by alcohol (or drug, or combination of both) OR you fail a roadside screening test, you can be arrested for impaired driving and the police will make a demand that you take a breathalyzer (or a blood test in the case of drugs) at the station or in a checkstop van.

    - You DO have a right to talk to a lawyer before you answer a breathalyzer or blood demand. If you refuse a justified breathalyzer or blood demand, you have committed a criminal offence just as bad or worse than blowing over.

    - They are LOWERING the legal limit by 10 mg per 100ml of blood. Previously it was illegal to drive over 80 mg. Because breathalyzer machines give a reading to the nearest 10 mg, and always round down, this meant that the effective legal limit was 89 mg/100ml. Under the new law it is illegal to drive at 80mg or over. So now the effective limit is now 79 mg/100ml.

    - Previously it was simply illegal to operate a motor vehicle over the legal limit or while your ability to do so was impaired. Now it is also illegal to have a blood alcohol level (or drug level or drug/alcohol level) over the limit within two hours after driving, unless you drank the alcohol after the driving AND you had no reasonable expectation that you would have to give a sample.

    - The minimum sentence for a first offence of Impaired Driving, Driving over the legal alcohol (or drug) limit, or Refusal, is a $1000 fine and a 1 year driving prohibition. There are other consequences from MPI on top of this. There are also higher minimum fines for higher blood alcohol levels.

    Drugs

    - They have instituted a blood THC limit. It is very low. 5 ng/ml or over is on par with Impaired Driving in its consequences.

    - Over 2 ng/ml but less than 5 is a new criminal offence with a max fine of $1000 and a discretionary (rather than a mandatory) driving prohibition of max 1 year.

    - A regular user may take 24-48 hours to get below these limits. So it is basically illegal for any medical marijuana user to ever drive.

    - They have LOWERED the legal limit for ALCOHOL to 50 ml/100ml if you have 2.5 ng/ml or more of THC in your blood.

    - In order to demand you take the road-side screeing device for cannabis (or demand you perform a field drug recognition evaluation) police must still have reasonable suspicion of cannabis in the bloodstream. You DO NOT have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering the demand. It is a criminal offence to refuse a justified demand.

    - They have also introduced specific blood limits for common illegal drugs.

    I personally believe many of these changes should be declared unconstitutional, and hope cases come my way that allow me to challenge them. I think there is a good chance the suspicion-less demand power will be struck down by the courts, and possibly the very low blood THC level too. But this is far from certain. And remember, until the courts say a law is unconstitutional, that law still applies. And launching a constitutional challenge has a significant cost in legal fees... so be careful out there and follow the law! (and follow your Trap Spy!)

    Most importantly: if you are charged with a criminal offence TALK TO A CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYER before deciding what to do. There are very often defences you don't realize, and almost all lawyers will give you a free consultation.

    UPDATE: One VERY IMPORTANT change I forgot to mention is that the maximum penalty for drive impaired is increased from 5 to 10 years. While it is exceedingly rare for someone to get the maximum, the bigger effect is that people who are not citizens can now face deportation. Under immigration law, a "serious crime" is defined as anything with a sentence of 10 years or more. A permanent resident who is convicted of "a serious crime" can be sent to a deportation hearing.
    ACR, yamalama and ToothDocJay like this.
  5. Also Ran

    Also Ran Adventurer

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Oddometer:
    58
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    All good information. With most new laws the first plan isn't always the best. It'll need adjustment. I don't like police having an open ended option to pull anyone they want but I don't want to hobble their ability to keep the roads safe either. As for people getting deported, I've been all over the world and if that's the worst that happens to you for driving impaired you're doing well. Some places I've worked, just being impaired at all could get you years of serious grief. Then deported if your lucky. In the end if you don't drink and or smoke and drive the worst is 5 minutes of your time and the best is the drunk in front of you off the streets. System is far from perfect but we need something. Jmho, cheers.
    squonker and GreatWhiteNorth like this.
  6. GreatWhiteNorth

    GreatWhiteNorth Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Oddometer:
    5,855
    Location:
    Winterpeg - site of flatness beyond belief
  7. ToothDocJay

    ToothDocJay Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Oddometer:
    520
    Location:
    Cobble Hill, Vancouver island, BC ("wet coast")
    Thanks for laying that all out for us.

    As you said, until it's challenged and changed, it's the law and we can be subject to it. Those limits on THC seem unusually low but I guess time will tell if the courts support it.
    GreatWhiteNorth likes this.
  8. GreatWhiteNorth

    GreatWhiteNorth Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Oddometer:
    5,855
    Location:
    Winterpeg - site of flatness beyond belief
    I'm curious if other provinces have released their statistics regarding impaired driving during Checkstops. Here in Manitoba, during December, of the 7,667 drivers stopped, 4 people where found to be marijuana impaired, with only 2 having been charged to date... and looks like there were 39 alcohol impaired charges (and 40 warnings).

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-holiday-checkstop-1.4963343

    It seems that the public education program may be working, as compared to previous years, the number of impaired drivers is down by quite a bit!

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2018/rcmp-20172018-holiday-checkstop-program-stats-week-four-final

    Should be interesting when the insurance analysts (actuaries) have enough data to crunch the numbers, to determine if legalization actually affected the driving accident & injury rate.
  9. Also Ran

    Also Ran Adventurer

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Oddometer:
    58
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    And when it's down they'll drop our rates right? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahha. uhhh no.
    16VGTIDave likes this.
  10. Jbone11 11

    Jbone11 11 Long timer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Oddometer:
    1,301
    Location:
    Back Home Wintery Ottawa, Bleh!!
    "Now it is also illegal to have a blood alcohol level (or drug level or drug/alcohol level) over the limit within two hours after driving, unless you drank the alcohol after the driving AND you had no reasonable expectation that you would have to give a sample."

    I love how law makers always write ambiguous policy into these things. I mean if you take the trouble to go to a dudes home and bang on his door after the fact, and demand a sample youre pretty much stretching the hell out of that particular scenario. It reeks of desperation.... much in the same way certain cops will nail drivers for 5 over on the highway when the weather is good and clear but in bad conditions (heavy rain, snow etc.) its a bloody free for all.

    Personally I'm sick of the govt. picking off the low hanging fruit and then watch as they try to claim the numbers back their BS policies up. I'm pretty sure the numbers when compared with other issues pointed out in these discussions (distracted driving, poor training etc. ) would not support this kind of witch hunt.

    That said, if I guy blows through a RIDE program, some how makes it home and then tries to claim he "just" had a beer... cool, grab that S.O.B. But as has been pointed out already, there are legitimate worries that this extension of the law can and will be abused.

    Would be nice to see some well written statues for once.
    16VGTIDave likes this.
  11. Also Ran

    Also Ran Adventurer

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Oddometer:
    58
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    You are right in thinking that things are being written far to vague. It should never be that open ended to interpretation. I know the idea is to stop some schmuck who does a runner, runs in the door to guzzle a 5th of vodka and claim he was sober BEFORE he got home. It does happen. I know this for a fact.

    At the same time to be able to knock on my door 2 hours after I've arrived at home a demand a breathalyzer is ridiculous. I imagine it would go down in flames in any court with a good lawyer. That would also be why they will need a ton of evidence to support why they showed up at your house in the first place.

    This is a true story. A guy got nailed for impaired. His lawyer argued that he had waited too long for a breathalyzer. That it was reasonable to assume he was not impaired at the time he was pulled over. In other words he guzzled a bottle of booze and immediately jumped on his bike and started to ride home. Had he not been pulled over he would have been home before becoming impaired. He got off. 5k got him off an impaired charge.

    So what to do?
  12. Jbone11 11

    Jbone11 11 Long timer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Oddometer:
    1,301
    Location:
    Back Home Wintery Ottawa, Bleh!!
    I get it... believe me I get it. I just wish we, as a society, would stop ruling to the lowest common denominator. Outside of some Scandinavian countries I've been reading about lately, Canada seems to be king in this regard... the dummies ruin it for the rest of us. But hey... free (sort of) health care and legal pot right?? LOL!
  13. Also Ran

    Also Ran Adventurer

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Oddometer:
    58
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Yea it does get old in a hurry. That one bad apple thing I guess. So I noticed a 69 BSA in your list. Still restoring it? I've got a 67 Bonneville in pieces all over the house myself.
  14. Jbone11 11

    Jbone11 11 Long timer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Oddometer:
    1,301
    Location:
    Back Home Wintery Ottawa, Bleh!!
    LOL... Err, yes in manner of speaking. To be honest, its in a bunch of boxes right now. I feel guilty as hell not getting to it but time and money are in short supply when one has 4 bikes and an off road riding business to run. #firstworldproblems :lol3
  15. Also Ran

    Also Ran Adventurer

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Oddometer:
    58
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Ain't that always the way. I took the Bonneville apart and then bought a GSF a VStrom and a GS. I'm selling all but the GS and gonna put it into the Triumph. I'll miss the GSF but will replace it with a Gixxer and most likely a DR or KTM after the the rebuild. Sooner or later the guilt will get you going.
  16. Also Ran

    Also Ran Adventurer

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Oddometer:
    58
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  17. GreatWhiteNorth

    GreatWhiteNorth Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Oddometer:
    5,855
    Location:
    Winterpeg - site of flatness beyond belief
    Accident rate down 48% post legalization! ...just read this article: https://winnipegsun.com/news/news-n...early-half-of-road-deaths-in-manitoba-in-2018 Same article in the Wpg Free Press BTW.

    Key points from that article:
    • In 2018, there were 66 fatal crashes. This count is 16% lower than the average crash count for the previous 10-years (79 in 2008-2017).
    • In 2018, there were 71 people killed. This count is 19% below the previous 10-year average (88 people killed on average each year from 2008-2017).
    • In the first three months of 2018, the number of people killed (18) was 38% higher than the average over the previous 10 years (13 average from 2008 to 2017). This increase was offset by the last six months of 2018 with the number of people killed being 23% lower than the average in the third quarter and 48% lower in the last quarter.
  18. squonker

    squonker Stupid is the new norm

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Oddometer:
    4,993
    Location:
    Yellowknife and Norman Wells, NWT
    Pot was only legalized in October 2018. To quote stats from 2018 in January 2019 and believe that there is anything to them is beyond stupid.
  19. GreatWhiteNorth

    GreatWhiteNorth Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Oddometer:
    5,855
    Location:
    Winterpeg - site of flatness beyond belief
    Really, not relevant? Within this thread in some of the posts there's been considerable angst, and doom & gloom expressed, that legalization will result in "motorized mayhem", and lead to the downfall of civility in civilization, etc. If you read those links I posted, you'll see that the accident & death rate has been steadily falling... in Manitoba. Your area may see different, and the reasons behind why that is occurring may be varied. One post mentioned "car accidents soar in states with legal marijuana laws"... well, that's not what we're seeing here, and driving conditions have been treacherous this winter. Simply put, there seems to be negligible change, no higher rate of motor vehicle accidents & deaths... actually less. Hospitals aren't busy with marijuana "overdose" (there is no such thing BTW) admittances either. Will the accident rate continue to fall? Dunno, but that it hasn't climbed post legalization says something. There has been an awful lot of advertising here about the dangers of driving impaired, and also about distracted driving... maybe that's starting to pay off?
    Also Ran likes this.
  20. Also Ran

    Also Ran Adventurer

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Oddometer:
    58
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    The opinions obviously vary, but more than enough implied that there would be a spike in impaired driving. To say the least, the rest were calling for an apocalypse. Well for the last 1/4 of 2018 pot was legal. The "stupid" stats you mentioned show no such spike. Soooo to say there is nothing to them is, to use your words "beyond stupid". Actually I don't think it's that bad but since you started calling people stupid I thought I throw it in there. Cheers
    Effisland and GreatWhiteNorth like this.