Driving While Drugges Legislation

scribblet · November 10, 2006

Kudos, its about time we did something about Driving While Drugged

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...0/TPStory/Front

PM to unwrap drug-driving bill today

GLORIA GALLOWAY

Drivers who get behind the wheel while stoned on drugs will be targeted in new legislation to be announced today by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, sources have told The Globe and Mail.

Mr. Harper will unveil the legal changes in Kitchener, Ont., where he will be accompanied by Senator Marjorie LeBreton, whose daughter Linda LeBreton-Holmes and her 12-year-old son Brian were killed more than 10 years ago by a drunk driver.

Mr. Harper will announce that the Criminal Code will be amended to allow police to apprehend and test drug-impaired drivers, something that previous Liberal governments had tried unsuccessfully to enact, government sources said.

That is the very least that the Conservative government plans to do, said Andrew Murie, the chief executive officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada.

Who's Doing What? · November 10, 2006

About time!

In my youth I may have been known to go for a tour for no other reason than to puff a doobie, but over the last few years I have seen way too many people swallowing or even snorting Hillbilly heroin and then hopping in their car. How the hell are you supposed to drive normally when your high on drug store heroin?

I've heard all the crap "I take it for pain, it doesn't get me high" That is pure BS.

Even if you don't feel "high", you just injested a strong opiate, which has to affect you.

southerncomfort · November 10, 2006

I tried it once just to find out what its like and I inhaled - there is no way I could have driven. Heck I don't get that high on a couple of glasses of wine.

fellowtraveller · November 10, 2006

As far as I know, there is no reliable and timely test to check for marijuana impairment.

The intention is good, but how will they enforce the law?

Chrissy1979 · November 10, 2006

Were you on drugs when you typed the thread title?

southerncomfort · November 10, 2006

I don't know, I think the UK and others are looking into it will have to read up on the legislation.

Ah well, back to lurking for a while.

Hydraboss · November 10, 2006

As far as I know, there is no reliable and timely test to check for marijuana impairment.
The intention is good, but how will they enforce the law?

The SAP at the last conference I attended said that there was a "current impairment" test being trialed, but wasn't available commercially...yet. Supposed to be some kind of mouth swab for pot, and a type of skin or blood test deal that the cops could implement roadside. I searched for a link but couldn't find it. You can bet that it will get plenty of press if this goes through.

Ricki Bobbi · November 10, 2006

Were you on drugs when you typed the thread title?

Or on drugges! :lol:

normanchateau · November 10, 2006

As far as I know, there is no reliable and timely test to check for marijuana impairment.
The intention is good, but how will they enforce the law?

As a matter of fact, police in parts of Australia already employ either saliva, blood or urine tests to measure for levels of marijuana in drivers of vehicles. Here's an example of one simple oral fluid test which measures not only marijuana but also opiates, amphetamine, ecstasy and cocaine:

http://www.drugtesting.com.au

scribblet · November 10, 2006

Were you on drugs when you typed the thread title?

Nope, don't do drugs of any kind - well I do take a pill for arthritis. It was a typo which cannot be corrected in the title.

FTA Lawyer · November 11, 2006

I guess I should celebrate...looks like the feds are going to hand me years worth of Charter litigation!

We'll have to wait and see what search rights they purport to give to the police, but I'm willing to bet they go way too far...basically making it okay for a cop to take your blood if you've just been at a Rolling Stones concert.

Beyond the "drug driving" tests the article goes on to talk about massive changes to impaired driving law. The most litigated/challenged sections of the Criminal Code are the current impaired and over .08 sections...try to make them more draconian (and take away the ability to defend against the breathalyser readings) and we'll be striking legislation all over the place!

Seriously, the science that has been done on breathalyser machines confirms that they are based on fallacy...built-in presumptions about how the average person breaks down and eliminates alcohol. Until now, we've basically accepted the machines as fair to use against someone (even though they are based on normally improper presumptions) because they can call evidence to the contrary to demonstrate that the readings were incorrect.

Take away the defence, and really you make an outrageous law which means a person will always be convicted, even if the machine malfunctions! We'd be far better off outlawing driving after drinking anything within 24 hours...that way, at least we would wrongfully convict far fewer people.

FTA

mcqueen625 · November 11, 2006

As far as I know, there is no reliable and timely test to check for marijuana impairment.
The intention is good, but how will they enforce the law?

Actually there is. Many employers are now randomly testing for drug use, and quite often it is those who have ingested Marijuana who are being busted. On the other hand those who are doing Cocaine are probably slipping through the cracks because it does not stay in the body very long. Urine testing on job sites is becoming quite common, especially in dangerous work environments such as oil refineries and nuclear plants. Hell, even truck drivers are randomly tested for drugs and are immediately taken off the road, why not ordinary drivers. I would bet that many accidents are cause by the ingestion of drugs as there are alcohol impaired drivers. anyone who is impared in any way should not be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, and the police need to have the power to demand testing for drug impairment, just as they now have for alcohol impairment.

Bottom line, if people want to get high on either alcohol or another drug of choice, they should not be operating a motor vehicle, and if they are they should not pass go, but go directly to jail. Far too many people are dying on our highways, and we have silly-assed lawyers more worried about the rights of the impaired individuals insteaad of the people they just killed in the other car.

geoffrey · November 11, 2006

Bottom line, if people want to get high on either alcohol or another drug of choice, they should not be operating a motor vehicle, and if they are they should not pass go, but go directly to jail. Far too many people are dying on our highways, and we have silly-assed lawyers more worried about the rights of the impaired individuals insteaad of the people they just killed in the other car.

Couldn't agree more. Drugs or alcohol, all the same. Use them and drive, I figure it should be at least a 1 year suspension first time... second, 10 years in prision (people don't get the message that it kills hundreds if not thousands of people).

I think with DUI's this could be one area of law where tougher sentencing will have an impact on the level of crime.

FTA Lawyer · November 11, 2006

Let me ask this...seeing as I guess I must be one of the "silly-ass" lawyers being referred to...

WHY CAN'T THE POLICE STOP CHEATING, STOP BREAKING THE LAW, STOP BREACHING CHARTER RIGHTS and just CONVICT THE OFFENDERS FAIRLY AND JUSTLY!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Seriously, the Charter has been with us for almost a quarter of a century and yet, tomorrow, or the next day, I'm going to get an impaired driving file where the dumb-ass cop doesn't let the accused call a lawyer before the breathalyzer.

THAT IS POLICE INCOMPETENCE leading to that charge being tossed...not silly-ass defence lawyers.

I mean it...one of you anti-lawyer, anti-presumption of innocence, anti-fair trial types explain it to me...because, you see, if the police just do their jobs and don't act like storm-troopers out to get a conviction at all costs then they leave me with but one tactic to assist my clients...plead guilty.

FTA

sideshow · November 11, 2006

This is great. I really hope this legislation passes. Drugs are an evil that are eating up our children and we need every possible available tool to help law enforcement reduce the use of them. The ends justifies the means in this case.

scribblet · November 11, 2006

Couldn't agree more. Drugs or alcohol, all the same. Use them and drive, I figure it should be at least a 1 year suspension first time... second, 10 years in prision (people don't get the message that it kills hundreds if not thousands of people).
I think with DUI's this could be one area of law where tougher sentencing will have an impact on the level of crime.

Agreed, something has to be done and this is a start.

jdobbin · November 11, 2006

Let me ask this...seeing as I guess I must be one of the "silly-ass" lawyers being referred to...
WHY CAN'T THE POLICE STOP CHEATING, STOP BREAKING THE LAW, STOP BREACHING CHARTER RIGHTS and just CONVICT THE OFFENDERS FAIRLY AND JUSTLY!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Seriously, the Charter has been with us for almost a quarter of a century and yet, tomorrow, or the next day, I'm going to get an impaired driving file where the dumb-ass cop doesn't let the accused call a lawyer before the breathalyzer.

THAT IS POLICE INCOMPETENCE leading to that charge being tossed...not silly-ass defence lawyers.

I've never heard a cop submit to a breathalyser. They all refuse.

Argus · November 11, 2006

Let me ask this...seeing as I guess I must be one of the "silly-ass" lawyers being referred to...
WHY CAN'T THE POLICE STOP CHEATING, STOP BREAKING THE LAW, STOP BREACHING CHARTER RIGHTS and just CONVICT THE OFFENDERS FAIRLY AND JUSTLY!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

The police are pretty much always interested in fairness and justice. It's the law which is unjust. You lawyers have turned law into an arcane religion whose interpretation is entirely up to whichever high prelate looks at it.

YOU don't understand the law. Why would you expect cops to? I mean, one lawyer says one thing, another disagrees. The judge makes a finding, but then is overruled by a higher judge, who is overturned himself. Who knows what the freaking law is today?

I recall the case where a policeman investigating a murder followed a trail of blood to a beat up old trailer, opened the door, and found the defendant covered in blood. Case, closed, right? Nope. Because while what he did had been perfectly acceptable under the law, the lawyers decided, well, times are changing, so we're going to change the law - retroactively - and make what you did suddenly "unconstitutional". The poor man's (new) human rights were violated!!! He must go free!

Seriously, the Charter has been with us for almost a quarter of a century and yet, tomorrow, or the next day, I'm going to get an impaired driving file where the dumb-ass cop doesn't let the accused call a lawyer before the breathalyzer.
THAT IS POLICE INCOMPETENCE leading to that charge being tossed...not silly-ass defence lawyers.

It is silly-ass defence lawyers who managed to get the rule put in law that before the police so much as touch a defendant they need to call a lawyer. This, of course, is to protect the rights of the suspect, but it also serves to create a lot of business for lawyers. That's just a coincidence, of course.

I was reading the Telegraph recently, and it spoke of how hamstrung the police were by laws and rules over there in the UK. A senior policeman had shown the writer a form that had to be filled out before a policeman was permitted to follow a suspect - not bug his house or arrest him, but just follow him - and according to the columnist the form could not possibly be filled out in under two hours. Why was there crime in the streets? Because at any given point in time most of the cops on duty were at the stations filling out forms to satisfy the lawyers! Do correct me if I'm wrong here, but I read once that an arresting officer in Ontario has some sixteen forms to fill out for a DUI arrest. And God help them if they fail to dot an I or cross a T because the lawyers will be scouring every form for a mistake they can use to get their guilty client out.

Another case that comes to mind. I don't know if it has since been changed. Perhaps you'll let us know. The police routinely equip drug officers with microphones to make buys. A lawyer managed to get the courts to declare this UNCONSTITUTIONAL because, you see, it was unfair to the poor drug dealers (who else would be harmed?). This leaves us in the absurd situation where lawyers are arguing in court on whether a drug dealer sold drugs to the undercover cop or not - and ignoring the fact there is an audio tape of him doing just that!

The law is an ass, and the was created by and is administered by lawyers.

Why shouldn't we blame them for its failings?

BubberMiley · November 11, 2006

I don't know of any technology that exists that can demonstrate that a person is currently under the influence of drugs. If it does exist, it is so new and unproven that it wouldn't stand up in court anyway.

Considering that drugs are already illegal anyway, this is just legislation designed to appeal to their self-righteous base come election time. It simply won't be enforceable.

Argus · November 11, 2006

I don't know of any technology that exists that can demonstrate that a person is currently under the influence of drugs. If it does exist, it is so new and unproven that it wouldn't stand up in court anyway.
Considering that drugs are already illegal anyway, this is just legislation designed to appeal to their self-righteous base come election time. It simply won't be enforceable.

If a person can't walk a straight line he has no business driving a car. And the usual tests of that nature should provide sufficient cause to take a blood test.

I would think blood tests could determine if there were drugs in a person's system.

hiti · November 11, 2006

The only thing "new" about this announcement is that Harpo used MADD and the tragedy the Rider and LeBreton family suffered by losing a child to an impaired driver for another of his photo-ops. Plus Harpo previously canceled the funds that were training RCMP to recognize impaired drivers.

OTTAWA, April 26, 2004 - The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Irwin Cotler, supported by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Anne McLellan, today introduced legislative reforms as another step toward strengthening the enforcement of drug-impaired driving offences.

"Drug-impaired driving is a serious problem, one that justifies changes to our laws to help us fight it," said Minister Cotler. "With the authority to demand physical tests and bodily fluid samples, police can better detect - and deter - driving while impaired by non-alcohol drugs. Ultimately, these amendments are about saving lives."

Drug-impaired driving is already a Criminal Code offence that can result in severe penalties - the maximum penalty is life imprisonment when the offence causes the death of another person.

The new legislation would amend the Criminal Code and give police the authority to demand:

1. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), where there is reasonable suspicion that a driver has a drug in the body. SFSTs are divided-attention tests that evaluate a subject's ability to multitask. They are administered at the roadside.

2. Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluations where the officer reasonably believes a drug-impaired driving offence was committed. This includes a situation where the driver fails the SFST. These are administered at the police station.

3. A saliva, urine or blood sample, should the DRE officer identify that impairment is caused by a specific family of drugs.

To enhance law enforcement capacity to address drug impairment in Canada and as part of Canada's renewed Drug Strategy, announced in May 2003, $910,000 in new funding over five years has been allocated toward DRE. With these funds, the office of a National DRE coordinator has been put in place to work with law enforcement across the country and develop an operational framework for DRE in Canada. There are currently 73 certified DRE-trained officers in Canada, and a further 38 are in the process of becoming certified.

Given the seriousness of drug-impaired driving, the RCMP has also reallocated $4.1 million to get a National DRE Program underway. The RCMP is ready to work with its provincial, regional and municipal counterparts to assist in building capacity for training DREs and DRE instructors.

http://www.canada-justice.ca/en/news/nr/2004/doc_31162.html

scribblet · November 11, 2006

I don't know of any technology that exists that can demonstrate that a person is currently under the influence of drugs. If it does exist, it is so new and unproven that it wouldn't stand up in court anyway.
Considering that drugs are already illegal anyway, this is just legislation designed to appeal to their self-righteous base come election time. It simply won't be enforceable.

Maybe not, but we have to start somewhere.

BubberMiley · November 11, 2006

Maybe not, but we have to start somewhere.

What part of "already illegal" don't you understand?

BubberMiley · November 11, 2006

I would think blood tests could determine if there were drugs in a person's system.

Urine tests can prove that too, but none of them can prove whether you're under the influence. Weed shows up in urine for over three months, so someone who breathed it from secondhand smoke two months ago would likely test positive.

Personally, I never understood the preoccupation with substance use. It seems to me the problem is shitty driving, and you can do that whether you're intoxicated or not. I don't think it's necessary to invade a person's body to prove that they were driving recklessly. People can be just as negligent when driving while tired, driving while angry, driving while talking on a cell phone, or driving while very old. It should really be Mothers Against Bad Driving, but the acronym doesn't work as well.

jdobbin · November 11, 2006

Urine tests can prove that too, but none of them can prove whether you're under the influence. Weed shows up in urine for over three months, so someone who breathed it from secondhand smoke two months ago would likely test positive.
Personally, I never understood the preoccupation with substance use. It seems to me the problem is shitty driving, and you can do that whether you're intoxicated or not. I don't think it's necessary to invade a person's body to prove that they were driving recklessly. People can be just as negligent when driving while tired, driving while angry, driving while talking on a cell phone, or driving while very old. It should really be Mothers Against Bad Driving, but the acronym doesn't work as well.

It's definitely tough to prove someone is under the influence of drugs or medication. The police are allowed a roadside sobriety test. Do you think that is sufficient to see if they are cognizant enough to drive? And if they are in a collision, can the police conduct a more in depth test to see if they are under the influence? Or is that irrelevant?

So many people die as a result of drunk driving. I don't know how many die as a result of drugs. The present laws weren't created in a vacuum. They happened because people thought that being drunk didn't affect their driving. Or worse, they didn't care.

As I've said though, I don't know if there are any stats on drugged out drivers.