General Canada's House of Commons votes to legalize marijuana

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Breath test can’t be refused under new drunk-driving law

By Christmas, sweeping changes to Canada’s impaired-driving laws will allow police to demand a breath sample from any driver they lawfully stop.

It’s one of the things about Bill C-46 that most concerns Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan.
Under current law, police must have reasonable suspicion a driver has alcohol in their body before demanding a roadside breath test.

When new legislation comes into force on Dec. 18, a driver who refuses to take a roadside breath test will face a criminal charge with penalties similar to an impaired-driving conviction.

“The public should know, if there’s a breath demand made of you, you won’t have a chance to speak to a lawyer,” said Mulligan.

“The worry is a person without legal advice might not want to provide a sample. Even if they haven’t been drinking, they might find it intrusive. But they could find themselves charged with failing to provide a sample and end up with a criminal record and a long driving prohibition.”

The federal government is making this change because research suggests up to 50 per cent of impaired drivers escape detection at roadside check stops. Mandatory roadside testing is authorized in 40 countries. Authorities in Ireland credit mandatory roadside screening with reducing the number of road deaths by 40 per cent in the first four years.

Federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has said she expects the new legislation will withstand a constitutional challenge. But Mulligan’s not so sure.

“Requiring people to provide bodily samples without reasonable suspicion, which is the barest of thresholds, may not be found to be constitutional at the end of the day,” he said. “It’s a very live question whether that kind of random testing is permissible or an unreasonable search and seizure.”

Mulligan predicts the new legislation will create a great deal of uncertainty and chaos in thousands of impaired driving cases across Canada. “This law will be subject to a constitutional challenge. It will work its way through multi-layered court systems in different provinces until the Supreme Court of Canada tells us if this is constitutionally permissible. During that time, there will be uncertainty that these convictions are sound.”

Of particular concern, said Mulligan, is that mandatory roadside testing could target visible minorities.

“Police do not need any cause to stop you at all. They can just pull cars over. The concern is you get the kind of stops where an officer thinks: ‘I don’t like the look of that guy. Does he really belong in the neighbourhood?’ ”

The new legislation will eliminate or restrict common defences used by drivers facing impaired driving charges. Under current law, drivers can argue they consumed alcohol just before or during driving and were not over the limit while driving because the alcohol was not fully absorbed. Drivers can also claim they left the scene of an accident and drank at home. The new legislation removes this defence by making it illegal to be over the offence level within two hours of driving.

Bill C-46, introduced at the same time as the Cannabis Act that legalized recreational marijuana, sets out three new criminal offences for having a prohibited concentration of drugs in the blood within two hours of driving. The new offences for drug-impaired driving came into force last week.

Drivers with a level of THC — the psychoactive constituent of cannabis — between two and five nanograms will face a summary conviction offence with a fine of up to $1,000. Drivers with a THC level above five nanograms will face mandatory minimum penalties of a $1,000 fine on a first offence, 30 days’ imprisonment on a second offence and 120 days’ imprisonment on a third offence.

Drivers with a THC level of more than 2.5 nanograms and having a blood alcohol concentration above 50 mg per 100 ml will face the same mandatory minimum penalties.

Drug-impaired driving causing bodily harm carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

These offences apply for any detectable level of cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, ketamine and psilocybin. Scientists have advised the government there’s no safe level of these drugs for drivers.

But unlike the pending mandatory alcohol screening, police must have a reasonable suspicion that a driver has taken drugs to demand a saliva sample to test for drugs. A positive reading could lead to a blood test or a drug-recognition evaluation by a trained officer to determine whether a criminal offence has been committed.

The drug-impaired-driving law also applies to medical marijuana patients. But there’s no universally accepted roadside test for marijuana impairment.

“In setting limits, they will end up capturing people who haven’t done anything dangerous at all. It will capture the cancer patients who smoked marijuana two days ago,” Mulligan said.

It could be fall before police are using roadside devices and testing saliva for drug impairment. The National Research Council is still testing devices. Once approved, there will be a 30-day public consultation. Then the devices can be purchased and officers trained.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
Under the current system, failure to provide a breath test is not a criminal charge.
Yes it is.

Penalties under the Canadian Criminal Code
If you refuse to provide the sample requested, you may face a serious charge under the Criminal Code called “refusal to provide a sample.”

If you are convicted of refusing to provide a sample, you will usually face the same penalties as if you were convicted of driving while impaired. These penalties are usually a fine of about $1,000 and a one-year licence suspension if it is your first offence. For a second offence, you will usually be subject to a minimum penalty of 30 days in prison, and a minimum three-year licence suspension. For a third or subsequent offence, you will usually be subject to a minimum penalty of 120 days in prison and a lengthy licence suspension.
Failing a BAC test doesnt always result in charges. What is it? .03-.07 is a driving infraction and .08 and above is a criminal charge?
Failing a BAC is .08 and above. the .05 is a "warning" which results in a temporary suspension at the discretion of the officer if memory serves.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
No it is not.
That's weird, because I gave you information from a criminal defense lawyer's website. I also know degenerates whom have been charged with it.

I can try it from another site if it helps:

D. Penalties for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample:
Like all DUI charges in Canada, a conviction for refusing to provide a sample of breath pursuant to a lawful demand made by a police officer has a minimum fine of $1000.00 and a mandatory license suspension for a period of at least 12 months for a first time offender. A finding of guilt for refusing a breath sample will also automatically result in a permanent criminal record for a first time offender.
Refuse Breath Sample Lawyer - Toronto, Ontario.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
Maybe in Ontario but in BC it is a transportation act violation and IRP for 90 days. No criminal charges.
This is from the website of the BC BAR Association:

3. WHAT CAN HAPPEN UNDER THE CANADIAN CRIMINAL CODE IF YOU DRINK AND DRIVE?
If the police do not issue an IRP under the BC Motor Vehicle Act, they may charge you with any of the following 3 serious criminal charges under the Criminal Code of Canada:

  • impaired driving (caused by alcohol or drugs—both legal prescription drugs and illegal ones).
  • driving with a blood-alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams in 100 milliliters of your blood (called “over .08”).
  • failing or refusing to provide breath or blood samples on demand (called “refusal” or “refusing to blow”).
These charges apply if you’re driving a car, boat, plane, or other motor vehicle or vessel. They can apply even if you weren’t driving and didn’t move the vehicle—as long as you had care or control of it. Care or control of a vehicle means you were in the driver’s seat and had access to the ignition key, even if you were parked.

If your test results are over .08 or you refuse to blow
Criminal charges—if your results are over .08, you will normally be charged under the Criminal Code with over .08. If you fail to give a breath or blood sample, you will be charged with refusing to blow. In either case, you will also normally be charged with impaired driving—a criminal offence.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
This is from the website of the BC BAR Association:
Key words: they may
If the police do not issue an IRP under the BC Motor Vehicle Act, they may charge you
Not sure what to say, I have a staff at work who I supervise. He got a failure to provide a breath sample and a 90 day prohibition about 5 years ago. We have since done a criminal record check on him, even an enhanced one for working with vulnerable people and his criminal record came back clean.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
Not sure what to say, I have a staff at work who I supervise. He got a failure to provide a breath sample and a 90 day prohibition about 5 years ago. We have since done a criminal record check on him, even an enhanced one for working with vulnerable people and his criminal record came back clean.
Someone close to me refused to provide a few years back. That's what he was going to be charged with until his lawyer said "he'll do the year suspension and pay the fine, but for the love of God this can't show up on his background check or he'll end up unemployed." The crown agreed and allowed him to plead guilty to careless driving with an abnormally stiff sentence. Your employee was probably in a similar situation.

But if he only had a 90 day he wasn't found guilty of refusing to provide. It has the same minimum as dui.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Someone close to me refused to provide a few years back. That's what he was going to be charged with until his lawyer said "he'll do the year suspension and pay the fine, but for the love of God this can't show up on his background check or he'll end up unemployed." The crown agreed and allowed him to plead guilty to careless driving with an abnormally stiff sentence. Your employee was probably in a similar situation.

But if he only had a 90 day he wasn't found guilty of refusing to provide. It has the same minimum as dui.

It showed up on his drivers abstract as a failure to provide a breath sample. At the same time his criminal record check was clean.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
It showed up on his drivers abstract as a failure to provide a breath sample. At the same time his criminal record check was clean.
I don't know what to tell you, but failure to provide is most definitely a criminal charge as per the criminal code.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
I don't know what to tell you, but failure to provide is most definitely a criminal charge as per the criminal code.
Looks like the police have the option of going either the route of a motor vehicle infraction and an immediate IRP (without due process) or they can go the route of criminal charges, no IRP until case is settled (due process). Apparently police have been going the IRP route to avoid the case being thrown out as commonly happens with DUI cases.

CBA British Columbia - 190
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
Looks like the police have the option of going either the route of a motor vehicle infraction and an immediate IRP (without due process) or they can go the route of criminal charges, no IRP until case is settled (due process). Apparently police have been going the IRP route to avoid the case being thrown out as commonly happens with DUI cases.

CBA British Columbia - 190
That's fucking disgusting.
 

Sex Chicken

Exotic Dancer
Sep 8, 2015
25,819
59,498
I hope the police kick down the doors of every pot smoker in Canada at 11:59 tonight and take them and all their bongs to jail.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
So whats the official website to order weed?

The Liberals sure shit the bed on rolling this out.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Great way to re energize Canada Post though. Every pothead has their fingers crossed Postal Canada dont have to strike.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Meet your e-dealer: Shopify confident its online tech can handle cannabis demand
If the rollout of legal recreational marijuana goes (more or less) smoothly this week, an Ottawa-based tech firm will be able to claim at least some of the credit.

Canadian cannabis-fanciers are expected to log on in large numbers to buy the product online after it becomes officially legal one minute after midnight tonight. In four provinces, that online shopping experience will be shaped largely by a single company: Canadian e-commerce giant Shopify.

The company was chosen to design the retail platform for online sales in Ontario, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador.


Shopify's Vice-President and General Manager Loren Padelford laughed when asked whether he thinks he's joining the marijuana trade this week.

"We're not the seller of the products," he said. "We're the facilitator of the technology. We give people the platform to sell whatever they want, as long as that's legal."

Padelford points out that Shopify isn't in the business of selling marijuana — any more than it's in the business of selling clothing, or spa services, or any of the thousands of products now sold online using the company's e-commerce platform.


All the other elements of the online sales system appear to be in place. Distribution centres across the country are ready to go. In Ontario, for example, pallets of dried cannabis are stacked floor to ceiling in warehouses that look like home renovation stores.

Even those who file their orders online at a minute past midnight will have to wait at least a few days for them to be filled and delivered. There is no same-day delivery.

"That's a function of online sales in a lot of ways," said Padelford. "You've got to buy it first and it's got to get shipped to you."



One potential wrench in the gears could be Canada Post itself: its workers are in the midst of contract negotiations and in a legal position to call a strike with 72 hours' notice. Mike Palecek, national president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, said the delivery of legal recreational cannabis by mail could be delayed as a result.

"There is the potential that these negotiations will impact all mail delivery," Palecek told CBC News. "Canada Post has been struggling lately with a massive increase in parcels, not just from cannabis, but of course from the shift from retail to online shopping.

"We've seen exponential growth in parcels and that is causing a whole number of questions that playing out at the bargaining table right now."

Palacek said Canada Post is quite ready for recreational cannabis delivery and isn't expecting problems. "We've been delivering medical cannabis for years already. This is a service we already provide.

"We are used to delivering parcels with age verification, with signature required, with all of these things, so we really don't expect to see anything different."

The union, however, said it does expect to see an overall spike in the number of parcels being delivered by mail as the online recreational cannabis market ramps up.

Canada Post spokesperson Phil Legault told CBC the carrier had continued to refine its approach to marijuana delivery since it first started carrying the medicinal product.

"Awareness and training for our people has been ongoing across the country in the lead-up to October 17," Legault said.

Shopify has been preparing for October 17 in its own way. The company has been working with medical cannabis for a few years, but "this lead up to cannabis legalization has been really going full tilt for about a year," Padelford said.

Padelford added he is confident Shopify's tech is robust enough to handle the volume.

"In combination with our data security and safety, our ability to handle large volumes is one of the things that makes Shopify so special ... we've been prepping our whole lives to handle large volumes of sales."

Padelford acknowledges that Shopify probably will have more work to do on the online shopping experience after October 17.

"Legalization is a process, not a single day," he said.
 

Sex Chicken

Exotic Dancer
Sep 8, 2015
25,819
59,498
So has the country burned to the ground yet?
I went to my doctor’s appointment this morning and they were blasting The Spin Doctors in the waiting room. When I finally got to see my doctor, he was so high he could barely stand. I asked him to take a look at my hemaroids and he said “No” and that it would “harsh his buzz”.
 
M

member 3289

Guest
I went to my doctor’s appointment this morning and they were blasting The Spin Doctors in the waiting room. When I finally got to see my doctor, he was so high he could barely stand. I asked him to take a look at my hemaroids and he said “No” and that it would “harsh his buzz”.
You should probably move to the U.S. where it's safe
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
It took an hour for the first loser to get pulled over for driving while smoking a joint.
I dont think it was the driver who got the ticket, I think it was the passenger. The ticket was for consuming in a vehicle, not driving while impaired. If it was the driver, you would think they would have earned both violations.