General Trudeau government introduces sweeping changes to impaired driving laws

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
Trudeau government introduces sweeping changes to impaired driving laws
Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould introduced major changes to the country's impaired driving laws Thursday, including provisions that will allow for mandatory roadside alcohol screening and new criminal offences for driving while high.

The legislation, introduced concurrently with the government's cannabis legalization bill, will allow police to demand a driver provide an "oral fluid sample" — saliva — if they suspect a driver is drug impaired. A positive reading could lead to further testing, including a blood test, to determine whether a criminal offence has been committed.

Three new drug-related offences will be also be created for drivers who have consumed drugs within two hours of driving. A driver who is found to have two nanograms but less than five nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood could face a maximum fine of up to $1,000 (THC is the primary psychoactive found in cannabis).

A driver who has a blood level of more than five nanograms of THC, or has been drinking alcohol and smoking pot at the same time, will face a fine and the possibility of jail time. In more serious cases, a drug-impaired driver could face up to 10 years if convicted.

The government did not specify which drug testing device it would recommend police use for enforcement, but other jurisdictions use the DrugWipe system, which can detect traces of cannabis, opiates, cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamines (MDMA, ecstasy), benzodiazepines and ketamine.

'New and stronger laws'


"Impaired driving is the leading cause of criminal death and injury in Canada," Liberal MP Bill Blair, the government's pot legalization czar, said Thursday in announcing the legislation. "In order to further protect Canadians, our government has committed to creating new and stronger laws to punish more severely those who drive while impaired by cannabis, alcohol and other drugs."

"This bill, if its passes, will be one of strongest impaired-driving pieces of legislation in the world and I'm very proud of that," Wilson-Raybould added.

However, by comparison, the European Union has a limit of just one nanogram of THC, and the United Kingdom has a limit of two nanograms. Australia and many U.S. states have zero tolerance, which effectively criminalizes driving with any detectable level of prohibited drugs in one's body.

Some researchers, including those at the U.S.-based National Institute on Drug Abuse, have suggested there is simply no adequate way to measure THC levels, or to determine just how drugged a person is in a roadside test.

Those concerns were shared by Conservative leadership contender Erin O'Toole.

"Public safety officials at all levels of government have outstanding concerns about how to implement marijuana legislation and how to manage the costs associated with it. Of great concern, [Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau has not addressed the fact that there are no proven, reliable tests yet available for determining impairment from marijuana use," he said in a statement.

Mandatory alcohol breathalyzer testing
Police officers will also now be able to demand a breathalyzer sample from any driver they lawfully stop. Previously, a test could only be administered if an officer had "reasonable suspicion" that a driver was impaired by alcohol.

The government is making this change because its research shows many impaired drivers are able to escape detection at check stops. It is also aimed at reducing legal action over whether an officer actually had "reasonable suspicion" to ask a driver to blow on a device for a blood alcohol content reading.

The changes are part of the government's efforts to "repeal and replace" all transportation-related offences in the Criminal Code, with "a modern, simplified and coherent structure," according to literature provided by Health Canada.

"I will, as I do with all justice pieces of legislation, be tabling a charter statement. I am confident of constitutionality of mandatory roadside testing," Wilson-Raybould said. "This is not a device or a tool that doesn't exist in other places in the world. In fact, mandatory roadside testing in many countries has significantly reduced the number of deaths on highways. I think that is of paramount concern," she said.

Loopholes to be closed
New laws will also eliminate, or restrict, common defences used by drivers facing impaired-driving charges in court.

Currently, drivers can avoid fines or a criminal conviction by claiming they consumed alcohol just before or during driving, and thus were not over the legal limit at the time they were driving because the alcohol was not yet fully absorbed. They can claim it was only later, at the time of testing, that they reached an illegal blood alcohol concentration.

The government said, in a background document distributed to reporters, that it would close that loophole by changing the timeframe for blowing "over 80" from "at the time of driving" to within two hours of driving.

Over 80 refers to a blood alcohol limit of 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitre of blood, or as it is commonly known, .08 blood alcohol concentration.

The justice minister also announced changes to the provincial interlock programs, a system of in-car alcohol breath screening devices that prevent a vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected.

Currently, a first-time offender has to wait a year before being admitted to an ignition interlock program in order to be able to drive again.

The proposed legislation would reduce the time offenders must wait before they can return to driving; there would be no wait for a first offence, three months for a second offence and six months for a subsequent offence.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,096
The proposed legislation would reduce the time offenders must wait before they can return to driving; there would be no wait for a first offence,



The Antichrist, soft on crime!
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Anytime you are pulled over or hit a roadblock, the police can request a breathalyzer... I dont see this being abused at all.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,096
I'm fine with increase breathalyzer testing if they get rid of open container laws so all the passengers get drunk as shit while someone drives them around all awesome.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
The proposed legislation would reduce the time offenders must wait before they can return to driving; there would be no wait for a first offence,



The Antichrist, soft on crime!
Under the Transportation Act... This is in addition to the charges faced under the Canadian Criminal Code.

Previously, it was not a crime in Canada (again unless a repeat offender) it was an offense solely under the Transpiration Act.
 

Rambo John J

Eats things that would make a Billy Goat Puke
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
71,741
71,623
ya but you can drive on oxycontin and all pharmies and that is perfectly safe

GTFO....SMD
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
It will be interesting to see the way the THC part plays out in the courts.

THC is different than alcohol in tolerance levels.

A regular smoker can function and not be impaired off a much different dose than a new or irregular smoker.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Unlike alcohol?
Yes, I think a regular smoker would be much more functional than an alcoholic.

You're a doctor, tell us about our cannibalized receptors and how they build up a tolerance making it hard to judge impairment in long term chronic users.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,096
Yes, I think a regular smoker would be much more functional than an alcoholic.

You're a doctor, tell us about our cannibalized receptors and how they build up a tolerance making it hard to judge impairment in long term chronic users.

You clearly say that a regular THC user will respond differently than new and a irregular users.

A regular alcohol user will respond differently than new and irregular users.

A regular opiate user will respond differently than new and irregular opiate users.





I don't understand your statement significance at all. You seem to imply that is not the case for drinkers.
 

Rambo John J

Eats things that would make a Billy Goat Puke
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
71,741
71,623
You clearly say that a regular THC user will respond differently than new and a irregular users.

A regular alcohol user will respond differently than new and irregular users.

A regular opiate user will respond differently than new and irregular opiate users.





I don't understand your statement significance at all. You seem to imply that is not the case for drinkers.
gotta agree
I got heavy tolerance for both and can function well...i do not drive ever on booze, but I could pass many tests
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
You clearly say that a regular THC user will respond differently than new and a irregular users.

A regular alcohol user will respond differently than new and irregular users.

A regular opiate user will respond differently than new and irregular opiate users.





I don't understand your statement significance at all. You seem to imply that is not the case for drinkers.
If you are trying to argue chronic alcoholics are just as safe behind the wheel while 'legally impaired' as chronic marijuana users are, you're wrong. Studies after studies have proven it.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,096
If you are trying to argue chronic alcoholics are just as safe behind the wheel while 'legally impaired' as chronic marijuana users are, you're wrong. Studies after studies have proven it.
???

I'm not arguing anything. Again...

I don't understand your statement significance at all. You seem to imply that is not the case for drinkers.