Marijuana.com

Zilos

It sickens me when I relize how much freedem we are loosing everyday in a supposed 'free country', sometimes it almost seems like it's gonna take a war to change things and how many damn wars is it gonna take, and how many people have to die or be put in prisons, for us to get things right?

if they gave up the war on drugs, and focused on killers, rapists, and child milestors, the world would be a sh*tload better!!

__________________
:: Posting Guidelines :: 420 Lounge :: Hemp Cultivation :: Myths :: Canadian Laws :: U.S. Laws :: Recipes ::

 

TANJ3113

That is a scary premise - I think it may be more real than could be imagined - please don't suggest this to any govt police types

Remember the movie Gattica ...

Suetaz

This is the legal opinion of a Canadian pro-pot lawyer on the drugged-driving laws that was posted by BuzzzWorthy in the Canada forum here. I thought I'd post it here to go with the article that started this thread.

About Toking and driving

Copied from Ed Pearson memo. Pearson is a Damn good pot lawyer.

Having taken the opportunity to read and digest the proposed new law dealing with drugs and driving under the influence, I can safely render an opinion that this draconian law will not pass constitutional scrutiny for a
multitude of reasons.

It is open -ended, vague and grants unfettered discretion to the police. If
enacted as it stands the non-abuse thereof would constitute a miracle of the
highest magnitude.

The proposed law fails to define which if any drug comes within its terms.
It does in fact include legally prescribed drugs of every nature no matter
what effect they may have on a given person and allows of a set of police
prescribed tests physical and mental that are diagnosed by a police officer
that has had a few weeks of training at best, and which somehow places him
on a equal footing with qualified doctors.

It appears that not only may one be detained on the whim of the officer, in
his discretion, but one can be arrested and compelled to attend for further
testing at a Police Station. If the type of testing employed by the officer
does not reach the conclusive finding he feels should be reached, he, in his
discretion can compel you to undergo blood testing or invade or have invaded
your physical body in the search for evidence of some unspecified drug
consumption.

The fact that some drugs and marihuana can be detected some 72 hours after consumption is not to be considered or excusable even as regards those
persons who ingest prescribed drugs or inhale the equivalent of one or two
spiffs a day under medical prescription [MMAR]. There is noting in the MMAR
and nothing prescribed by statutory law that prohibits driving in such
circumstances. The proposed law does not set any limitations such as
Parliament has seen fit to state in relation to the amount of alcohol in the
blood. It appears from the proposal that any amount of drugs- marihuana or
other will lead to a conviction and the draconian sentences and fines
proposed.

Having failed to increase the punishment and lower the .08 alcohol level, it
appears that these same Parliamentarians seek to do indirectly in respect of
alcohol what they have failed to do directly. This proposed law is
unconstitutional, in bad faith, and in my opinion will never see the light
of day. It is another liberal effort to show that even though they intend to
decriminalize possession of small amounts they are also going to impose
strict sanctions. This to appease those who are against the supposed
decriminalization. A Joke is a Joke is a Joke, but this proposal is not
one.
Ed

__________________

Unregistered2

In Minnesota we have a similar law, but it doesn't include marijuana. If you have any illegal drug in your system you get a DWI. Except for marijuana, you have to fail a sobriety test in to get a DWI for driving under the influence of marijuana.