Marijuana and Other Drugs - Testing For Impairment

[PPCLI Guy]

Pot being legal in Canada and illegal in others, means it's more likely you be asked about it, and as I recall it can linger in the system for 2-3 days,

I think it stays in the system for 30 days enjoy,I will stick with alcohol.

Well, I read it on the Internet, so clearly it stays in my system for 2-30 days.....

As opposed to say, the saliva tests that will be issued to the Police Forces here, which focus on whether or not you are intoxicated at the moment of testing, like, say, alcohol.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well, I read it on the Internet, so clearly it stays in my system for 2-30 days.....

As opposed to say, the saliva tests that will be issued to the Police Forces here, which focus on whether or not you are intoxicated at the moment of testing, like, say, alcohol.

THC can stay in fatty cells up to six months.

The current equipment that they are rolling out and depending on, detect presence of THC, not the intoxication limit or impairment, at the moment of testing.
Currently, with a presence of THC, the officer will determine impairment as a judgement call. This is what led to the establishment of the blood/ alcohol limit for alcohol. There is perceived bias where an officer makes the call as opposed to the breathalyzer or blood test.

This will go straight to a Charter challenge and the equipment, and/ or procedures, will not likely meet the standard required.

If this is the road they want to go down, they'll have to start testing for every drug that causes impairment. All those medications that say 'do not drive' or' do not operate heavy machinery' or 'may cause drowsiness'.

If you took 2 x ACC (aspirin, caffeine and codeine), you should not be on the road because of the codeine according to the new rules for THC.

Never mind all those people driving around on oxy and other tranquilizers and painkillers.

You have to be careful with the studies. Many show an increase in accidents where cannabis is legal, many show a decrease in accidents. Caveat emptor.

 

[garb811]

The saliva test does not determine impairment, it determines the presence, or absence, of THC in the saliva.  More than a certain amount of THC is present in the saliva and you fail that test, but further testing is required to prove impairment.  This is exactly the same process as with an approved screening device used for the roadside test for alcohol.  That device does not determine impairment, simply the presence of alcohol within certain ranges and further testing is required to determine legal impairment.  Use of an screening device in both cases is not required if there are other factors that allow the determination of reasonable and probable grounds for impairment, such as road evidence or failure of the standardized field sobriety test (SFST). 

The SFST and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) process is very comprehensive and does not just test for THC, the tests will pick up people who are impaired by any drug out there.  Although the SFST/DRE combo has gained momentum over the last year, the training and qualified pers have been on the streets for quite a long time; my first encounter with a MP DRE was back in 2010.

Making a determination of impairment is a multi-step process that is explained quite well at this RCMP website. 

While RG is right and there are likely a number of challenges still to come with regard to the new laws, so far the challenges mounted have stood the test.  For instance, in R. v. Bingley, the status of a DRE as an expert witness was upheld by the Supreme Court.

While the trial judge would normally determine whether an expert has special expertise at a voir dire, s. 254(3.1) of the Criminal Code and the legislative and regulatory scheme that accompanies it conclusively answer the question. A DRE is a “drug recognition expert”, certified as such for the purposes of the 12‑step evaluation. By reason of his training and experience, a DRE undoubtedly possesses expertise on determining drug impairment that is outside the experience and knowledge of the trier of fact. He is thus an expert for the purpose of applying the 12‑step evaluation and determining whether that evaluation indicates drug impairment. His expertise has been conclusively and irrebuttably established by Parliament. Knowledge of the underlying science is not a precondition to the admissibility of a DRE’s opinion. Such knowledge is required only where the science is novel. The purpose of the special rule for novel science is to ensure that the reliability of the evidence is established by precedent, evidence or statute. In this case, the reliability of the 12‑step evaluation comes from the statutory framework itself.

Where, as here, the four Mohan threshold requirements for admissibility are met and there is no question that the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, the trial judge is not obliged to hold a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the evidence. Because the DRE’s evidence is admissible as expert evidence, it is unnecessary to consider whether it could also be admissible as lay opinion.

 

[Infanteer]

such as road evidence

Is that the technical term for "guy falls out of the car with a bunch of empties, and the car is in the ditch." 

 

[daftandbarmy]

THC can stay in fatty cells up to six months.

Which is mainly why those who do drugs in the oilfields (like in Alberta) take things like cocaine, which apparently washes out of your system on time for the regular pee tests.

 

[garb811]

Haha...that's one piece for sure!

 

[brihard]

Is that the technical term for "guy falls out of the car with a bunch of empties, and the car is in the ditch."

We call those ‘indicia of impairment’.  :nod:

 

[Lawrence]

I think as time goes on we will see an improvement in technology for the Oral fluid devices, however right now I don't see most major Police services headed towards buying many.  There have been many documented issues with the selected device.  False positives, false negatives, wont work below 5 degrees, where it has to be mounted etc. 

SFST on the roadside tests for all manner of drugs and takes about 7 minutes to complete and costs nothing outside of the initial training. 

DRE evaluations supported by a toxicological result (blood or urine) will continue to be the staple for Canadian Police services for some time to come.  The DRE eval. takes about 45 minutes, where at breath test for alcohol typically takes around 40.  The only major setback for the program is lack of Canadian certification sites causing us to spend lots of cash taking our students to the USA.

Speaking from an Army standpoint I know the MP branch is sending members on SFST courses all over the country and 1 MP Regt just held the first MP only SFST course in Edmonton.  DRE courses are hard to come by as spots are controlled by the RCMP/Municipal Services and the program has been neglected for so many years they are just trying to play catch up themselves. 

 

[Will M]

Trudeau has only expanded a problem. Taxation was the reason and now peep into every banking transaction to see who's buying online.
The agenda for legalization is insidious. Any pot head who voted for him should think twice if they can.
Is the danger pot or the man who pushed to make it legal??? Trudeau by his own admission admires Chinese dictatorship, seems like we have this in Canada.