I was very surprised to see this video just now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmAMf_ALVKU

According to the video, this law has been in effect since 2018 but is
only beginning to be enforced now.

There are obvious civil rights implications in this so I expect this
will be challenged right up to the Supreme Court. (But according to the
comments, a similar law has been in effect in Saskatchewan for a while
and has been ruled constitutional in every court that has considered
the matter. However, it's not clear if it has been found constitutional
by even the Saskatchewan Supreme Court, let alone the federal Supreme
Court. )

Hmmm. Since marijuana has been legal in this country for several years,
will they also force every driver stopped by the police to go to a
hospital for the test that determines if the driver is high? If yes,
that's going to cause some real congestion in the hospitals. If no, why
not? This seems to show distinct discrimination against people impaired
by alcohol versus those impaired by pot.

For what it's worth, I'm not remotely worried about getting charged as
a result of this new enforcement since I don't drink or use drugs. But
I've definitely got concerns about the civil rights aspects,
particularly the presumption of innocence getting thrown out the
window. I'm also perplexed at how this got passed in 2018 and I'm only
hearing about it now, on the first day that it is in effect.

--
Rhino

In article <20240502225901.000028a4@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> I was very surprised to see this video just now:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmAMf_ALVKU
>
> According to the video, this law has been in effect since 2018 but is
> only beginning to be enforced now.
>
> There are obvious civil rights implications in this so I expect this
> will be challenged right up to the Supreme Court. (But according to the
> comments, a similar law has been in effect in Saskatchewan for a while
> and has been ruled constitutional in every court that has considered
> the matter. However, it's not clear if it has been found constitutional
> by even the Saskatchewan Supreme Court, let alone the federal Supreme
> Court.)

I can see a mandatory breath blow for every stop due to driver conduct--
i.e., running a stop sign, speeding, weaving, etc.-- but not for stops
that have nothing to do with a driver's behavior, like broken taillight,
window tint too dark, etc.

> Hmmm. Since marijuana has been legal in this country for several years,
> will they also force every driver stopped by the police to go to a
> hospital for the test that determines if the driver is high? If yes,
> that's going to cause some real congestion in the hospitals. If no, why
> not? This seems to show distinct discrimination against people impaired
> by alcohol versus those impaired by pot.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm not remotely worried about getting charged as
> a result of this new enforcement since I don't drink or use drugs.

You haven't been keeping up:

Police Dept. Arrests Drivers Who Blow 0.00

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7bjKUKotDQc

On Thu, 2 May 2024 22:59:01 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>Hmmm. Since marijuana has been legal in this country for several years,
>will they also force every driver stopped by the police to go to a
>hospital for the test that determines if the driver is high? If yes,
>that's going to cause some real congestion in the hospitals. If no, why
>not? This seems to show distinct discrimination against people impaired
>by alcohol versus those impaired by pot.

For what it's worth, about 10 years ago I asked a local city
councillor (who was a retired 27 year Vancouver police officer) what
piece of equipment not now available but plausibly available within
the next 10 years the police department would most like to have.

He told me a reliable portable breathalyzer - and he said the hardest
part of it was working out a reliable level at which one is in fact
impaired - for marijuana (analogous to 0.08 which is used most places
for alcohol impairment.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Thu, 2 May 2024 22:59:01 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

>>Hmmm. Since marijuana has been legal in this country for several years,
>>will they also force every driver stopped by the police to go to a
>>hospital for the test that determines if the driver is high? If yes,
>>that's going to cause some real congestion in the hospitals. If no, why
>>not? This seems to show distinct discrimination against people impaired
>>by alcohol versus those impaired by pot.

>For what it's worth, about 10 years ago I asked a local city
>councillor (who was a retired 27 year Vancouver police officer) what
>piece of equipment not now available but plausibly available within
>the next 10 years the police department would most like to have.

>He told me a reliable portable breathalyzer - and he said the hardest
>part of it was working out a reliable level at which one is in fact
>impaired - for marijuana (analogous to 0.08 which is used most places
>for alcohol impairment.

That's a good point. I have watched videos on YouTube produced by a defense
attorney who advises to refuse the roadside test because the evidence is
crap. They don't get calibrated properly before each test and it's
straightforward to challenge them in court. I haven't seen one in which
he explains how police measure impairment due to marijuana use.

On 5/2/24 11:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <20240502225901.000028a4@example.com>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> I was very surprised to see this video just now:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmAMf_ALVKU
>>
>> According to the video, this law has been in effect since 2018 but is
>> only beginning to be enforced now.
>>
>> There are obvious civil rights implications in this so I expect this
>> will be challenged right up to the Supreme Court. (But according to the
>> comments, a similar law has been in effect in Saskatchewan for a while
>> and has been ruled constitutional in every court that has considered
>> the matter. However, it's not clear if it has been found constitutional
>> by even the Saskatchewan Supreme Court, let alone the federal Supreme
>> Court.)
>
> I can see a mandatory breath blow

Holy shit you Oath Keepers must be gay as fuck.

for every stop due to driver conduct--
> i.e., running a stop sign, speeding, weaving, etc.-- but not for stops
> that have nothing to do with a driver's behavior, like broken taillight,
> window tint too dark, etc.
>
>> Hmmm. Since marijuana has been legal in this country for several years,
>> will they also force every driver stopped by the police to go to a
>> hospital for the test that determines if the driver is high? If yes,
>> that's going to cause some real congestion in the hospitals. If no, why
>> not? This seems to show distinct discrimination against people impaired
>> by alcohol versus those impaired by pot.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I'm not remotely worried about getting charged as
>> a result of this new enforcement since I don't drink or use drugs.
>
> You haven't been keeping up:
>
> Police Dept. Arrests Drivers Who Blow 0.00
>
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7bjKUKotDQc

On Thu, 02 May 2024 21:01:22 -0700
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <20240502225901.000028a4@example.com>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> > I was very surprised to see this video just now:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmAMf_ALVKU
> >
> > According to the video, this law has been in effect since 2018 but
> > is only beginning to be enforced now.
> >
> > There are obvious civil rights implications in this so I expect this
> > will be challenged right up to the Supreme Court. (But according to
> > the comments, a similar law has been in effect in Saskatchewan for
> > a while and has been ruled constitutional in every court that has
> > considered the matter. However, it's not clear if it has been found
> > constitutional by even the Saskatchewan Supreme Court, let alone
> > the federal Supreme Court.)
>
> I can see a mandatory breath blow for every stop due to driver
> conduct-- i.e., running a stop sign, speeding, weaving, etc.-- but
> not for stops that have nothing to do with a driver's behavior, like
> broken taillight, window tint too dark, etc.
>
> > Hmmm. Since marijuana has been legal in this country for several
> > years, will they also force every driver stopped by the police to
> > go to a hospital for the test that determines if the driver is
> > high? If yes, that's going to cause some real congestion in the
> > hospitals. If no, why not? This seems to show distinct
> > discrimination against people impaired by alcohol versus those
> > impaired by pot.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I'm not remotely worried about getting charged
> > as a result of this new enforcement since I don't drink or use
> > drugs.
>
> You haven't been keeping up:
>
> Police Dept. Arrests Drivers Who Blow 0.00
>
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7bjKUKotDQc

Wow!! I never imagined such a thing was possible. That is truly
Kafka-esque....

--
Rhino