City
"Drugged Driving" Charges Laid in Toronto
According to an article published just minutes ago on CP24, Toronto Police have laid the first ever charges for "drugged driving" under new laws that were brought into place in July.
It's not certain at this point what drug was found to be causing impairment, but police Sgt. Tim Burrows has told reporters that some tests have been sent off to lab for analysis.
The article states:
"They arrested her for impaired by drug and introduced her to a drug recognition expert," he says, adding the expert conducted a series of tests, including some that will be analyzed at a lab. "He determined that a drug charge should be laid."
I'm all for taking people who are wasted high off the roads, and enforcing such a policy, but I can't help but feel that all of this seems very grey. Is enforcement even possible? Do we even know, for example, what level of a given drug intake results in impairment? What about prescription drugs? Surely some people are less affected and others more affected by a variety of drugs.
It's also uncertain how this new law might also affect the estimated half million Canadians that toke and drive in a given year.
Furthermore, what if lab tests end up coming back negative?
One thing is for sure... the face of policing is changing in Canada.
Discussion
21 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Brave new world!
They never got caught because there was no routine for testing for drugs in the area even after crashes.
I figure, as long as there is legislation that they don't hold it against anyone who has residual amounts of illegal drugs in their system and have figured out a fair blood-thc level, then I'm all for it.
But it should definitely also include non-illegal substances. If they want to prove that this is about road safety and not about punishing people for doing illegal drugs, they need to make sure prescription drugs with mind altering side effects need to be looked at as well.
Hell, 10 minutes after I take Ny-Quil, I'm barely coherent.
Would you cross at a crosswalk knowing the oncoming car's driver was high? I sure as shit wouldn't.
Less or more affected notwithstanding, would you be comfortable getting in the car with a guy who weighed 270 pounds after he'd had a few just because he said "Don't worry, I can handle more, trust me"? If you do you have a fucking deathwish. Get the drunk and drugged drivers off the fucking roads and make sure they face the same charges that drunk drivers do.
And add cell phone using drivers to the list as well.
Would you feel safer getting into a car with a driver who has taken a few puffs off a joint, a driver who has had a few shots of tequila, or a driver that took a full dose of Nyquil?
Personally, I do think there's a difference with each. But in general, all scenarios lead to some degree of impairment. Which brings me back to my original point that the definition of impairment and how it would be measured is grey grey grey.
Driving on acid is a little more tricky. You just have to make sure you don't lose sight of the unicorn or you'll spiral off the highway.
<i>The test involves looking at indicators such as pupil size, blood pressure and the ability of the driver to multi-task. The final part of the test is a bodily fluid swab test.</i>
and
<i>Officers are trained to check for several classes of drugs including cannabis, hallucinogens, cocaine and methamphetamine.</i>
Sounds dicey to me.
That's something my ex girlfriend used to claim before her accident. It's also the same thing I hear from a lot of drunk drivers.
if you have small amounts of a drug in your system from the day before but arent causing problems on the road you will be fine.
This topic is really subjective. I learned to drive at the early age of 13 so I would say I am an experienced driver. Never been in an accident where it was my fault nor have I ever gotten a ticket (other than for parking). I drive high all of the time Heck, before i had a car or license i was driving my moped stoned.
My girlfriend lives in Hamilton and in Richmondhill in the summers and I have frequently driven these somewhat great lengths freshly baked or sometimes smoking along the way. Personally, i become MORE aware of my surroundings and am MORE focused on the road. I don't slow down or drive any more cautiously than I do when I'm not high. the only difference in my driving I find is that I am way more scared/anxious/road-ragey about bad drivers hitting me when I am not high.
"Years ago an ex girlfriend of got into a very serious car accident after the group of them got stoned. They ran a red light and t-boned another car, putting the occupants of both cars into the hospital"
In my experience, driving high with a group of high friends is always a bad idea. The other high friends always get loud and talkative and tend do distract the driver. I always got mean with friends if they acted like a bunch of knuckleheads when they were high in my car. In fact, if me and friends get high and one of them are driving, more often than not, the driver friend hands the keys to me to drive everybody home.
I can't think of what I could be using all this as an excuse for. The fact for me remains that I am a kick-ass driver when I'm high.
My eyes tend to get very red when I am high so I guess I better start carrying around some visine in case the "drug recognition expert" comes chasing me down.
I feel that it's important to say so, because I am completely against legislating personal responsibility.
Canadians seem to demand legislation, where responsible behaviour would suffice. You shouldn't drive impaired, so don't.
Drug recognition expert? I'm wondering what the credentials required for that job are, and just what the percentile for being right is? Seems a little vague to me.
In this case, my ex's friends were dozed off in the back seat. There were woken up by the crash (which is why they suffered fewer injuries than everyone else as they weren't given the opportunity to tense up). When she ran the red light she didn't even apply the brakes. Even after she saw the other car. Her reaction time was -completely- shot.
"The fact for me remains that I am a kick-ass driver when I'm high."
Again, this is the same thing she used to say prior. She now walks with a permanant limp from the knee reconstruction surgery and doesn't say that anymore.
"I am completely against legislating personal responsibility."
It's not personal responsibility when the safety of others is at stake.
The story is quite specific. She drove into a stopped car, right infront of the cops.
I doubt that. Even if you feel "more focused" your reaction time is probably impaired. Instead of just assuming you are a better driver high, why not collect some real data?
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php
Until then, if you want to gamble with your own life, OK, but when you take it on the road you're gambling with mine too. I rather you didn't do that.
A good driver might toke and drive, but still be a better motorist than a sober [insert bad driver stereotype here].
I am much more concerned with alcohol and driving charges than any other drug, and am glad to see that roadside testing is still very much focused on the worst drug problem facing Toronto - ALCOHOLISM.
Regardless if your drunk, stoned, fatigued or distracted you are an impared driver and should be prosecuted.
If you think your impared air on the side of caution and simply do not drive.
I think everybody knows that there are way more alcohol-related accidents than pot-related accidents. I am even willing to bet there are way more sober accidents than pot-related. But I understand why many of you fear for your lives knowing there is a high driver sharing the same road as you. Reading all these personal testimonies helps me see from another perspective.
To be honest, I ride the bus more than I drive nowadays anway. I just hope they don't start ticketing you for riding the bus high.