Driving High?????????????

mojoganjaman

mojoganjaman

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
Well, the first guy will. Under our charter I am innocentHash until proven guilty. Simply identifying that I have consumed does not translate to impaired. Failing a roadside sobriety test may be grounds for further investigation, but an admission of use, possession or smell cannot be used to prove criminality in court - all will be completely legal. I am only worried about my ability to drive and not my thc level.
Some jurisdictions will be more aggressive than others and quickly realize the futility. I have zero concerns where I am, but I wouldn't want to be in a conservative leaning province or city.
Click to expand...

hmmm...not sure...but I believe in our courts you have to prove innocence...the US the lawyers have to prove your guilt...but I could be wrong....;)))



mojo
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
mojoganjaman said:
hmmm...not sure...but I believe in our courts you have to prove innocence...the US the lawyers have to prove your guilt...but I could be wrong....;)))



mojo
Click to expand...
No, you are mistaken on that. They need to prove guilt.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CH37-4-3-2002E.pdf
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
11. Any persons charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
 
mojoganjaman

mojoganjaman

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
No, you are mistaken on that. They need to prove guilt.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CH37-4-3-2002E.pdf
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
11. Any persons charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
Click to expand...

and I am wrong...again...a favor???....don't tell my wife.....lol



mojo
 
HotWaterKarl

HotWaterKarl

Well-Known Member
In the video they almost killed some guy, jailing him for acting weird as he was having a stroke accusing him of being high. Now he is fucked for life from stroke damage. Sounds like business as normal for a paranoid government that has tasked front line officers with being judge jury and executioner.
 
WHATFG

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
This isn't going to be fun...I couldn't walk a straight line heel toe if you paid me, and I would have a difficult time keeping my balance with one leg off the ground...I can cross my eyes, touch my nose count by 7backwards...it's the physical tests I would fail....am I impaired? Well yes, 24% if they must know...do they give a fuck...probably not.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
WHATFG said:
This isn't going to be fun...I couldn't walk a straight line heel toe if you paid me, and I would have a difficult time keeping my balance with one leg off the ground...I can cross my eyes, touch my nose count by 7backwards...it's the physical tests I would fail....am I impaired? Well yes, 24% if they must know...do they give a fuck...probably not.
Click to expand...
I can't do the physical tests either, and I want to see the look on the cops face when he decides to check my eyes. I have a 'zipper' scar under one eye from the nose to halfway down my cheek, my eye points slightly 'askew' from the other and is always bloodshot. I look perpetually stoned.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
"A report on B.C.’s roadside survey results published in 2012 noted that 33 per cent of fatally injured drivers in Canada tested positive for psychoactive drugs.

The survey — which collected samples from drivers in five B.C. cities — found that 6.4 per cent of drivers tested positive for alcohol, while 10.1 per cent tested positive for other drugs.

The vast majority of the drug-positive tests indicated the driver had been using cannabis or cocaine, but not whether they were legally impaired."
So they want to blame cannabis yet have ZERO evidence that cannabis was a factor in any of the crashes. Why are coke and pot factored together?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top