'Completely absurd': Lawyers doubt clout of pending pot regulations

gb123

Well-Known Member
New Brunswick is proposing that users keep marijuana locked up, while drivers could face saliva tests

Some criminal lawyers say the strict regulations around recreational marijuana proposed by the New Brunswick government might not stand up in court, or even be enforceable.

The proposed regulations include a requirement for marijuana users to store their pot in a locked container in their home, a rule that Ottawa-based criminal defence lawyer Michael Spratt called "completely absurd."

Spratt is a partner at Abergel Goldstein & Partners and has testified before parliamentary committees on the federal government's marijuana legislation.


Ottawa criminal lawyer Michael Spratt says he thinks New Brunswick's proposed regulations are archaic. (Michael Spratt)

"It represents an myopic and outdated thinking that has characterized the war on drugs that has been unsuccessful for the last 100 years," he said.

"There is no reason, at all, to require someone to lock their marijuana away, as they would a firearm, when marijuana is no more dangerous and no more accessible than alcohol."

He said the law is likely completely unenforceable, unless the New Brunswick government plans to embark on a campaign to tell people to lock up their weed.

Test called into question

Lawyer Gilles Lemieux says he's not sure how well saliva tests for cannabis use would stand up in court. (Radio-Canada)

The province also announced they plan to amend the Motor Vehicle Act to create a three-step test for drivers, with the first step involving a device that measures THC levels through a saliva test.

"Alcohol makes you do things that you regret in the morning. Marijuana makes you waste the entire evening watching the Little Rascals."- David Lutz, criminal defence lawyer
Some critics have said the test is unreliable because THC can show up in the body for weeks after cannabis use.



Gilles Lemieux, a criminal defence lawyer based in Saint-Antoine, N.B., said he wasn't sure how reliable that kind of testing would be in court, because finding THC in someone's system is not an automatic indication of intoxication.

"I really don't think it will lead to convictions. There will be too much doubt," he said.

"Just simple pot in system, I don't think is anywhere near the evidentiary criteria to convict somebody [of impaired driving] under the Criminal Code."

Few impaired cases involve marijuana
But Hampton-based lawyer David Lutz, who served as a federal prosecutor in Saint John for nearly 20 years, said in his experience with impaired driving charges, the evidence that kind of technology would present might not even be necessary to get a conviction.


Defence lawyer David Lutz. (CBC)

"I've done probably, over my career, at least 1,500 impaired driving convictions," he said.

"Most of the time, you don't even need the breathalyzer. All you need is the officer saying, 'This is what I observed.'"

However, he added that in his five-decade career, he has seen relatively few people wind up in court for driving recklessly while under the influence of marijuana.

"The fortunate thing about weed, most people who smoke marijuana don't go very far. They stay at home, listen to music or eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, from what I've read," he said.

"Alcohol makes you do things that you regret in the morning. Marijuana makes you waste the entire evening watching the Little Rascals."

The province is holding a technical briefing outlining the details of the new legislation on Thursday afternoon.
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
I'm not a lawyer and have said the same thing, unenforceable and won't hold up in courts. WTF do these government imbeciles think, that we'll just roll over and let them implement ridiculous laws without question?

One thing I haven't seen yet in this "storage" law discussion is the fact that since only flowers will be legal, it's impossible to get high off them if anyone grabs a bud and eats it. It has to be decarbed to activate and convert THCA to THC. So all of this discussion, if that's the intended goal, is stupid to begin with #$%! Or is it intended to mitigate the risk of a child finding a bud, decarbing it, then eating it? lol
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
This is going to be the single biggest problem with pot legalization: standards of testing and levels allowed.

Alcohol went through the same exact thing in the early days. Some breathalyzers were not the same as others, some levels were deemed to low or too high, etc.

It's very early days for anybody on either side to start getting their panties all up in a wad. This is all new to pretty much everybody and it's going to take the courts and the medical field time to sort it all out.

In the meantime, simply use at home and don't overdo it if you have to go out. It's that simple.

As far as storage goes, that is going to be no different than prescription medications and firearms - there's a limit to what is considered "reasonable". For instance, if your weed was in a cigar box on the top shelf of your closet and your 13 year old discovered it while on a foot stool looking for some extra cash you may have hidden and got stoned to bejesus on it, the court would be hard pressed to find you guilty of negligence.

But if you left your shit just laying on the coffee table and a toddler decided it was some sort of new candy and ate it all and got all FUBAR and wound up in the hospitality, then yeah...you were negligent. Expect to be cited.

Again, MOST of it is common sense. The only people that have problems typically are the idiots that think they have nothing but rights and ZERO responsibilities.

Prisons are RIFE with those people.
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
This is going to be the single biggest problem with pot legalization: standards of testing and levels allowed.

Alcohol went through the same exact thing in the early days. Some breathalyzers were not the same as others, some levels were deemed to low or too high, etc.

It's very early days for anybody on either side to start getting their panties all up in a wad. This is all new to pretty much everybody and it's going to take the courts and the medical field time to sort it all out.

In the meantime, simply use at home and don't overdo it if you have to go out. It's that simple.

As far as storage goes, that is going to be no different than prescription medications and firearms - there's a limit to what is considered "reasonable". For instance, if your weed was in a cigar box on the top shelf of your closet and your 13 year old discovered it while on a foot stool looking for some extra cash you may have hidden and got stoned to bejesus on it, the court would be hard pressed to find you guilty of negligence.

But if you left your shit just laying on the coffee table and a toddler decided it was some sort of new candy and ate it all and got all FUBAR and wound up in the hospitality, then yeah...you were negligent. Expect to be cited.

Again, MOST of it is common sense. The only people that have problems typically are the idiots that think they have nothing but rights and ZERO responsibilities.

Prisons are RIFE with those people.
Some good points, but that eventual sorting out is going to cost medical patients grief, anxiety and a lot of money to sort out if the laws are enacted as-is. On the testing thing, the initial proposed law has such a low limit that the responsible person who smoked his joint at night after the kids were in bed, gets pulled over the next morning, gets swabbed for no reason (obviously not high at this point) which is also in the proposed law, and fails the test because he would have "blown over" even a week after smoking that joint.

Now take a medical patient who is taking Coconut oil/THC pills at night to manage his cancer. At the proposed limits that person would always blow over. That's me and probably 90% of the folks in this section. We're responsible medical patients who will be come outlaws as of July 1, 2018.
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Growing pains, man. To this day, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

You should be happy that the problem exists to begin with - and rejoice that they're actually working on it rather than just keeping it blatantly illegal as usual.
 

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
Patients shouldnt have to suffer due to recreational legalizations growing pains. Especially when things are made MORE restrictive in the process. To simply add it all up to growing pains is simply passing the buck and copping out. They didnt have to forge a new path and try to figure all this out from scratch

They spent tax payer dollars to travel to legal states and get differing opinions on what did and didn't work for those particular states. From there they could sift through their findings and adapt those to create our program

ALL of that and they still refuse to use facts to make legislation on the matter. Instead we get bullshit like this 2ng limit, which instantly incriminates anyone who has consumed cannabis ins a 24-48hr period, REGARDLESS of physical impairment.

But hey, growing pains right?.......
 
Last edited:

gb123

Well-Known Member
In the meantime, simply use at home and don't overdo it if you have to go out. It's that simple.
.
this is a joke...correct? :?
Growing pains, man. To this day, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

You should be happy that the problem exists to begin with - and rejoice that they're actually working on it rather than just keeping it blatantly illegal as usual.
its LEGAL for us already.
theyre not making pot legal
they are making an OZ legal only.
New laws are WORSE.

Oh we'll make them feel the growing pains alright!

;)
 
Last edited:

A.K.A. Overgrowem

Well-Known Member
New Brunswick is proposing that users keep marijuana locked up, while drivers could face saliva tests

Some criminal lawyers say the strict regulations around recreational marijuana proposed by the New Brunswick government might not stand up in court, or even be enforceable.

The proposed regulations include a requirement for marijuana users to store their pot in a locked container in their home, a rule that Ottawa-based criminal defence lawyer Michael Spratt called "completely absurd."

Spratt is a partner at Abergel Goldstein & Partners and has testified before parliamentary committees on the federal government's marijuana legislation.


Ottawa criminal lawyer Michael Spratt says he thinks New Brunswick's proposed regulations are archaic. (Michael Spratt)

"It represents an myopic and outdated thinking that has characterized the war on drugs that has been unsuccessful for the last 100 years," he said.

"There is no reason, at all, to require someone to lock their marijuana away, as they would a firearm, when marijuana is no more dangerous and no more accessible than alcohol."

He said the law is likely completely unenforceable, unless the New Brunswick government plans to embark on a campaign to tell people to lock up their weed.

Test called into question

Lawyer Gilles Lemieux says he's not sure how well saliva tests for cannabis use would stand up in court. (Radio-Canada)

The province also announced they plan to amend the Motor Vehicle Act to create a three-step test for drivers, with the first step involving a device that measures THC levels through a saliva test.

"Alcohol makes you do things that you regret in the morning. Marijuana makes you waste the entire evening watching the Little Rascals."- David Lutz, criminal defence lawyer
Some critics have said the test is unreliable because THC can show up in the body for weeks after cannabis use.



Gilles Lemieux, a criminal defence lawyer based in Saint-Antoine, N.B., said he wasn't sure how reliable that kind of testing would be in court, because finding THC in someone's system is not an automatic indication of intoxication.

"I really don't think it will lead to convictions. There will be too much doubt," he said.

"Just simple pot in system, I don't think is anywhere near the evidentiary criteria to convict somebody [of impaired driving] under the Criminal Code."

Few impaired cases involve marijuana
But Hampton-based lawyer David Lutz, who served as a federal prosecutor in Saint John for nearly 20 years, said in his experience with impaired driving charges, the evidence that kind of technology would present might not even be necessary to get a conviction.


Defence lawyer David Lutz. (CBC)

"I've done probably, over my career, at least 1,500 impaired driving convictions," he said.

"Most of the time, you don't even need the breathalyzer. All you need is the officer saying, 'This is what I observed.'"

However, he added that in his five-decade career, he has seen relatively few people wind up in court for driving recklessly while under the influence of marijuana.

"The fortunate thing about weed, most people who smoke marijuana don't go very far. They stay at home, listen to music or eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, from what I've read," he said.

"Alcohol makes you do things that you regret in the morning. Marijuana makes you waste the entire evening watching the Little Rascals."

The province is holding a technical briefing outlining the details of the new legislation on Thursday afternoon.
Read that EVERY citation will be challenged, cause get found guilty and U loose ability to enter US. for life. What will that quagmire cost?
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
Growing pains, man. To this day, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

You should be happy that the problem exists to begin with - and rejoice that they're actually working on it rather than just keeping it blatantly illegal as usual.
That's one way to look at it. The other from my view is medical is fine as-is over here and covers true patients without all these bull-shit laws, legalizing rec is what's driving all these idiotic laws. I'd rather stay as-is as a medical user, at least I'd be able to drive (sober) without worrying about getting arbitrarily tested using unproven technology and limits that could get you busted just by getting exposed to second hand smoke.

We are Canadian, our citizens actually have rights here and don't get jailed to grease the private jail systems, our constitution has teeth and is defended by our courts, we've already had some medical MJ laws challenged and over-turned. This is just another law that won't hold up in court yet we have to fight it because of some uninformed evil weed crowd pulling the strings in Ottawa. It's wasteful spending of our own tax dollars to defend our existing rights.
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
A good question is: Can a person with a 2ng blood content even be impaired?
No, but we'll have to go through the process and costs to prove so. Standing 5ft. away from someone smoking a joint and getting a whiff of second hand smoke could take you over that limit.
 

Farmer.J

Well-Known Member
No, but we'll have to go through the process and costs to prove so. Standing 5ft. away from someone smoking a joint and getting a whiff of second hand smoke could take you over that limit.
Yeah exactly, when I was 17 I saw AC/DC live in Edmonton. I had never tried cannabis in my life. The woman in front of me had a purse full of prerolls and made sure her whole group always had one lit. It wasn't offered to me, so I didn't partake. Pretty sure leaving Rexall Place that night, I was over 2ng. I guess I can't prove it but I'm sure I was. Probably more deaf than high though. I drove over two hours to get home safely.
 
Last edited:

GroErr

Well-Known Member
Yeah exactly, when I was 16 I saw AC/DC live in Edmonton. I had never tried cannabis in my life. Pretty sure leaving Recall Place that night, I was over 2ng
Ha, I'm sure you were way over that number. I remember taking my dad to see the stones back in the 90's, he'd never smoked and passed when I offered it up but there was so much smoke in the air that by the time we left he was high as a kite :eyesmoke:
 

mojoganjaman

Well-Known Member
fuck, I hate long posts'...but here goes...one of my big concerns with this new testing is legal folk are in a govt' database...with the scanning technology the police have now..you know, their ability to scan vehicle plates and find suspended owners, uninsured etc, cause them to target med patients using the same tech???

ok...wasn't that long...unless you were here watchin' me type...;)



mojo may have to buy a goat and wagon
 

cannadan

Well-Known Member
fuck, I hate long posts'...but here goes...one of my big concerns with this new testing is legal folk are in a govt' database...with the scanning technology the police have now..you know, their ability to scan vehicle plates and find suspended owners, uninsured etc, cause them to target med patients using the same tech???

ok...wasn't that long...unless you were here watchin' me type...;)



mojo may have to buy a goat and wagon
if your goat is powered off the ruffage from your garden mojo...I would expect under the new rules he/she would be impaired.
2 nannygoat grams is not very much
 
Top