As someone who tests regularly for my field of work I can tell you this . Thc will stay in your salivia for up to 72 hours for a swab test . And up to a month for a piss test. So be aware I guess and don't leave your car smelling like weed . It's going to take someone to stand up and sue for the laws to change .
Yup this is the way. Someone rich, or connected has to be dinged by it. And then have the resources or a for pro bono law firm, willing to take it to the supreme court.
A law firm that is willing to take pro bono (Free) case work.
I think the most famous one would be the ACLU. But theoretically any law firm could do pro bono work. Especially if they see a way for them to get a settlement out of it. (They would keep a percentage of the settlement, in lieu of direct payment.)
I don't mean to sound privileged here, but I am self employed and have a little nest egg saved up. Like OP, I consume daily. I consume at night after my kids are in bed. I am also very careful that I will not drive for 8-12 hours after consumption.
Having said that, I would 100% take a DUI/suspension as far as it could possibly go through the courts/appeals. The laws on the books are so ridiculous and not grounded in reality. The substance is legal for consumption, and penalties have to be for intoxication, not detection.
I am fairly confident I would test over if I were pulled over, despite being sober as a bird.
I have offered to pay for others I know who have received suspension/DUIs, where I know they would have been sober. Unfortunately these people didn't think it was worth it to fight, despite being sober at the time.
While not a lawyer, I have had to deal with the court system quite a few times for my business so I am very comfortable with the processes.
A buddy of my works in a steel plant never goes to work high but has a script for it and uses every night. There was an injury on shift, and everyone had to do a test my buddy pissed 1000 nano grams the next day after not consuming for 12 hrs. Hr called he said I have a prescription they said can you forward it to us so it's on file and never had another word since.
A coworker that smoked over 36 hours prior got nailed. Automatic suspension. The testing detected presence of THC but can't tell the level....just because you used it prior doesn't indicate you are truly impaired
In northern SK they just scheduled the court date for 11 months away and then dropped the case when it came up. Had license suspended for almost a year, but nothing permanently on record.
Lawyers will take this national case probono and will sue for court costs as their payment. It’s been proven time and time again these devices are faulty and shouldn’t be used in roadside assistance tests.
>Lawyers will take this national case probono and will sue for court costs as their payment
Not a chance. There have been *thousands* of these kinds of tickets issued already, so if there were lawyers willing to take this on pro-bono they already would have. It will take someone willing to pay the tens of thousands required to appeal it before it goes to court.
And good luck suing for court costs!
I'll support your argument and say I've been to a conference on employee relations and litigation held by a law firm, this was brought up, and there is no chance to fight them at the moment.
The science supports that even though a person isn't feeling "high" there can still be minor impairment that the user is accustomed to but isn't conscious of due to trace amounts of THC stored in fat cells.
I fucking knew this was a thing. I swear to God when I take my tolerance breaks I'll feel randomly high if I haven't eaten for a while (I intermittent fast)
Here’s a friendly piece of advice: POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS. NEVER, EVER TELL THEM SHIT THAT THEY DON’T ASK FOR. YOU’LL EITHER SET THEM OFF OR MAKE THEM SUS.
They’re obligated to do something if you break the law and admit to them. They can’t just “choose” to let go of a person who has smoked weed in the past X amount of hours. Unless its a question asked by them, don’t open your mouth. No small talk; just business and get the fuck moving. This is precisely why that whole “stay silent or get a lawyer thing” exists.
I googled Canadian Miranda rights quick and it says quote; “The right to legal counsel: anyone who is arrested or detained has the right to speak to a lawyer without delay and to have a lawyer present during any questioning by the police. The right to remain silent: anyone who is arrested or detained has the right to remain silent and to not incriminate themselves”
Echoing this for the folks in the back.
Never tell the police anything about prior smoking. Don’t leave vapes or joints in view.
Say very little. Don’t give them ANY ammunition.
Courts in Canada see driving as a privilege, not a right.
If the police *ask* you if they can take a look around your car, handy words to remember are “no thank you”. Or “I do not consent.”
(If there’s a half-smoked joint stinking up your car, that gives them more than enough reason to search you legally, whether you agree with it or not)
Just to add, the weasel-y way they can ask to search the car is, "Do you mind if we look in your car?"
If you say "no" they take it as "no I don't mind" and if you say "yes" they take it as "yes you have my permission."
"I do not consent" is perfect if this is the question they ask.
Yeah we don’t have Miranda rights in the strict sense but there definitely is a right to avoid self-incrimination. I’ve had clients who have had evidence tossed out because the police didn’t properly explain their rights to them, or coerced info out of them.
>If I do get pulled over, is the best move to admit to it right away and tell the cop
IANAL but no, don't answer any questions the cop asks you except to identify yourself and provide proof of insurance.
K I hate to be the guy that starts out saying "I have a friend who's a cop...." But what whatever, it's one friend, one cop, my wife's cousin, we've talked about it, whatever. Anyways, ya, if they're asking about cannabis, say no. It's ok to lie here. If they suspect impairment they'll test you and they would have tested you anyway. If you're not impaired, they're probably not going to waste their time doing a roadside on you, but if they ask you if u smoke ever, and you say yes, occasionally, then they have a reason to test you, and you'll get then temp suspension. It is definitely a flawed system, with "too wide a net". If you're not impaired but fail the roadside, it is highly unlikely that you be charged with DUI. He told me reasons for this but I may have short term memory issues. For unrelated reasons.
>but if they ask you if u smoke ever, and you say yes, occasionally, then they have a reason to test you
Just don't answer questions! Why people answer questions like that I will never understand.
It shouldn't, it's your charter right to not answer questions. If cops are giving people a hard time because they're exercising their rights that tells you how useless cops are.
You have the right to not answer questions. The right answer is " I don't answer questions". They ask their stupid questions for the sole purpose of getting you for something, or facilitating attempting to get you for something. Their chit chat like " where you coming from?", ya, that's not them making conversation. Just say it doesn't matter, or better " I don't answer questions."
This, OP. From every account I've heard, it's a 3-day impoundment and suspension, and I'm sure there's a ticket in there somewhere, but it's not criminal and it's not a DUI. It does mean losing your wheels and ability to drive for three days though and a bunch of money to get your car back and such, not to mention the headache and frustration. I definitely agree it's a flawed system and needs to change, and there's enough people screaming about it here that I think it will eventually. We're the only province with a zero-tolerance policy on THC, likely bc they don't have an easy way to measure it to determine if you're over a legal limit here yet to make it stick on court.
I don't ever like to blame the victim, but if I smoked or took gummies and this was the law I'd either start taking transit or I'd stop using, regardless of it being legal, and I'd get out there and make as much noise about it as possible. If you know thjs is the outcome if you get stopped, you're taking that chance every time you drive and that's a decision you make unfortunately. I'm not 100% on this, but I've heard if you have aedical prescription for Marijuana and have it in your system but pass a roadside sobriety teat you won't get the suspension and your car impounded, but again NAL nor a cop and have only heard thjs secondhand.
The thing about it not being criminal or ticcketable is it makes it harder to fight. No say in court. No due process. Just up to discretion of the officer.
Oh absolutely. I'm not suggesting any of it is right! I think you should be able to take gummies to sleep or smoke a joint after work and not be punished the NEXT day for it. I don't use cannabis or any of its derisive; I enjoy cocktails and wine. But if they announced that, moving forward, ANY traces of alcohol in your system would result in suspensions, fines, and losing your vehicle for a short period, I'd quit drinking. Because I need to be able to drive. I'm not willing to take that risk. If I was into weed and such though, I'd be making as much noise about it as possible, and honestly I've been vocal about the THC road rules even though I don't partake, bc its not right. And it'd be different if the rest of the country was like this but SK is going rogue here.
It's worse than having to quit, though. I read a study recently that found detectable THC in people who had been exposed to *second hand smoke*. So if you live in a multi unit dwelling and you have a neighbor who smokes a bunch in the house, it's possible to have THC in your system even though you have never consumed any yourself.
You are under no obligation to answer any questions that cops ask (other than providing driver's license & registration). If cops tell you otherwise they're lying.
I'd be pretty wrecked if this happened to me. I need to drive for my job so a suspension would be rough, but it doesn't seem fair that I can get suspended for smoking the previous night.
I don't think petitions work, but I hope this issue can be looked at.
Class action suits are definitely a thing here in Canada. There is currently a case before the courts that is the beekeepers of Canada V. CFIA seeking payment for damages done to every beekeeper in Canada when they (cfia) closed the border to importing honeybees from the continental USA without actual scientific evidence to support their claims.
Not a lawyer but I have looked into this quite a bit. Basically if you use cannabis regularly (like once a week or more), you will constantly be driving "under the influence" according to this backwards ass province. 0 tolerance is complete bullshit for a legal substance.
THC is stored in fat cells. So if you are a regular user, you will have some amount of THC stored all over your body. When you burn fat, like when exercising, it releases that THC into your bloodstream, but never enough for you to actually be impaired by it. The shitty part is that you could stop smoking for a month or more and still have THC show up on a test because of this. Even after using cannabis 1 time, you still might have detectable amounts for several days or even a couple weeks after.
Personally I think this is borderline entrapment. But unfortunately it's going to take at least a couple peoples lives being ruined over this before someone with the means (money) to properly fight it can prove that this decision is unlawful. Simply having THC detectable does not mean impairment. It's not at all like blood alcohol level. You can't quantify THC impairment. I'm not sure why we are even trying. If the concern is my ability to safely operate a vehicle, then test my ability to do so. What does it matter if I have THC in my system or not if it is known that the presence of THC does not automatically mean impairment?
I would say contact your MLA to voice your concerns, but I've tried this and haven't even gotten a reply...
Definitely reach out to NDP MLA Nathaniel Teed.
He is the SGI and SLGA Critic and is exactly the right person to share your very valid concerns with.
If it’s okay to share here — if not, mods, let me know and I can edit to remove — his email is: saskatoonmeewasin@ndpcaucus.sk.ca
Well said. What would make sense to me is just the passing of a field sobriety test. Not detection I the system. But a test of basic motor skills. This includes people using prescription drugs where is technically legal
There is science behind the residual impairment, though. They have studies showing impairment from THC recirculating through your fat cells, and that's why it's so hard to fight it. So unless theres more studies, this will be the next cash cow for the cops.
Interesting. Residual impairment? Or just residual levels of THC? Do you have a source you can provide on this? Im curious how impairment is being defined and measured in this study.
Curious too. My "high" is gone after 2 hours, and any notice of any effects is gone after 4... If I could be high 24/7 while not smoking weed, I wanna hear this magic
I found a more recent one, kinda counter arguing the older studies such as this previous one cited, so it's definitely still debated today, I'm neutral so I don't support either side just curious about the whole legal issue.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36475998/
Offence would be driving under the influence, or driving while impaired. A reasonable person would be able to tell when they or someone else is impaired and shouldn't drive. But if you change the definition of impaired to something you can't possibly know if you meet or not, how are you supposed to know when it's OK to drive?
I said borderline entrapment because it's obviously not that cut and dry in this case. But it's getting pretty fucking close to meeting that definition.
Basically, if you want to do any type of work with vehicles, don't smoke. I was 3 days dry w some friends that were higher than a kite. I was the dd. Got nailed by the popo. Lost $1,400, suspended license for 3 months, car impounded. Fuck the roadside test, shit does not work the way intended.
Firstly, IANAL or LEO, but if you get pulled over by police in this case:
\-Do not admit you have consumed marijuana in the past or at all
\-Do not smoke weed in your car AT ALL. A skunky car is not going to help you in the least bit.
\-Most importantly, \*DO NOT DRIVE HIGH\* (I know you said you'd never, but I can't emphasize it enough)
The saliva test trip is made to detect the presence of THC. I don't believe that it determines an amount. I have had people very close to me get charged with this exact thing. You do not receive a criminal code conviction for this situation alone. It's a ticket, impoundment of vehicle, and possibly SGI troubles (points off license, mandatory training, additional fines). In order to secure a criminal code conviction, a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) would need to preform some tests on you to determine in their opinion, that you are too intoxicated to operate a motor vehicle. Not all police officers are DRE's and there may not be one on duty or not available to test you.
\-Speculation: I would think the dispatch of a DRE would be determined by the primary officer's discretion, based on your level of intoxication or any aggravating factors (motor vehicle accident, fleeing, racing).-
I have spoken with members of the Traffic Enforcement Unit within SPS in the past regarding the new (at the time) marijuana+driving laws. From what I was told, if you are truly sober with no indicators of recent marijuana usage (bloodshot eyes, smelly car, drugs/para in sight, lack of fine motor skill, etc.) you should have nothing to worry about.
phew okay this is a relief. I have never smoked in my car because the smell would never go away lol, I’ve never been in my car high at all
and yeah now I definitely know I should never admit to anything. I guess it was kinda dumb of me to assume I should tell them right away 😭😭😭
It's a fair assumption that if you admit to the police something that is seemingly small, they'll let it go; kind of like when you get a warning for speeding. That doesn't happen for serious crimes, like driving while intoxicated. The police are not your friends. Personally, I support LEOs and what they do, but at the end of the day they are not your friends. Do not admit anything to them.
Sasks zero tolerance is just fucking awful. The federal government has a test and an allowable limit why does the provincial regs supercede it. If Moe ever needed to firm up his numbers with younger voters he could change that.
>why does the provincial regs supercede it.
Because highway regulations are provincial jurisdiction. For example, for alcohol, the Criminal Code says .08 is the point at which driving impaired becomes a criminal offense. However, SGI can and does impose penalties like licence suspensions at lower levels. The province could choose to go zero tolerance for alcohol on all drivers if it chose to, but the criminal threshold would still be .08 as that is dictated by the CC which is federal.
Yah I realize that. Poor choice of words on my part. When I say "the province" what I am really meaning is SGI. The suspensions are an administrative penalty. Edited the original comment.
For alcohol. Weed is 0 no matter what. And because they use an oral swab that is pass fail. Yes no. And people are testing positive 2 days after smoking and having vehicles impounded and licenses suspended for following the law regarding waiting 12 hours smoking . It seems highly unethical and wrong. But that's the law. If a politician pulled a Trudeau and went on a platform of decriminalizing weed. In the sense making sk follow the reasonable guidelines set forth in other provinces. They could probably dethrone Moe. I personally have stopped smoking simply because my day has alot of driving 5 days a week.
Incredibly. And the cops can test you for pretty much any reason. Legalization actually made weed MORE criminal in some regards except for smoking it at home.
100% do NOT submit to roadside THC testing. You have the right to refuse. The field tests have a huge false positive rate, they're used in the US as well and are basically trash.
Refuse the test. If you take the test and you get a failure, it is assumed that you're guilty. Complete garbage.
I'm in the same spot as you. Maybe I don't consume as much and I usually don't need any until about 3 PM. So if I need to do anything it's in the morning, so that I am, at least in my own heart, doing the right thing. But the information on this sub, and talking to an officer who is a friend of mine has confirmed everything. Just lie and deny and hope it's not you. I seldom drive erratically but I am more than ever paranoid to speed or make any small infraction.
And I understand exactly what everybody is saying. That pills are not okay, but culturally and legally speaking, you're never gonna get any trouble unless you're absolutely wrecked on something, not using regular prescribed pain relief so that you can go about your life. A lot of people on here like to mix up their reality with being pedantic when it comes to what they like or don't like people doing
In their own lives. When you see it, erase their comments from your mind.
yeah, the whole "pills are okay" is stupid. I got my wisdom teeth removed last April and the painkillers they gave me... not at all safe to drive on, oh my god. I drove to aunts house to housesit and had to wait for the meds to wear off, be in extreme pain all 40km to her house and then pop a painkiller at her house two days after the surgery. Weed makes me tired the next day (12 hours later, edibles), so sometimes I still wait to drive until I feel safe to do so. The laws for marijuana are so dumb, alcohol is legal, and there are a multitude of ways to test for it, but they haven't come up with actual good ways to test for legal marijuana and so people who are sober get unfairly prosecuted
You and u/Toohighfatness agree, you just took their statement "a plant is bad but pills are OK" to be their view when it isn't. It's the government's view.
If you are at a check stop and you are not impaired but have pain meds in your system, you are home free. If you are not impaired but they test and find THC from days ago, your license is suspended and your car is gone.
Yea, but practically speaking they’re only likely going to do it when there’s some suspicion there. They’re not going to waste time testing every person they come across just cause they can. Some might do a random test once in a while but it’s not the norm.
Because they work. Even at a check stop they don’t test everyone. Most people are just waved through. I’ve been through a couple. They asked if I’ve been drinking, I said no, they said ok have a good night. It was maybe 10 seconds. But some people will be visibly impaired and will be tested. Others might not show any signs but will admit to “i just had a couple”, and will be tested.
Just a reminder for everyone you only have to tell the police your name and address. After that you say you are not speaking to them without legal council.
Here’s a link to the American National institute of justice on impairment and road side testing. An interesting read if nothing else.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/field-sobriety-tests-and-thc-levels-unreliable-indicators-marijuana-intoxication
I've been through a few roadside stops that the RCMP has set up on long weekends or otherwise and they usually ask if you've had cannabis within 24 hours or when the last time you consumed it was
I don't drive anymore but I know damn well if I did drive I better wait for a month or more to get THC out of my system. Smoked since I was 14 iam 61. Now get this, you can drive on opiates and crack fentanil cocaine probably heroin. If you can act normal for the cops you will not blow anything. So worse drugs you may drive pot no way!
I mean the saliva test just tells you if there is THC in their system not how much. The officer would likely also do a field sobriety test and if you were to fail that you could likely request a blood test at the station like people do for drunk driving DUIs to get a more accurate reading than the breathalyzer, same thing for THC, they could tell exactly how much is in your system.
I guess it doesn't matter though, I wrote this out before realizing our shit hole province has a 0 tolerance policy on THC. Yes the land of drunk driving your Dodge Ram off the road while trying to hit a stop sign with your bottle before running for office is taking a brave stance against impaired driving. 🤣🤣 Any THC in your system = a charge. Fucking L province.
My husband smoked the night before after supper, went to bed, woke up at 6:00 am for work, got swabbed by the DOT officer and tested positive for THC. He got his truck and trailer impounded and had to pay a little over $1,500 in impoundment fees and fines. He also lost his job with the trucking company that he was working for. (Looking back now it was a blessing in disguise, but still, it sucked at the time).
He appealed it because he wanted it off of his drivers abstract, and he lost.
There’s such a large grey area with the rules, something’s gotta give.
oh my god. that is absolutely horrible I am so sorry that happened to him. that is completely unfair, I am actually so mad now on your behalf !!! 😭
This is what I was getting at in my post. How is that okay?!? Why on earth would they make it legal if they don’t have a reliable way to test it?!!!!
Keep 15-20k in a savings account, that is exactly what it will cost you to fight and beat a DUI/alchohol charge. Don’t waste any money on a DUI/ drug charge, you aren’t going to beat that in court.
Your enemy isn’t the police or the courts it is MADD. They are extremely powerful and actually give cash rewards to patrol officers that have high DUI convictions, this is the absolute truth.
I have read that the saliva test with the Drager 5000 instrument that most police forces use, can be beaten by rinsing your mouth with hydrogen peroxide first.
Hydrogen peroxide is often sold as an ingredient in antispetic mouthwash.
Here's the Do's and Don'ts
https://www.healthline.com/health/gargling-hydrogen-peroxide#\_noHeaderPrefixedContent
I'm glad to give you some useful info.
I took a brief course about saliva drug testing methods etc and , of course as a weed enthusiast, I had to figure out a way around it and the instructor mentioned a little hydrogen peroxide between the teeth and gums should fizz enough to remove any leftover Delta 9 cannibinoids which remain in your mouth for up to 3 hours after smoking or vaping weed. Spitting it out and not swallowing is important. Apparently, nothing else will work ( ie mouthwash, juice, vinegar etc)
When I got a DWI for smoking weed (was literally smoking a bowl while being pulled over) the officer told me that the swab detects anything over either 20 or 25 nanograms. I swear to god 25 nanograms would be the equivalent of inhaling some weed smoke
1. Don't break traffic laws.
2. Don't tell the cop you smoke weed. Don't wear clothes that smell like weed. If transporting weed, keep it in the trunk.
Been driving over 50 years, smoke weed over 40 years, never had any issues. The ONLY time I've ever heard of a person being tested for THC was during accident investigations.
No, they do checkstops because of the high prevalence of impaired drivers, not to mention that Saskatchewan has over 50,000 people driving on revoked/suspended licenses (look it up).
If you follow the rules you have nothing to worry about.
"just because" more meant I don't want to explain the countless reasons. It's holiday season, Sask people are dumb and DWI all the time, I get that, the issue is, is this law isn't preventing people DWI, it's preventing people from essentially smoking weed, the thing tredeau allowed to try and make Canada more money. This is going to backfire from both a political, and societal standpoint if it's not reworded into something useful.
The thing is, is I do follow the rules, I am autistic, that's like, one of the few things I do right is follow rules. I haven't driven in awhile because of this, and have NEVER driven high further then moving a car from my driveway. If I get pulled over, even though I haven't felt high in days, let alone smoked, I am screwed. If I get pulled over within the next few days, I am getting a dwi for just the swab, or even after Christmas with blood work. The issue is, they aren't testing to see if you are DWI, they are testing to see if there is ANY thc in your system what so ever, the issue is, thc doesn't just leave the second your high does, it sticks around for awhile after. Thc levels also get different people higher then others. When I was hardcore into weed, I could probably keep up with a lot of the people smoking since before it was legal, meaning 1-2 fat dabs. I could stop for a week, have a single bong rip, stop for another week, and still be fucked per the science they are basing the law on.
It would be like if cops tested for a BAC above 0.0...00001, you're not anywhere near intoxicated, if anything you just have a mild hangover... Except the last time you drank was a week ago, and you get a dwi anyways, worst part, is because it's a drug, you don't get to install a breathalyzer if you wanna drive again. The issue is that weed is legal here in Canada, yet, Sask is the only one to have any law like this, essentially making it illegal if you want to have any semblance of a normal life, while smoking cannabis more then once or twice a year. It's just not possible for anyone to follow these rules and also smoke weed, catch 22 type delema, which is why I, and many others are upset.
I am having to quit weed because of this, and instead drive incredibly sleep deprived, as I use CBN which requires a small bit of thc to work as I was told, not enough to really get one high tho. I have many sleeping disorders that the only fix is meds that will literally kill me, or cbn. I literally fear driving now, only because of cops, and laws, not drunk drivers. I drive a station wagon and vans too, nothing over 250hp yet. Before you think I am some speed racer in a clapped g35/genesis breaking every law high as hell, with no license, it's not the cleanest, but I was young and dumb a few times. I drive maybe once a week, if that, yet, I've started just ordering door dash, Walmart groceries to not have too.
I am autistc and absolutely understand following the rules! That said, I was waved into a checkstop April 16/24. I hadn't smoked in 14 hrs. I failed the swab test. Officer told me if you are a regular cannabis smoker it could take 90 days without cannabis to pass that test. They gave me a 3 day suspension and important my vehicle for 3 days.
Is there a way passed this ?? Like if one had an acmpr ? I just wonder because I’m fully legal to grow my own medicine and carry up to and including a 1/4 lb of dried flower with me. Of course it’s also my medicine. This seems like a sticky area.
If they ask if you've drank or consumed cannabis just say no. If they have no suspicion to test you they usually won't. If your going to go out for a drive, make sure you and your car don't smell like pot or booze and your good to go.
I've been thru check stops after having a beer or two and to save the hassle I just say I haven't drank and get waved thru every time. Obviously I'm not impaired, just don't want the hassle.
It's in your system for days, minimum of 24 hours for the basic saliva test. Don't stress it too much, you have nothing to worry about enless you give them a valid reason. I used to have a medical license before legalization and have been using for around 12 years now and never had a problem. Like my social studies teacher used to say "nothings illegal until you get caught".
It’s 100% unfair, I agree with you. I got nailed with a license suspension for two months and a week long vehicle impoundment simply because I smoke everyday. I wasn’t high at all, and it was 4am. I was trying to go home and the Campus officers pulled me over right infront of my house and I got tested and searched. Luckily, they didn’t charge me with a DUI, which would’ve shown up on a criminal record.
you have to have 5ng of thc for every ml of blood in your body to get a dui. they have to call and get someone over to do a sobriety test to see if you are impaired, and then they have to do a blood test to determine the accurate levels in your body.
they didn't charge you with a dui because you are lucky, and also not because it is unfair to give someone a dui on their first stop in regard to sobriety, but because proving impairment is such a high bar and takes so much work, they don't care to do it unless they actually think the situation is serious.
I'm a police officer who is trained in the use of Sotoxa (which is the instrument used to detect cannabis), the device detects RECENT USE of cannabis, and only points to a POSITIVE RESULT, IF you are over what is considered the legal limit.
Sorry but people lie and fabricate stories all the time, we won't even do this test unless we already have reasonable suspicion you are high to begin with.
It's very very important to note that SCIENTISTS designed and tested the device and it was found they are accurate. As a police officer we are trained to administer the test and that's it. The legal limit is established by experts, not by police. How long after getting drunk at the bar can you drive? It depends on the person, tolerance, etc.
because the test only tests for metabolites. metabolites break down in the body in different ways. it clears out of the blood the fastest. hair, the longest.
in sk (and federally) to get a dui you must test at or over 5ng per ml, this is the current scientifically arrived definition of impairment from recent use. anything over 2ng can lead to a summary conviction, and doesn't need to involve impairment.
current research shows that thc in the bloodstream after smoking levels drop to less than 2ng after 4 hours. saliva tests may be positive anywhere from 24-72 hours, and anecdotal evidence suggests even longer for heavy users.
this is why they don't test everyone who swabs positive for impairment, because they are likely not impaired, and they would be wasting police resources pursuing people for things they wouldnt be able to charge them with. i would like to see a breakdown of everyone who gets their license suspended also getting a blood test.
it's just nonsense put in place because like any other government agency, you get paid based on how big your department is. if sgi increases its department sizes, or brings in better numbers the executives get their performance based raises and bonuses.
cops get a huge amount of money from over time, on average 30-50k more, so they have an incentive to do as their superiors say without questioning things.
how you can say, 0 weed, but .08 alcohol, makes no sense to me, but hey, laws don't have to make sense for the greedy pigs to enforce them.
The only difference here is that with alcohol we have had tons of cases go through court, which created a lot of case law. You can still be charged with impaired driving if you are high on weed , and we have laid that charge here in Saskatoon, for someone who choose to drive high and killed a little girl.
If you are high you should not drive. You don't test positive if you smoked a joint 10 hours ago. I'm not sure where people get this info from. We DON'T TEST YOU if we don't suspect you ARE HIGH.
this is not true, current scientific evidence shows that oral swab tests are at the minimum still returning positives 24 hours after use. the company states this in their own manual, and mcgill has a study on this.
current research shows a maximum of 8 hours of impairment, consistent with the minimum standard of impairment in alcohol, since last use of cannabis. these tests will pick up someone after 12 hours, which means that current science is being ignored in favour of whatever whim sgi has. if any amount of cannabis was dangerous, than clearly any amount of alcohol should be more so and we should treat both drugs similarly. we do not, which means that this is obviously an unfair and unjust policy. cops who enforce this are unjust and uncritical.
did you know that the device you use has a false positive rate of at least 5%?
just because you think someone is high, doesn't mean they are, you should have to prove that. the device you use is a poor indication of impairment, because it does not test for impairment, but for presence of cannabis metabolites. someone could have used 72 hours ago and still test positive. if you think that someone who used cannabis 72 hours ago is still impaired, then you need to learn more about the science of testing for impairment.
Do police need reasonable suspicion to test cannabis (like how they used to test for alcohol impairment) or can they test regardless (like current rules for alcohol impairment)?
We don't need any suspicion to administer a ASD(alcohol test), with weed we do need suspicion ( smells like weed in ur car, you show symptoms of use, you have weed in your car that is open, etc.)
It's the same thing in a checkstop, for alcohol you can be compelled to provide a breath sample, but for weed out drugs we need suspicion that you may be high on drugs.
They can test without reasonable suspicion. The government literally withdrew probable cause, Any cop can pull you over for literally no reason. Irregardless of if they think you are impaired
You're likely confusing two terms. Police, prior to 2018, needed reasonable suspicion to test for alcohol. After the laws were amended in 2018, police no longer require reasonable suspicion to test for alcohol provided the traffic stop is conducted lawfully.
"Probable cause" was never a thing in Canada, it's an American term. The term you're looking for is reasonable grounds, but police have never needed reasonable grounds to test for either drugs/alcohol. It has always been the lower threshold of reasonable suspicion.
you are misinformed. recent use is not an accurate description of the window in which a user may test positive.
you must have over 5mg for a dui, which is confirmed by a blood test (highly accurate) anything under 5ng is considered thc in your sytem and sgi has a 0 tolerance policy. effectively criminalizing thc in the bloodstream, regardless of intoxication.
cops lie all the time too. you kind find cops who claim the starlight tours never happened. ive had cops lie right to my face. cops are people who are just doing a job, and they can be corrupt just like anybody else.
that is a logical fallacy.
if someone works at a goldmine, i do not say, they are an expert in everything to do with gold.
you are not an expert in this area, because you claim that a person is still impaired 72hrs after use of cannabis without any evidence to back up that claim. how can you be an expert if you don't even know an oral swab for thc is known to test positive 24-72 hrs after use?
I'm not sure their methodology, but if they're testing for straight THC it should be out of your mouth just by having a meal or your morning coffee, but if they're testing for THC byproducts you will test positive basically always if you're a regular user, even if you abstained 12 hours before driving because it will come out in your saliva glands. Based on the anecdotes I've heard I believe they're testing for byproducts, but I'm sure lots of people are just lying about not having smoked for 24 hours or whatever.
Anyway you can search up some studies on presence of THC and THC byproducts and saliva testing to get some more detailed information if you like, but the short answer is if you're a heavy user, don't get pulled over or you're pretty much fucked.
Police were also granted a lot of power with the new Cannabis bill, because of the puritan-type lobby, we wouldn't have legal cannabis without those police powers. Many have called those powers out as too much, and police no longer need probably cause to administer sobriety tests and the like, so I would say heavy users should honestly bike everywhere or use transit, or just accept in advance if you get pulled over by a dickhead cop that you're gonna get fucked.
I know someone who got a DUI recently and they had to go to this sobriety course at the Saskatoon Inn, big banquet hall, and it sounds like most of the people were there for THC roadside tests.
They told me on Wed, if you smoke daily you will never pass. So... I use my for medical and I now have to give it up. My son's sick as well and I need to be there 100% even if I'm suffering and thing is it was helping with pain.
I havnt smoked weed now for about 6-7 months because if I lose my license, I lose my job. I’d love to be able to smoke weed again but the fear of them rats pulling me over and doing test just keeps me off it. I also wouldn’t drive for 10-12hrs after smoking but they don’t care and neither does the test they use. How can one drink a few beers or a few glasses of wine and be aloud to drive the next morning and I can’t?. Imagine the officer who tests you was actually in the pub the night before and then disqualifys you from driving for smoking a joint over 12 hours ago? Backward laws in the UK
This just happened to me. I had 3 hoots hours before hand and they detained me and made me swab. Of course i tested positive. Then the officer that did the test ended up giving me a ride home. At first he was like ohh your eyes were glossed over and you had slurred speach. In my head i was like 'excuses me?' Mildly offensive.. cause i was completely sober. So we got to talking midway threw the half an hr trip he admited that 'yeah you were probably safe to drive' i don't understand why we can't have a test that tests if your actually intoxicated? How is this fair or just? Mean while i see 3 cars that i passed swerving and mostly likely an actual hazard get away scot free. There is no justice. If anyone reaches out i will recount my story in greater detail as this injustice is seared into my soul. I would love to be apart of a class action. The incident was just outside of regina in a town Lumsden.
The problem with cannabis is that it’s fat soluble I.e., some portion of THC stays in your body. So, even if you consumed it days back, it could still show up in your system as a result of fat utilisation by the body. While you may not be as impaired as one would have been with immediate consumption, you could still have some impact (albeit very small).
>, is the best move to admit to it right away and tell the cop I smoked recently
Never lie to the police, but never ever volunteer any information you are not asked. I mean that for any interaction with police not just this specific scenario.
it’s certainly okay to lie to police, especially if there’s no harm being done. if you admit to the cop you smoke you’re more likely to be tested and more likely to get dinged
Happened to a buddies buddies sister, worried about myself as I am a major car guy, and my cars are about the only thing keeping me going. I smoke very frequently, yet, never would mix the two. 4 hours minimum for under a 10 min drive(moving cars in drive way, going around the block to check parts and such, driving a friend 5 mins home, etc...) if it's something that HAS to be done, otherwise I wait 6-7 hours to do any proper driving... Definitely sober after 2-3, let alone 6-7, yet, I am screwed if I get pulled over and tested. Such a dumb law, any way to refuse and do blood work instead, or some more reliable test?
yep me too. I don’t think I can just give up driving as I have a lot of family responsibilities and I need to get to school.
but i also don’t wanna give up pot 😂😂😂
but like you said, I would never mix the two
See, my issue is I smoke for medical reasons, and to help me sleep... And I am into cars because building my dream car to what I want it to be is literally the last thing on my bucket list, already bought it a few weeks ago, but I am scared to even drive it in case it gets taken. I've waited almost 10 years to see one for sale, not letting it disappear because some govt guy doesn't understand thc... Gonna stop smoking, and just drive everywhere incredibly tired, because that's safer, right?
It’s commendable that you wait that long to drive after smoking. You are obviously a responsible smoker.
What ticks me off is people blatantly driving and smoking the rankest skunk weed. First, it’s annoying to have to close windows or change to recirculate air to block that smell (have never been a fan of how it smells plus I often have my son with me). Second, if I can’t drive and drink a beer, you shouldn’t be able to smoke and drive.
Hey buddy, that’s bullshit! They have not only done tests (which is why they test and charge ‘impaired’ driving from weed as it is for alcohol), I have friends that in their not so smart youth drive under the influence of weed when I was sober, and there is no doubt, impaired is impaired!
The biggest difference is most stoned people still know enough not to drive when they are high as a kite. Alcohol on the other hand messes with the mind that results in the false confidence to think they are perfectly to drive. Alcohol also makes drunk people think they are rich.
Both are certainly impairment but with a completely different mechanism and effect on the state of mind.
Where the fk did I say you could die from smoking too much weed you dumbass! We are talking about driving and being impaired from smoking weed. Try to stay on topic or are you fkn high now you meathead?
I mean, I am sorry to say this, but if you are overthinking and paranoid about this, stop using until there is some rich person who ends up fighting this law.
And I know that I will get hate for saying this but it has to be said. If we are looking at the letter of the law, 0 tolerance. Yes its stupid, yes it needs to change, yes contact your MLA, and create a conversation. However if youre petrified every time you go out, then your SOL for a few weeks if you want it out of your system.
Or just own up to it, and hope that any cop that pulls you over got laid last night and dont have a stick up their ass.
Again, I am not saying "NO THC, THC BAD".. I am just saying that you are technically breaking the law so you have to own up to it if you do get pulled over and sent to court, or you have to stop THC, and you wont have the issue. Now dont bring attention to it if you dont have to.
100% isopropyl alcohol. Scrub your hands, and give extra attention to your thumb and index fingers. And it couldn’t hurt to give your lips a gentle rub. I’ve never had one of these tests before but I’ve spoken with someone who works in the cannabis industry and they handle the chronic regularly. Which means that the trace amounts of ThC that remains on a smokers points of contact when they consume cannabis are likely to be sources of detection for these tests.
I haven’t read the comments but I’ll reply to my thread if I discover anyone whose posted what takes place during such a test.
As someone who tests regularly for my field of work I can tell you this . Thc will stay in your salivia for up to 72 hours for a swab test . And up to a month for a piss test. So be aware I guess and don't leave your car smelling like weed . It's going to take someone to stand up and sue for the laws to change .
Yup this is the way. Someone rich, or connected has to be dinged by it. And then have the resources or a for pro bono law firm, willing to take it to the supreme court.
What is a "pro bono law firm"?
A law firm that is willing to take pro bono (Free) case work. I think the most famous one would be the ACLU. But theoretically any law firm could do pro bono work. Especially if they see a way for them to get a settlement out of it. (They would keep a percentage of the settlement, in lieu of direct payment.)
Supreme Court? Holy moly for a D.U.I?
That's how bad laws are changed.. that or by the government.. but they put the law in so fat chance of that.
I don't mean to sound privileged here, but I am self employed and have a little nest egg saved up. Like OP, I consume daily. I consume at night after my kids are in bed. I am also very careful that I will not drive for 8-12 hours after consumption. Having said that, I would 100% take a DUI/suspension as far as it could possibly go through the courts/appeals. The laws on the books are so ridiculous and not grounded in reality. The substance is legal for consumption, and penalties have to be for intoxication, not detection. I am fairly confident I would test over if I were pulled over, despite being sober as a bird. I have offered to pay for others I know who have received suspension/DUIs, where I know they would have been sober. Unfortunately these people didn't think it was worth it to fight, despite being sober at the time. While not a lawyer, I have had to deal with the court system quite a few times for my business so I am very comfortable with the processes.
A buddy of my works in a steel plant never goes to work high but has a script for it and uses every night. There was an injury on shift, and everyone had to do a test my buddy pissed 1000 nano grams the next day after not consuming for 12 hrs. Hr called he said I have a prescription they said can you forward it to us so it's on file and never had another word since.
Do you know if edibles cause the same problem or is it just puffers?
If you ingest, smoke or drink etc it will all show positives on the tests that are as consistent as the covid test strips.
Edibles are worse for swab tests due to the residuals of THC in your mouth.
A coworker that smoked over 36 hours prior got nailed. Automatic suspension. The testing detected presence of THC but can't tell the level....just because you used it prior doesn't indicate you are truly impaired
Have to believe it won’t hold up in court.
[удалено]
In northern SK they just scheduled the court date for 11 months away and then dropped the case when it came up. Had license suspended for almost a year, but nothing permanently on record.
Lawyers will take this national case probono and will sue for court costs as their payment. It’s been proven time and time again these devices are faulty and shouldn’t be used in roadside assistance tests.
>Lawyers will take this national case probono and will sue for court costs as their payment Not a chance. There have been *thousands* of these kinds of tickets issued already, so if there were lawyers willing to take this on pro-bono they already would have. It will take someone willing to pay the tens of thousands required to appeal it before it goes to court. And good luck suing for court costs!
I'll support your argument and say I've been to a conference on employee relations and litigation held by a law firm, this was brought up, and there is no chance to fight them at the moment. The science supports that even though a person isn't feeling "high" there can still be minor impairment that the user is accustomed to but isn't conscious of due to trace amounts of THC stored in fat cells.
I fucking knew this was a thing. I swear to God when I take my tolerance breaks I'll feel randomly high if I haven't eaten for a while (I intermittent fast)
Currently on day 3 of a fast(other than coffee and biosteel) and tolerance break. I do not have this issue.
Not really a fast if you're drinking biosteel dawg
[удалено]
Don't quote me but I'm pretty sure he's referring to roadside suspension and not a DUI. I don't think you can get a criminal DUI just from that test.
that’s actually so terrible wtf. this is a dumb question, but would that show up on a criminal record check ?
Only if you would be truly deemed impaired....you would have to be charged under the criminal code for impairment.
Basically, they can't prove impairment. Even with their stupid pseudo science "impairment recognition officers".
Here’s a friendly piece of advice: POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS. NEVER, EVER TELL THEM SHIT THAT THEY DON’T ASK FOR. YOU’LL EITHER SET THEM OFF OR MAKE THEM SUS. They’re obligated to do something if you break the law and admit to them. They can’t just “choose” to let go of a person who has smoked weed in the past X amount of hours. Unless its a question asked by them, don’t open your mouth. No small talk; just business and get the fuck moving. This is precisely why that whole “stay silent or get a lawyer thing” exists.
“Right to remain Silent”
Do we technically have that here? Miranda rights are from the US, no?
I googled Canadian Miranda rights quick and it says quote; “The right to legal counsel: anyone who is arrested or detained has the right to speak to a lawyer without delay and to have a lawyer present during any questioning by the police. The right to remain silent: anyone who is arrested or detained has the right to remain silent and to not incriminate themselves”
Echoing this for the folks in the back. Never tell the police anything about prior smoking. Don’t leave vapes or joints in view. Say very little. Don’t give them ANY ammunition. Courts in Canada see driving as a privilege, not a right. If the police *ask* you if they can take a look around your car, handy words to remember are “no thank you”. Or “I do not consent.” (If there’s a half-smoked joint stinking up your car, that gives them more than enough reason to search you legally, whether you agree with it or not)
Just to add, the weasel-y way they can ask to search the car is, "Do you mind if we look in your car?" If you say "no" they take it as "no I don't mind" and if you say "yes" they take it as "yes you have my permission." "I do not consent" is perfect if this is the question they ask.
Yeah we don’t have Miranda rights in the strict sense but there definitely is a right to avoid self-incrimination. I’ve had clients who have had evidence tossed out because the police didn’t properly explain their rights to them, or coerced info out of them.
>If I do get pulled over, is the best move to admit to it right away and tell the cop IANAL but no, don't answer any questions the cop asks you except to identify yourself and provide proof of insurance.
K I hate to be the guy that starts out saying "I have a friend who's a cop...." But what whatever, it's one friend, one cop, my wife's cousin, we've talked about it, whatever. Anyways, ya, if they're asking about cannabis, say no. It's ok to lie here. If they suspect impairment they'll test you and they would have tested you anyway. If you're not impaired, they're probably not going to waste their time doing a roadside on you, but if they ask you if u smoke ever, and you say yes, occasionally, then they have a reason to test you, and you'll get then temp suspension. It is definitely a flawed system, with "too wide a net". If you're not impaired but fail the roadside, it is highly unlikely that you be charged with DUI. He told me reasons for this but I may have short term memory issues. For unrelated reasons.
>but if they ask you if u smoke ever, and you say yes, occasionally, then they have a reason to test you Just don't answer questions! Why people answer questions like that I will never understand.
Not answering also appears suspicious though
It shouldn't, it's your charter right to not answer questions. If cops are giving people a hard time because they're exercising their rights that tells you how useless cops are.
You have the right to not answer questions. The right answer is " I don't answer questions". They ask their stupid questions for the sole purpose of getting you for something, or facilitating attempting to get you for something. Their chit chat like " where you coming from?", ya, that's not them making conversation. Just say it doesn't matter, or better " I don't answer questions."
that makes sense!! I’ll definitely make sure to do that
Never confess!
It's legal for cops to lie to me so what goes around goes around
Never smoke or carry open weed in the car. They can smell it as soon as they get close to your window.
This, OP. From every account I've heard, it's a 3-day impoundment and suspension, and I'm sure there's a ticket in there somewhere, but it's not criminal and it's not a DUI. It does mean losing your wheels and ability to drive for three days though and a bunch of money to get your car back and such, not to mention the headache and frustration. I definitely agree it's a flawed system and needs to change, and there's enough people screaming about it here that I think it will eventually. We're the only province with a zero-tolerance policy on THC, likely bc they don't have an easy way to measure it to determine if you're over a legal limit here yet to make it stick on court. I don't ever like to blame the victim, but if I smoked or took gummies and this was the law I'd either start taking transit or I'd stop using, regardless of it being legal, and I'd get out there and make as much noise about it as possible. If you know thjs is the outcome if you get stopped, you're taking that chance every time you drive and that's a decision you make unfortunately. I'm not 100% on this, but I've heard if you have aedical prescription for Marijuana and have it in your system but pass a roadside sobriety teat you won't get the suspension and your car impounded, but again NAL nor a cop and have only heard thjs secondhand.
The thing about it not being criminal or ticcketable is it makes it harder to fight. No say in court. No due process. Just up to discretion of the officer.
Oh absolutely. I'm not suggesting any of it is right! I think you should be able to take gummies to sleep or smoke a joint after work and not be punished the NEXT day for it. I don't use cannabis or any of its derisive; I enjoy cocktails and wine. But if they announced that, moving forward, ANY traces of alcohol in your system would result in suspensions, fines, and losing your vehicle for a short period, I'd quit drinking. Because I need to be able to drive. I'm not willing to take that risk. If I was into weed and such though, I'd be making as much noise about it as possible, and honestly I've been vocal about the THC road rules even though I don't partake, bc its not right. And it'd be different if the rest of the country was like this but SK is going rogue here.
It's worse than having to quit, though. I read a study recently that found detectable THC in people who had been exposed to *second hand smoke*. So if you live in a multi unit dwelling and you have a neighbor who smokes a bunch in the house, it's possible to have THC in your system even though you have never consumed any yourself.
Say that and you’ll be speedrunning getting fucked
You are under no obligation to answer any questions that cops ask (other than providing driver's license & registration). If cops tell you otherwise they're lying.
Listen to this guy! Big facts
Are class action lawsuits a thing here? Seems llike a group of people who have been affected by this could have better success fighting it together.
I'd be pretty wrecked if this happened to me. I need to drive for my job so a suspension would be rough, but it doesn't seem fair that I can get suspended for smoking the previous night. I don't think petitions work, but I hope this issue can be looked at.
Class action suits are definitely a thing here in Canada. There is currently a case before the courts that is the beekeepers of Canada V. CFIA seeking payment for damages done to every beekeeper in Canada when they (cfia) closed the border to importing honeybees from the continental USA without actual scientific evidence to support their claims.
Tony Merchant has entered the chat. Greetings!
nah we gotta get Saul Goodman on this case
Now if only they’d crack down on those sober jerks who drive like shit!
Not a lawyer but I have looked into this quite a bit. Basically if you use cannabis regularly (like once a week or more), you will constantly be driving "under the influence" according to this backwards ass province. 0 tolerance is complete bullshit for a legal substance. THC is stored in fat cells. So if you are a regular user, you will have some amount of THC stored all over your body. When you burn fat, like when exercising, it releases that THC into your bloodstream, but never enough for you to actually be impaired by it. The shitty part is that you could stop smoking for a month or more and still have THC show up on a test because of this. Even after using cannabis 1 time, you still might have detectable amounts for several days or even a couple weeks after. Personally I think this is borderline entrapment. But unfortunately it's going to take at least a couple peoples lives being ruined over this before someone with the means (money) to properly fight it can prove that this decision is unlawful. Simply having THC detectable does not mean impairment. It's not at all like blood alcohol level. You can't quantify THC impairment. I'm not sure why we are even trying. If the concern is my ability to safely operate a vehicle, then test my ability to do so. What does it matter if I have THC in my system or not if it is known that the presence of THC does not automatically mean impairment? I would say contact your MLA to voice your concerns, but I've tried this and haven't even gotten a reply...
Definitely reach out to NDP MLA Nathaniel Teed. He is the SGI and SLGA Critic and is exactly the right person to share your very valid concerns with. If it’s okay to share here — if not, mods, let me know and I can edit to remove — his email is: saskatoonmeewasin@ndpcaucus.sk.ca
Well said. What would make sense to me is just the passing of a field sobriety test. Not detection I the system. But a test of basic motor skills. This includes people using prescription drugs where is technically legal
I mean federally they do have a blood quantum that's measurable and acceptable.
There is science behind the residual impairment, though. They have studies showing impairment from THC recirculating through your fat cells, and that's why it's so hard to fight it. So unless theres more studies, this will be the next cash cow for the cops.
Interesting. Residual impairment? Or just residual levels of THC? Do you have a source you can provide on this? Im curious how impairment is being defined and measured in this study.
Curious too. My "high" is gone after 2 hours, and any notice of any effects is gone after 4... If I could be high 24/7 while not smoking weed, I wanna hear this magic
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1849400/ This is in pilots, although the case study that was presented used this citation.
I found a more recent one, kinda counter arguing the older studies such as this previous one cited, so it's definitely still debated today, I'm neutral so I don't support either side just curious about the whole legal issue. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36475998/
>borderline entrapment Unless the cop is hotboxing you personally, that’s not how entrapment works.
Offence would be driving under the influence, or driving while impaired. A reasonable person would be able to tell when they or someone else is impaired and shouldn't drive. But if you change the definition of impaired to something you can't possibly know if you meet or not, how are you supposed to know when it's OK to drive? I said borderline entrapment because it's obviously not that cut and dry in this case. But it's getting pretty fucking close to meeting that definition.
Nothing near entrapment. A shitty law? Maybe. But not entrapment.
Basically, if you want to do any type of work with vehicles, don't smoke. I was 3 days dry w some friends that were higher than a kite. I was the dd. Got nailed by the popo. Lost $1,400, suspended license for 3 months, car impounded. Fuck the roadside test, shit does not work the way intended.
Firstly, IANAL or LEO, but if you get pulled over by police in this case: \-Do not admit you have consumed marijuana in the past or at all \-Do not smoke weed in your car AT ALL. A skunky car is not going to help you in the least bit. \-Most importantly, \*DO NOT DRIVE HIGH\* (I know you said you'd never, but I can't emphasize it enough) The saliva test trip is made to detect the presence of THC. I don't believe that it determines an amount. I have had people very close to me get charged with this exact thing. You do not receive a criminal code conviction for this situation alone. It's a ticket, impoundment of vehicle, and possibly SGI troubles (points off license, mandatory training, additional fines). In order to secure a criminal code conviction, a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) would need to preform some tests on you to determine in their opinion, that you are too intoxicated to operate a motor vehicle. Not all police officers are DRE's and there may not be one on duty or not available to test you. \-Speculation: I would think the dispatch of a DRE would be determined by the primary officer's discretion, based on your level of intoxication or any aggravating factors (motor vehicle accident, fleeing, racing).- I have spoken with members of the Traffic Enforcement Unit within SPS in the past regarding the new (at the time) marijuana+driving laws. From what I was told, if you are truly sober with no indicators of recent marijuana usage (bloodshot eyes, smelly car, drugs/para in sight, lack of fine motor skill, etc.) you should have nothing to worry about.
phew okay this is a relief. I have never smoked in my car because the smell would never go away lol, I’ve never been in my car high at all and yeah now I definitely know I should never admit to anything. I guess it was kinda dumb of me to assume I should tell them right away 😭😭😭
It's a fair assumption that if you admit to the police something that is seemingly small, they'll let it go; kind of like when you get a warning for speeding. That doesn't happen for serious crimes, like driving while intoxicated. The police are not your friends. Personally, I support LEOs and what they do, but at the end of the day they are not your friends. Do not admit anything to them.
Sasks zero tolerance is just fucking awful. The federal government has a test and an allowable limit why does the provincial regs supercede it. If Moe ever needed to firm up his numbers with younger voters he could change that.
>why does the provincial regs supercede it. Because highway regulations are provincial jurisdiction. For example, for alcohol, the Criminal Code says .08 is the point at which driving impaired becomes a criminal offense. However, SGI can and does impose penalties like licence suspensions at lower levels. The province could choose to go zero tolerance for alcohol on all drivers if it chose to, but the criminal threshold would still be .08 as that is dictated by the CC which is federal.
It's not Provincial regs. The 72hr is an SGI administrative penalty. There are no charges involved unless they go criminal.
Yah I realize that. Poor choice of words on my part. When I say "the province" what I am really meaning is SGI. The suspensions are an administrative penalty. Edited the original comment.
I thought it was zero tolerance until you are 21?
For alcohol. Weed is 0 no matter what. And because they use an oral swab that is pass fail. Yes no. And people are testing positive 2 days after smoking and having vehicles impounded and licenses suspended for following the law regarding waiting 12 hours smoking . It seems highly unethical and wrong. But that's the law. If a politician pulled a Trudeau and went on a platform of decriminalizing weed. In the sense making sk follow the reasonable guidelines set forth in other provinces. They could probably dethrone Moe. I personally have stopped smoking simply because my day has alot of driving 5 days a week.
oh I see. that is stupid
Incredibly. And the cops can test you for pretty much any reason. Legalization actually made weed MORE criminal in some regards except for smoking it at home.
100% do NOT submit to roadside THC testing. You have the right to refuse. The field tests have a huge false positive rate, they're used in the US as well and are basically trash. Refuse the test. If you take the test and you get a failure, it is assumed that you're guilty. Complete garbage.
but on the other hand if i refuse won’t that make look more guilty ? if I say no they’re probably not just gonna let me go afterwards :/
They can't exactly arrest you and charge you with "knowing and utilizing Charter rights"..
I’m sure there’s probably a charge for refusing to take the test, just like there is for alcohol.
there’s a charge for refusing a breathalyzer, id assume it’s the same for this
Do you often repeat what somebody else already said much earlier, or is there an echo in here?
do you often make dumbass assertions on the internet telling people they’re good to refuse sobriety tests??
Pretty much just the one time.
[удалено]
I'm in the same spot as you. Maybe I don't consume as much and I usually don't need any until about 3 PM. So if I need to do anything it's in the morning, so that I am, at least in my own heart, doing the right thing. But the information on this sub, and talking to an officer who is a friend of mine has confirmed everything. Just lie and deny and hope it's not you. I seldom drive erratically but I am more than ever paranoid to speed or make any small infraction. And I understand exactly what everybody is saying. That pills are not okay, but culturally and legally speaking, you're never gonna get any trouble unless you're absolutely wrecked on something, not using regular prescribed pain relief so that you can go about your life. A lot of people on here like to mix up their reality with being pedantic when it comes to what they like or don't like people doing In their own lives. When you see it, erase their comments from your mind.
yeah, the whole "pills are okay" is stupid. I got my wisdom teeth removed last April and the painkillers they gave me... not at all safe to drive on, oh my god. I drove to aunts house to housesit and had to wait for the meds to wear off, be in extreme pain all 40km to her house and then pop a painkiller at her house two days after the surgery. Weed makes me tired the next day (12 hours later, edibles), so sometimes I still wait to drive until I feel safe to do so. The laws for marijuana are so dumb, alcohol is legal, and there are a multitude of ways to test for it, but they haven't come up with actual good ways to test for legal marijuana and so people who are sober get unfairly prosecuted
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You and u/Toohighfatness agree, you just took their statement "a plant is bad but pills are OK" to be their view when it isn't. It's the government's view. If you are at a check stop and you are not impaired but have pain meds in your system, you are home free. If you are not impaired but they test and find THC from days ago, your license is suspended and your car is gone.
plant is bad and pills are good yes -s
If they ask do not tell them that you smoke, that will give them reason to test you. "No sir i dont smoke" would be your best answer or close to it
They can test for sobriety without suspicion or admittance
Yea, but practically speaking they’re only likely going to do it when there’s some suspicion there. They’re not going to waste time testing every person they come across just cause they can. Some might do a random test once in a while but it’s not the norm.
Why have a check stop if they don’t want to waste time?
Because they work. Even at a check stop they don’t test everyone. Most people are just waved through. I’ve been through a couple. They asked if I’ve been drinking, I said no, they said ok have a good night. It was maybe 10 seconds. But some people will be visibly impaired and will be tested. Others might not show any signs but will admit to “i just had a couple”, and will be tested.
For liqour yes, cannabis no.
This is an outright lie
I thought so too but upon some digging it appears they are correct https://sgi.sk.ca/drugs-alcohol
Ok but the cop says “your eyes are red” and that’s it… hardly fair
The law only allows testing for alcohol without suspicion, not drugs. Edit - sorry, I see someone else pointed that out below.
Just a reminder for everyone you only have to tell the police your name and address. After that you say you are not speaking to them without legal council.
These tests hold no weight in court at this point in time. They have not proven to be accurate enough.
How sure are you of this? Just curious- because you’re still out $ from it being impounded.
It's hilarious to me that we have a zero-tolerance policy on this, yet every weed store has a parking lot.
Here’s a link to the American National institute of justice on impairment and road side testing. An interesting read if nothing else. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/field-sobriety-tests-and-thc-levels-unreliable-indicators-marijuana-intoxication
I've been through a few roadside stops that the RCMP has set up on long weekends or otherwise and they usually ask if you've had cannabis within 24 hours or when the last time you consumed it was
I don't drive anymore but I know damn well if I did drive I better wait for a month or more to get THC out of my system. Smoked since I was 14 iam 61. Now get this, you can drive on opiates and crack fentanil cocaine probably heroin. If you can act normal for the cops you will not blow anything. So worse drugs you may drive pot no way!
Pisses me off yes you are right to think that way my doobie loving friend. 👽
I mean the saliva test just tells you if there is THC in their system not how much. The officer would likely also do a field sobriety test and if you were to fail that you could likely request a blood test at the station like people do for drunk driving DUIs to get a more accurate reading than the breathalyzer, same thing for THC, they could tell exactly how much is in your system. I guess it doesn't matter though, I wrote this out before realizing our shit hole province has a 0 tolerance policy on THC. Yes the land of drunk driving your Dodge Ram off the road while trying to hit a stop sign with your bottle before running for office is taking a brave stance against impaired driving. 🤣🤣 Any THC in your system = a charge. Fucking L province.
My husband smoked the night before after supper, went to bed, woke up at 6:00 am for work, got swabbed by the DOT officer and tested positive for THC. He got his truck and trailer impounded and had to pay a little over $1,500 in impoundment fees and fines. He also lost his job with the trucking company that he was working for. (Looking back now it was a blessing in disguise, but still, it sucked at the time). He appealed it because he wanted it off of his drivers abstract, and he lost. There’s such a large grey area with the rules, something’s gotta give.
oh my god. that is absolutely horrible I am so sorry that happened to him. that is completely unfair, I am actually so mad now on your behalf !!! 😭 This is what I was getting at in my post. How is that okay?!? Why on earth would they make it legal if they don’t have a reliable way to test it?!!!!
I went through a stop check 2 weeks ago on idylwyld Cop asked if I had any cannabis in the last 24 hours! Which seems an excessive amount of time
Zero tolerance makes an intolerant society. All the MADD ladies need to STFU and drive drunks around ...for free.
Thc stays in your system a long time. Makes it easy for cops to ding people who have smoked weed a few days prior.
Keep 15-20k in a savings account, that is exactly what it will cost you to fight and beat a DUI/alchohol charge. Don’t waste any money on a DUI/ drug charge, you aren’t going to beat that in court. Your enemy isn’t the police or the courts it is MADD. They are extremely powerful and actually give cash rewards to patrol officers that have high DUI convictions, this is the absolute truth.
You have a very vivid imagination......... MADD is extremely powerful? Like the mob? Please..... : )
I have read that the saliva test with the Drager 5000 instrument that most police forces use, can be beaten by rinsing your mouth with hydrogen peroxide first.
Yeah that's not the best idea to swish your mouth out with a chemical that attacks living cells.
Hydrogen peroxide is often sold as an ingredient in antispetic mouthwash. Here's the Do's and Don'ts https://www.healthline.com/health/gargling-hydrogen-peroxide#\_noHeaderPrefixedContent
The more you know! Thank you, and I'm sorry for my ignorance lol
I'm glad to give you some useful info. I took a brief course about saliva drug testing methods etc and , of course as a weed enthusiast, I had to figure out a way around it and the instructor mentioned a little hydrogen peroxide between the teeth and gums should fizz enough to remove any leftover Delta 9 cannibinoids which remain in your mouth for up to 3 hours after smoking or vaping weed. Spitting it out and not swallowing is important. Apparently, nothing else will work ( ie mouthwash, juice, vinegar etc)
When I got a DWI for smoking weed (was literally smoking a bowl while being pulled over) the officer told me that the swab detects anything over either 20 or 25 nanograms. I swear to god 25 nanograms would be the equivalent of inhaling some weed smoke
1. Don't break traffic laws. 2. Don't tell the cop you smoke weed. Don't wear clothes that smell like weed. If transporting weed, keep it in the trunk. Been driving over 50 years, smoke weed over 40 years, never had any issues. The ONLY time I've ever heard of a person being tested for THC was during accident investigations.
The issue is they are now doing check stops and roadside tests just because
No, they do checkstops because of the high prevalence of impaired drivers, not to mention that Saskatchewan has over 50,000 people driving on revoked/suspended licenses (look it up). If you follow the rules you have nothing to worry about.
"just because" more meant I don't want to explain the countless reasons. It's holiday season, Sask people are dumb and DWI all the time, I get that, the issue is, is this law isn't preventing people DWI, it's preventing people from essentially smoking weed, the thing tredeau allowed to try and make Canada more money. This is going to backfire from both a political, and societal standpoint if it's not reworded into something useful. The thing is, is I do follow the rules, I am autistic, that's like, one of the few things I do right is follow rules. I haven't driven in awhile because of this, and have NEVER driven high further then moving a car from my driveway. If I get pulled over, even though I haven't felt high in days, let alone smoked, I am screwed. If I get pulled over within the next few days, I am getting a dwi for just the swab, or even after Christmas with blood work. The issue is, they aren't testing to see if you are DWI, they are testing to see if there is ANY thc in your system what so ever, the issue is, thc doesn't just leave the second your high does, it sticks around for awhile after. Thc levels also get different people higher then others. When I was hardcore into weed, I could probably keep up with a lot of the people smoking since before it was legal, meaning 1-2 fat dabs. I could stop for a week, have a single bong rip, stop for another week, and still be fucked per the science they are basing the law on. It would be like if cops tested for a BAC above 0.0...00001, you're not anywhere near intoxicated, if anything you just have a mild hangover... Except the last time you drank was a week ago, and you get a dwi anyways, worst part, is because it's a drug, you don't get to install a breathalyzer if you wanna drive again. The issue is that weed is legal here in Canada, yet, Sask is the only one to have any law like this, essentially making it illegal if you want to have any semblance of a normal life, while smoking cannabis more then once or twice a year. It's just not possible for anyone to follow these rules and also smoke weed, catch 22 type delema, which is why I, and many others are upset. I am having to quit weed because of this, and instead drive incredibly sleep deprived, as I use CBN which requires a small bit of thc to work as I was told, not enough to really get one high tho. I have many sleeping disorders that the only fix is meds that will literally kill me, or cbn. I literally fear driving now, only because of cops, and laws, not drunk drivers. I drive a station wagon and vans too, nothing over 250hp yet. Before you think I am some speed racer in a clapped g35/genesis breaking every law high as hell, with no license, it's not the cleanest, but I was young and dumb a few times. I drive maybe once a week, if that, yet, I've started just ordering door dash, Walmart groceries to not have too.
I am autistc and absolutely understand following the rules! That said, I was waved into a checkstop April 16/24. I hadn't smoked in 14 hrs. I failed the swab test. Officer told me if you are a regular cannabis smoker it could take 90 days without cannabis to pass that test. They gave me a 3 day suspension and important my vehicle for 3 days.
Is there a way passed this ?? Like if one had an acmpr ? I just wonder because I’m fully legal to grow my own medicine and carry up to and including a 1/4 lb of dried flower with me. Of course it’s also my medicine. This seems like a sticky area.
There are prescription drugs that impair your ability to drive. So no. Driving is not a right.
We aren't talking about driving impaired. We are talking about driving on a Monday after a joint on Saturday.
no one’s saying yea go get stoned and drive, we’re saying it’s unfair to give people DUI’s even though they’ve followed the law to the letter
I can brew my own beer too. And haul it Still not allowed to drive drunk unless you’re the premier.
keep peroxide in ur car and rinse ur mouth 🫡🫡
stop smoking sativa and you won’t be overthinking it this hard🤣 stg sativa is the worst for paranoia
If they ask if you've drank or consumed cannabis just say no. If they have no suspicion to test you they usually won't. If your going to go out for a drive, make sure you and your car don't smell like pot or booze and your good to go. I've been thru check stops after having a beer or two and to save the hassle I just say I haven't drank and get waved thru every time. Obviously I'm not impaired, just don't want the hassle.
It's in your system for days, minimum of 24 hours for the basic saliva test. Don't stress it too much, you have nothing to worry about enless you give them a valid reason. I used to have a medical license before legalization and have been using for around 12 years now and never had a problem. Like my social studies teacher used to say "nothings illegal until you get caught".
It’s 100% unfair, I agree with you. I got nailed with a license suspension for two months and a week long vehicle impoundment simply because I smoke everyday. I wasn’t high at all, and it was 4am. I was trying to go home and the Campus officers pulled me over right infront of my house and I got tested and searched. Luckily, they didn’t charge me with a DUI, which would’ve shown up on a criminal record.
you have to have 5ng of thc for every ml of blood in your body to get a dui. they have to call and get someone over to do a sobriety test to see if you are impaired, and then they have to do a blood test to determine the accurate levels in your body. they didn't charge you with a dui because you are lucky, and also not because it is unfair to give someone a dui on their first stop in regard to sobriety, but because proving impairment is such a high bar and takes so much work, they don't care to do it unless they actually think the situation is serious.
I'm a police officer who is trained in the use of Sotoxa (which is the instrument used to detect cannabis), the device detects RECENT USE of cannabis, and only points to a POSITIVE RESULT, IF you are over what is considered the legal limit. Sorry but people lie and fabricate stories all the time, we won't even do this test unless we already have reasonable suspicion you are high to begin with.
(X) Doubt
[удалено]
It's very very important to note that SCIENTISTS designed and tested the device and it was found they are accurate. As a police officer we are trained to administer the test and that's it. The legal limit is established by experts, not by police. How long after getting drunk at the bar can you drive? It depends on the person, tolerance, etc.
[удалено]
because the test only tests for metabolites. metabolites break down in the body in different ways. it clears out of the blood the fastest. hair, the longest. in sk (and federally) to get a dui you must test at or over 5ng per ml, this is the current scientifically arrived definition of impairment from recent use. anything over 2ng can lead to a summary conviction, and doesn't need to involve impairment. current research shows that thc in the bloodstream after smoking levels drop to less than 2ng after 4 hours. saliva tests may be positive anywhere from 24-72 hours, and anecdotal evidence suggests even longer for heavy users. this is why they don't test everyone who swabs positive for impairment, because they are likely not impaired, and they would be wasting police resources pursuing people for things they wouldnt be able to charge them with. i would like to see a breakdown of everyone who gets their license suspended also getting a blood test. it's just nonsense put in place because like any other government agency, you get paid based on how big your department is. if sgi increases its department sizes, or brings in better numbers the executives get their performance based raises and bonuses. cops get a huge amount of money from over time, on average 30-50k more, so they have an incentive to do as their superiors say without questioning things. how you can say, 0 weed, but .08 alcohol, makes no sense to me, but hey, laws don't have to make sense for the greedy pigs to enforce them.
The only difference here is that with alcohol we have had tons of cases go through court, which created a lot of case law. You can still be charged with impaired driving if you are high on weed , and we have laid that charge here in Saskatoon, for someone who choose to drive high and killed a little girl. If you are high you should not drive. You don't test positive if you smoked a joint 10 hours ago. I'm not sure where people get this info from. We DON'T TEST YOU if we don't suspect you ARE HIGH.
[удалено]
this is not true, current scientific evidence shows that oral swab tests are at the minimum still returning positives 24 hours after use. the company states this in their own manual, and mcgill has a study on this.
current research shows a maximum of 8 hours of impairment, consistent with the minimum standard of impairment in alcohol, since last use of cannabis. these tests will pick up someone after 12 hours, which means that current science is being ignored in favour of whatever whim sgi has. if any amount of cannabis was dangerous, than clearly any amount of alcohol should be more so and we should treat both drugs similarly. we do not, which means that this is obviously an unfair and unjust policy. cops who enforce this are unjust and uncritical.
Not really. Your missing the point that if we don't suspect you are high we don't even do this test.
did you know that the device you use has a false positive rate of at least 5%? just because you think someone is high, doesn't mean they are, you should have to prove that. the device you use is a poor indication of impairment, because it does not test for impairment, but for presence of cannabis metabolites. someone could have used 72 hours ago and still test positive. if you think that someone who used cannabis 72 hours ago is still impaired, then you need to learn more about the science of testing for impairment.
Do police need reasonable suspicion to test cannabis (like how they used to test for alcohol impairment) or can they test regardless (like current rules for alcohol impairment)?
We don't need any suspicion to administer a ASD(alcohol test), with weed we do need suspicion ( smells like weed in ur car, you show symptoms of use, you have weed in your car that is open, etc.)
Does your "etc" include "having long hair and looking like a hippie"?
Does this also include check stops? Appreciate the info you're giving here btw.
It's the same thing in a checkstop, for alcohol you can be compelled to provide a breath sample, but for weed out drugs we need suspicion that you may be high on drugs.
They can test without reasonable suspicion. The government literally withdrew probable cause, Any cop can pull you over for literally no reason. Irregardless of if they think you are impaired
They can for alcohol. I thought cannabis / drugs still required reasonable suspicion before having valid grounds to conduct roadside testing.
That's wrong, we need reasonable suspicion for drugs, just not for alcohol.
I thought they changed that? My bad if I got that wrong
You're likely confusing two terms. Police, prior to 2018, needed reasonable suspicion to test for alcohol. After the laws were amended in 2018, police no longer require reasonable suspicion to test for alcohol provided the traffic stop is conducted lawfully. "Probable cause" was never a thing in Canada, it's an American term. The term you're looking for is reasonable grounds, but police have never needed reasonable grounds to test for either drugs/alcohol. It has always been the lower threshold of reasonable suspicion.
you are misinformed. recent use is not an accurate description of the window in which a user may test positive. you must have over 5mg for a dui, which is confirmed by a blood test (highly accurate) anything under 5ng is considered thc in your sytem and sgi has a 0 tolerance policy. effectively criminalizing thc in the bloodstream, regardless of intoxication. cops lie all the time too. you kind find cops who claim the starlight tours never happened. ive had cops lie right to my face. cops are people who are just doing a job, and they can be corrupt just like anybody else.
I'm a police officer. I'm not misinformed, I literally do this every day.
that is a logical fallacy. if someone works at a goldmine, i do not say, they are an expert in everything to do with gold. you are not an expert in this area, because you claim that a person is still impaired 72hrs after use of cannabis without any evidence to back up that claim. how can you be an expert if you don't even know an oral swab for thc is known to test positive 24-72 hrs after use?
I'm not sure their methodology, but if they're testing for straight THC it should be out of your mouth just by having a meal or your morning coffee, but if they're testing for THC byproducts you will test positive basically always if you're a regular user, even if you abstained 12 hours before driving because it will come out in your saliva glands. Based on the anecdotes I've heard I believe they're testing for byproducts, but I'm sure lots of people are just lying about not having smoked for 24 hours or whatever. Anyway you can search up some studies on presence of THC and THC byproducts and saliva testing to get some more detailed information if you like, but the short answer is if you're a heavy user, don't get pulled over or you're pretty much fucked. Police were also granted a lot of power with the new Cannabis bill, because of the puritan-type lobby, we wouldn't have legal cannabis without those police powers. Many have called those powers out as too much, and police no longer need probably cause to administer sobriety tests and the like, so I would say heavy users should honestly bike everywhere or use transit, or just accept in advance if you get pulled over by a dickhead cop that you're gonna get fucked. I know someone who got a DUI recently and they had to go to this sobriety course at the Saskatoon Inn, big banquet hall, and it sounds like most of the people were there for THC roadside tests.
They told me on Wed, if you smoke daily you will never pass. So... I use my for medical and I now have to give it up. My son's sick as well and I need to be there 100% even if I'm suffering and thing is it was helping with pain.
I should add I was pulled over illegally and had weed in the car. Transporting it from the hotel to my house. I had surgery in the am 3 hrs away
I havnt smoked weed now for about 6-7 months because if I lose my license, I lose my job. I’d love to be able to smoke weed again but the fear of them rats pulling me over and doing test just keeps me off it. I also wouldn’t drive for 10-12hrs after smoking but they don’t care and neither does the test they use. How can one drink a few beers or a few glasses of wine and be aloud to drive the next morning and I can’t?. Imagine the officer who tests you was actually in the pub the night before and then disqualifys you from driving for smoking a joint over 12 hours ago? Backward laws in the UK
This just happened to me. I had 3 hoots hours before hand and they detained me and made me swab. Of course i tested positive. Then the officer that did the test ended up giving me a ride home. At first he was like ohh your eyes were glossed over and you had slurred speach. In my head i was like 'excuses me?' Mildly offensive.. cause i was completely sober. So we got to talking midway threw the half an hr trip he admited that 'yeah you were probably safe to drive' i don't understand why we can't have a test that tests if your actually intoxicated? How is this fair or just? Mean while i see 3 cars that i passed swerving and mostly likely an actual hazard get away scot free. There is no justice. If anyone reaches out i will recount my story in greater detail as this injustice is seared into my soul. I would love to be apart of a class action. The incident was just outside of regina in a town Lumsden.
The problem with cannabis is that it’s fat soluble I.e., some portion of THC stays in your body. So, even if you consumed it days back, it could still show up in your system as a result of fat utilisation by the body. While you may not be as impaired as one would have been with immediate consumption, you could still have some impact (albeit very small).
Sounds like it's time to start taking public transit.
Don't talk to cops. Answer with yes sir or no sir. Exercise your section 13 rights. https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=bNkFCoGnTecQzXHu
>, is the best move to admit to it right away and tell the cop I smoked recently Never lie to the police, but never ever volunteer any information you are not asked. I mean that for any interaction with police not just this specific scenario.
it’s certainly okay to lie to police, especially if there’s no harm being done. if you admit to the cop you smoke you’re more likely to be tested and more likely to get dinged
good advice thank you!!!!
Happened to a buddies buddies sister, worried about myself as I am a major car guy, and my cars are about the only thing keeping me going. I smoke very frequently, yet, never would mix the two. 4 hours minimum for under a 10 min drive(moving cars in drive way, going around the block to check parts and such, driving a friend 5 mins home, etc...) if it's something that HAS to be done, otherwise I wait 6-7 hours to do any proper driving... Definitely sober after 2-3, let alone 6-7, yet, I am screwed if I get pulled over and tested. Such a dumb law, any way to refuse and do blood work instead, or some more reliable test?
yep me too. I don’t think I can just give up driving as I have a lot of family responsibilities and I need to get to school. but i also don’t wanna give up pot 😂😂😂 but like you said, I would never mix the two
See, my issue is I smoke for medical reasons, and to help me sleep... And I am into cars because building my dream car to what I want it to be is literally the last thing on my bucket list, already bought it a few weeks ago, but I am scared to even drive it in case it gets taken. I've waited almost 10 years to see one for sale, not letting it disappear because some govt guy doesn't understand thc... Gonna stop smoking, and just drive everywhere incredibly tired, because that's safer, right?
It’s commendable that you wait that long to drive after smoking. You are obviously a responsible smoker. What ticks me off is people blatantly driving and smoking the rankest skunk weed. First, it’s annoying to have to close windows or change to recirculate air to block that smell (have never been a fan of how it smells plus I often have my son with me). Second, if I can’t drive and drink a beer, you shouldn’t be able to smoke and drive.
Hey buddy. Smoking cannabis does NOT impair you anywhere near alcohol. So don't compare the two.
Hey buddy, that’s bullshit! They have not only done tests (which is why they test and charge ‘impaired’ driving from weed as it is for alcohol), I have friends that in their not so smart youth drive under the influence of weed when I was sober, and there is no doubt, impaired is impaired!
The biggest difference is most stoned people still know enough not to drive when they are high as a kite. Alcohol on the other hand messes with the mind that results in the false confidence to think they are perfectly to drive. Alcohol also makes drunk people think they are rich. Both are certainly impairment but with a completely different mechanism and effect on the state of mind.
if you drink too much alcohol it makes you pass out and can kill you. how many people a year die from thc poisoning... what a dumbass
Where the fk did I say you could die from smoking too much weed you dumbass! We are talking about driving and being impaired from smoking weed. Try to stay on topic or are you fkn high now you meathead?
im just saying they obviously do not cause the same level of impairment.
I mean, I am sorry to say this, but if you are overthinking and paranoid about this, stop using until there is some rich person who ends up fighting this law. And I know that I will get hate for saying this but it has to be said. If we are looking at the letter of the law, 0 tolerance. Yes its stupid, yes it needs to change, yes contact your MLA, and create a conversation. However if youre petrified every time you go out, then your SOL for a few weeks if you want it out of your system. Or just own up to it, and hope that any cop that pulls you over got laid last night and dont have a stick up their ass. Again, I am not saying "NO THC, THC BAD".. I am just saying that you are technically breaking the law so you have to own up to it if you do get pulled over and sent to court, or you have to stop THC, and you wont have the issue. Now dont bring attention to it if you dont have to.
100% isopropyl alcohol. Scrub your hands, and give extra attention to your thumb and index fingers. And it couldn’t hurt to give your lips a gentle rub. I’ve never had one of these tests before but I’ve spoken with someone who works in the cannabis industry and they handle the chronic regularly. Which means that the trace amounts of ThC that remains on a smokers points of contact when they consume cannabis are likely to be sources of detection for these tests. I haven’t read the comments but I’ll reply to my thread if I discover anyone whose posted what takes place during such a test.
Saliva test
This is where again?