Criminal charges for joint smoked a week ago??

[yootuber]

Bill C-46 ... full bill in link at bottom

Amendments to the Criminal Code

1 Section 253 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Operation while impaired — blood drug concentration

(3) Subject to subsection (4), everyone commits an offence who has within two hours after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle or vessel or after ceasing to operate or to assist in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or after ceasing to have the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment

(a) a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation;

(b) a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation and that is less than the concentration prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a); or

(c) a blood alcohol concentration and a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood alcohol concentration and the blood drug concentration for the drug that are prescribed by regulation for instances where alcohol and that drug are combined.

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42 ... rd-reading

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/po ... e38205510/

[oneh2obabe]

While the Globe & Mail article states the growing number of concerns, The Governor in Council is the one who has the power to establishe limits which they may or may not do, it's going to be a waiting game.

The 3rd reading of the bill states within 2 hours after operating a vehicle, in your OP you state police will charge you if consumed a week ago.

[Silverstarqueen]

from the regulation: " a blood drug concentration that is equal to or higher than the permitted concentration;"

Does it say what is the permitted concentration?
From Wiki: "Under the typical 50 ng/mL cutoff for THC in the United States, an occasional or on-off user would be very unlikely to test positive beyond 3–4 days since the last use, and a chronic user would be unlikely to test positive much beyond 7 days"
So let's say person used cannabis day before, and unfortunately tests positive. Their lawyer would argue in court that that was the cause of their high-ish reading. Clumsy system perhaps, but unless they set the bar higher, that is what would happen.
I personally think a road side test should be something like a video game (driving simulation for example), to test responses, standardized of course, which would be pretty good evidence in court that someone is actually impaired (along with drug test which is not proof by itself).

And there is the question of "concentration of what?" Obviously THC concentration is not proof of impairment, so they will have to come up with Something Else.
They have to set a limit somewhere. So they could pick a level that is likely to indicate the person has consumed to the point of impairment, prior to "incident", and corroborate that with behavioral evidence of impairment, and let the courts decide.
I am not happy with the two hour window, however. If they are going to take a sample of whatever (breath, saliva, etc) it should be done much more promptly than that.
How do they manage to determine impairment now? If someone has prescription painkillers or cannabis, or whatever in their system now, the situation is no different that it is going to be six months from now. The responsibility to protect the safety of the public is no different now that in future.

[yootuber]

While the Globe & Mail article states the growing number of concerns, The Governor in Council is the one who has the power to establishe limits which they may or may not do, it's going to be a waiting game.

The 3rd reading of the bill states within 2 hours after operating a vehicle, in your OP you state police will charge you if consumed a week ago.

sorry i read a few articles and this one is more along the lines of what i'm talking about:

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/author/alex ... ion-14960/

https://www.theleafnews.com/news/weed-i ... 66923.html

[Silverstarqueen]

"“The proposed level of having at least two ng but less than five ng of THC per millilitre of blood is a precautionary approach that takes into account the best available scientific evidence related to cannabis and driving.”
Except that it isn't based on the best available scientific evidence.

Precautionary doesn't help, since once a person is convicted, it is still a criminal offense in the U.S., therefore person cannot cross the boarder to U.S.
This is just stupid, they need to come up with some actual evidence, some way of determining impaired or not.
What do they do with people who are impaired from other causes such as prescriptions meds, or neurological problems?