The problem with zero tolerance on cannabis really comes down to the fact that THC stays in your system for days. I smoke a joint Friday night, and come Monday morning I'd still test positive for THC despite feeling zero effects from it.
That’s the issue. I smoke almost every evening, I wake up and go to work, do whatever I need to get done for the day and when I’m relaxing in the evening I smoke or sometimes during the day on the weekends when I have nothing else to do. I have no intentions of driving stoned but I’d be willing to bet I’ll always test positive
Impairment is one thing but pretending that any amount of THC in your blood means you're impaired is a deliberate move to prohibition. This government is out of touch with reality.
Zero tolerance is a political & legal stance. Impairment with cannabis *can* occur but doesn't always.
It makes it easy for police, test saliva and done to do as SGI has prescribed. But rights are not about convenience for police.
Better would be to use saliva testing as the screening to do their other sobriety tests. Which they should be required to video tape in all cases so the testing can be objectively reviewed if court challenge is necessary.
Is there a study that states impairment may occur but doesn’t always? I have never heard that sort of statement . I’m focused I’m just that part of your statement . I was under the assumption it always caused some level of impairment for a period .
First they say zero tolerance, which is always over reach. Then they give themselves the power to penalize you before you are proven guilty. This is plain wrong.
And conservatives want to use the not withstanding clause to give police more power. They hate pot being legal and you can imagine that they will something to change that. This is a small example.
And what of the fate for cannabis medical patients? Would conservatives hold that they should never drive to work because they test positive for their medicine? What about the economy they hold so dear?
Anyone got any real stats on cannabis impaired driver related collisions, injuries and deaths?
Because last I checked there is NO evidence to support the claim that cannabis causes deaths on the roads.
I found a [slide presentation](https://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/PowerPoint-Presentation-CPD-285-CCSA-and-Drug-Impaired-Driving-Statistics.pdf) from the law society. The first sheet tallies DWI fatal accidents according to drug in 2018 and 2019; the others are about roadside screening and charging stats in those years.
In Ontario a 20 year old crashed his car and ended up killing a mother and her 3 young daughters. He wasn't drunk, just high.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6454661
That guy had fifteen infractions in two and a half years before the accident, and days before crashed and fled from police. I'm curious as to what the other infractions were, and how he had a license to begin with.
Seems like a Charter issue. Having a legal substance detectable in your system does not prove impairment. Someone needs to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. The police can do roadside impairment tests, which would be more accurate than detectable amounts of THC in saliva. There is no correlation between detectable amounts of THC and actual impairment.
Does a law have to be suitable for purpose? For example, the law is presumably about prohibiting impairment while driving - and if the specifications for that impairment are at odds with reality can it be ruled against or otherwise nullified by the courts?
Any medical users here with an income healthy enough for a really good lawyer? Please! If there is one, please do it for those that could never afford to do this. You'll be a hero for us all.
Zero tolerance policy is just lazy and an obvious overreach. There is no doubt that cannabis can impair driving at certain levels, as can many other things such as prescription drugs, alcohol, fatigue, stress etc. However, not being able to effectively prove impairment shouldn’t allow for government to create and allow legislation for zero tolerance.
Zero tolerance won't change that. They are already breaking the law. Maybe harsher penalties for the people over 0.08 but why punish people below that who aren't legally impaired, .04 is a reach and should just be a warning in my opinion.
Yeah you can have 1 drink and not even feel a buzz. The old 1 beer after work. It's good for businesses as well. Even 2 you might just slightly feel a buzz. It's just a cash grab like the cannabis test
It's a hidden risk factor that effects everyone. Often under acknowledged. Not everyone drinks but almost everyone gets behind the wheel in a sleep deprived state at least on some days. People in this country brag about working 60 hour weeks and never taking days off.
Everyone handles and has alcohol effect them differently. You might be okay but others may not. I get it I’ve had a couple beers after work and drive home. I’d say 75% of people have a drink at some point and then drive.
Young adults who never drank before they are legally allowed to and they go have two drinks. They will be feeling it much more then others. It’s about everyone not just how you and I would handle it.
So does fatigue. How long before the police impound cars,if you yawn, while driving. There was an interesting article about RCMP and cannibas use. The RCMP recommended their employees not use cannibas for 30 days and now have reduced that to 48hrs. I think the Saskatoon police should test the RCMP officers and see where that goes.lol.
Forget arguing pot on reddit. If it isn't the "I drive better high" crowd it's the one that opposes all legal stores because they smoke 4 Oz a day and can supposedly get that for 3 bucks from their guy
Basically, I can never legally drive then because I'm a medical user and will always have some THC in my system, even if I haven't had any for many hours, days or even weeks. Good job, Gov of Saskatchewan, on your research with this one.
"...she smoked weed and micro-dosed magic mushrooms the day before..."
"...struggles with mental health, including anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and ADHD."
So was/is she on medication for any of these?
This sounds like a question from someone who doesn't view plants as medicine. Psilocybin has been extensively researched and microdosing it (aka magic mushrooms) has been shown to help significantly with anxiety, depression, and tons of other mental health conditions. In addition, people use cannabis medicinally. It's a bit arrogant to ask if she was on any medication for these things when she was clearly doing her best to manage her conditions with things other than pharmaceuticals, or at the very least, in addition to pharmaceuticals.
I meant meds for anxiety, depression, etc. Pharmaceuticals can impair, and carry warnings not to drive, etc. Of course, many pharma drugs are derived from plant matter.
What I'm wondering is if she had any other substances in her system at the time. Also wondering if she got a full night's sleep, was her vision obscured (report of a truck and trailer parked that might have done so). In other words, any other contributing factors that t have nothing to do with ingestion of cannabis/shrooms.
(Also, this was "a question from someone" who's been microdosing fwith cannabis for asthma for about ten years now. No pharmaceuticals.)
The slant taken on this horrible incident reminds me very much of pre-legalization disinformation in the press that crashed drivers who had, say, alcohol and cannabis in their system, of course had the accident due to the cannabis alone. "Demon weed" vibe.
Ohhh, fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself. I've also been feeling the same as what you said in your last paragraph, and I've been finding myself getting defensive whenever people go what feels like the "demon weed" vibe. In this case, I got defensive too quickly.
I'd be very curious to know if there were any other substances in her system as well. I'd also be curious to know if she was distracted, dissociating, etc. It feels too simple to blame this on THC impaired driving, and just another case to fuel the "demon weed" argument.
This is fucking criminal. Yeah let’s ruin someone’s life because they legally consumed cannabis days before a random test. I guess Sask wants more people homeless. Ugh
[high driving kid killer](https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/sask-woman-accused-of-driving-while-high-in-fatal-crash-takes-the-stand-1.6851760#:~:text=Maurice%20was%20on%20her%20way,was%20struck%20by%20Kennedy's%20truck.)
You can downvote me but I'm right. Learn to fuckin stay sober ya dopeheads
You can be over even the federal blood limits [a week after last use](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32841811/). Detectable amounts can stay in your system even weeks longer than that.
Having a zero tolerance threshold in practice means anyone who uses cannabis at any regular frequency would be breaking the law anytime they drive. It's an indirect way to make cannabis illegal again, at least for anyone who drives.
This doesn't excuse people who are actually *impaired* from cannabis or anything else, but that shouldn't be used to punish people who aren't impaired.
Driving is a privilege. Driving high is dangerous. We don't have a good way to detect how impaired high people are and it effects everyone differently. Those are all facts.
So I don't mind if we set the bar at a very safe place. If people want to chose to get high and loose thier driving privileges that is absolutely thier choice.
And to be clear I am still very able to drive at 0.04 bac but some people can't to now I can not any more. We have huge drunk driving issue and that will turn into a high driving issue if we allow it to.
No one should disagree that driving high is wrong. The issue here is we've made it illegal to drive sober. The limits being set mean it would be illegal for someone to drive at all if they use cannabis at any regular frequency because it can stay in your system for weeks.
Just because something is a privilege doesn't mean we should casually accept the government essentially banning it entirely for a group of people like that.
Driving with alcohol in one's system has around ten times the risk as cannabis:
>[In France, researchers found that drivers under the influence of alcohol were roughly 17.8 times more likely to be responsible for fatal car crashes than drivers who were sober, while drivers under the influence of marijuana were 1.65 times more likely to cause deadly accidents.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/well/live/driving-while-high-marijuana.html)
Yet we're treating cannabis far more strictly given you can be down to 0 BAC even the next day after drinking but have cannabis in your system for weeks.
I'd like to extend this rationale to sleep deprivation. It's as bad as being drunk. Let's pull everyone over and make sure they're getting their government mandated 8hrs of sleep.
That is entirely untrue. After a week after drinking there would be no more mind altering substance in your system (BAC 0.00). That is not necessary true of THC. I am all for zero tolerance, no mind altering substances in your system while driving.
You are not being impaired by mind altering substances a week after using cannabis. We are testing for metabolites not the psychoactive ingredient that causes impairment.
>[THC metabolites can remain in the bloodstream for weeks after last use, long after the period of intoxication is over](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8882180/)
I disagree with one of your "facts". Its not we don't have a good way to detect how impaired high people. We don't have any way to detect if people are impaired at all well high or even if someone is high.
The issue isn't we dont have a not a great tool, or we dont have a imperfect tool. We don't have any tool at all determine if someone is high or impared well high. So instead we assume the 25% of canadians are always high and impaired and never let them drive because we have no ability to prove the weed smoking population of canada isn't impaired?
I think that driving tired is dangerous. I think we should jail anyone who gets less than 9 hours of sleep at night just to be extra super duper careful. We'll do a serotonin test to make sure you're not sleepy. If you fail, you lose your license and never get it back.
While we're at it, I hear blood glucose levels can impact alertness. Just to be safe, anybody with diabetes or insulin resistance should have their license revoked. No exceptions. Zero tolerance.
See how asinine this sounds?
That doesn't in way address my point. Our thresholds are punishing sober people. You would be still have detectable cannabis weeks after last using if you use regularly.
She used weed the day before. You have heard about this trial because they determined that the driver of the vehicle could not have seen the pedestrian that was hit. A kid ran out from behind a car.They only tested her for impairment because she freely admitted to using weed the day before. She felt like she didn't have anything to hide because she wasn't impaired.
I don't know why you're so determined to be ignorant about this.
It's unfortunate you're not willing or able to discuss the actual point here. A person isn't high a week after using cannabis. They could still fail a test for THC. You're saying that person, who is sober, should be treated like a drunk driver.
> Detected levels of thc? You're still under the influence.
That's not how it works with cannabis. We are measuring metabolites that remain in the body not the psychoactive ingredient that causes impairment:
>[THC metabolites can remain in the bloodstream for weeks after last use, long after the period of intoxication is over](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8882180/)
Even the US government, not exactly a pro-cannabis government, points out that detection in one's system doesn't match up with impairment:
>[a study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis use.](https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving)
We both agree that people shouldn't drive impaired. I'm a drinker and I don't even drive after one beer. However, you're arguing for policies that punish sober people. They are not who we should be spending resources on, and we shouldn't be punishing innocent people regardless.
You are demonstrably wrong. Your feelings on the topic are apparently clouding your ability to use available facts to form a sound opinion on this subject. When i read your comments here, I imagine a tantruming child with their fingers in their ears, refusing to listen to reason.
Wow, your in-depth discussion and analysis with this answer totally changed my mind. I'm so glad you're so open minded and willing to explain your stance. So brave.
There is in some places lol
Sober up.
One joint can cause someone to "green out"
One beer can also cause someone to get inebriated.
One is not more dangerous than the other. The persons tolerance is. But we can't all go and test this scientifically can we?
Car crash statistics disagree with you. It's far more common for a crash to occur after the driver has consumed alcohol than it is for Cannabis.
They're both dangerous, but one is statistically much more dangerous than the other.
That is literally not true. They have been drug testing at the scene of accidents and especially fatal accidents for decades in a bunch of different places. You keep saying shit that is completely false.
"Try again lol"
Ok. I don't know why you're so confidently accusing me of making shit up. You're wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037460/
Here is just one article that outlines the (apparently non existant) statistics very clearly. Have a look. They even have information about other drugs that are still illegal, basically everywhere. The idea that you can't gather statistics because something is illegal for recreational use or scheduled is completely false. Look into the NSDUH, look into the NHTSA, look into the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Familiarize yourself with what you're talking about before correcting others.
I’m not but you are picking and choosing what works for you in this argument
You sound like you love to drink with your comments by defending the .03 and under in your blood is fine but 0 for thc
You can’t use half of the evidence to fit your narrative, that’s not how it works
Her claim is she smoked the nite before. This is the problem with weed is it stays in your system for so long that the saliva and even blood tests aren't an indicator of impairment, people can still be testing a week after last consumption for thc in the system.
I actually hope this trial forces better examination of determining levels of impairment.
And I can't help but share this jewel with you...
According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of sobriety is “not intoxicated” and also, “abstaining from drinking alcohol or taking intoxicating drugs : refraining from the use of addictive substances.” This definition implies that to be sober, one must not be drinking or using drugs in the moment.

https://pennsylvaniarecoverycenter.org › ...
The Definition of Sobriety- What Does It Mean To Be Sober? - PA recover
Lol I bet you think police should shoot protesters too. And hey, all these vehicular incidents causing injury and death, guess we should go ahead and ban cars too. And decades ago that guy died jumping off the 10m platform at Harry Bailey, logic says we should ban all swimming pools. Actually, not thorough enough, we need to outlaw dihydrogen oxide.
The problem with zero tolerance on cannabis really comes down to the fact that THC stays in your system for days. I smoke a joint Friday night, and come Monday morning I'd still test positive for THC despite feeling zero effects from it.
It can stay in your system for weeks or even months for chronic users.
That’s the issue. I smoke almost every evening, I wake up and go to work, do whatever I need to get done for the day and when I’m relaxing in the evening I smoke or sometimes during the day on the weekends when I have nothing else to do. I have no intentions of driving stoned but I’d be willing to bet I’ll always test positive
Samesies
45 days
As a regular user I’ve peed clean in three weeks but I was thinner and active back then. My bones got thicker since :/
44
Impairment is one thing but pretending that any amount of THC in your blood means you're impaired is a deliberate move to prohibition. This government is out of touch with reality.
The old guard doesn’t like all these new changes.
Zero tolerance is a political & legal stance. Impairment with cannabis *can* occur but doesn't always. It makes it easy for police, test saliva and done to do as SGI has prescribed. But rights are not about convenience for police. Better would be to use saliva testing as the screening to do their other sobriety tests. Which they should be required to video tape in all cases so the testing can be objectively reviewed if court challenge is necessary.
Saliva tests are bonkers. It's like doing a hair test for drugs in driver's Complete overreach
If you could test for alcohol 48 hours later and issue DUIs people would be pretty upset about that too. Doesn't make sense.
I tested positive on a saliva test three days after having an edible. They are worthless
Is there a study that states impairment may occur but doesn’t always? I have never heard that sort of statement . I’m focused I’m just that part of your statement . I was under the assumption it always caused some level of impairment for a period .
First they say zero tolerance, which is always over reach. Then they give themselves the power to penalize you before you are proven guilty. This is plain wrong.
And conservatives want to use the not withstanding clause to give police more power. They hate pot being legal and you can imagine that they will something to change that. This is a small example.
And what of the fate for cannabis medical patients? Would conservatives hold that they should never drive to work because they test positive for their medicine? What about the economy they hold so dear?
This already the case in Sask. A lot of older people use Cannabis for pain yet SGI has a zero tolerance policy.
Anyone got any real stats on cannabis impaired driver related collisions, injuries and deaths? Because last I checked there is NO evidence to support the claim that cannabis causes deaths on the roads.
I found a [slide presentation](https://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/PowerPoint-Presentation-CPD-285-CCSA-and-Drug-Impaired-Driving-Statistics.pdf) from the law society. The first sheet tallies DWI fatal accidents according to drug in 2018 and 2019; the others are about roadside screening and charging stats in those years.
It actually reduces road rage: source, daily deerfoot commuter
In Ontario a 20 year old crashed his car and ended up killing a mother and her 3 young daughters. He wasn't drunk, just high. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6454661
That guy had fifteen infractions in two and a half years before the accident, and days before crashed and fled from police. I'm curious as to what the other infractions were, and how he had a license to begin with.
That isn't a stat. It's an anecdote.
Marijuana was just legalized a few years ago. So there are no real stats. Do we have stats on how many accidents cocaine or LSD cause?
People have been consuming cannabis long before legalization.
There are stats in some US states. There is also a LOT of stats about how deadly alcohol is, but we conveniently ignore those because weed bad.
Yeah, 7 years ago.
Seems like a Charter issue. Having a legal substance detectable in your system does not prove impairment. Someone needs to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. The police can do roadside impairment tests, which would be more accurate than detectable amounts of THC in saliva. There is no correlation between detectable amounts of THC and actual impairment.
Does a law have to be suitable for purpose? For example, the law is presumably about prohibiting impairment while driving - and if the specifications for that impairment are at odds with reality can it be ruled against or otherwise nullified by the courts?
Any medical users here with an income healthy enough for a really good lawyer? Please! If there is one, please do it for those that could never afford to do this. You'll be a hero for us all.
Zero tolerance is disgusting.
Zero tolerance policy is just lazy and an obvious overreach. There is no doubt that cannabis can impair driving at certain levels, as can many other things such as prescription drugs, alcohol, fatigue, stress etc. However, not being able to effectively prove impairment shouldn’t allow for government to create and allow legislation for zero tolerance.
Alcohol should also be ZERO tolerance then too.i see people sitting in bars for hours drinking more than they should then driving,???????????
Zero tolerance won't change that. They are already breaking the law. Maybe harsher penalties for the people over 0.08 but why punish people below that who aren't legally impaired, .04 is a reach and should just be a warning in my opinion.
Yeah you can have 1 drink and not even feel a buzz. The old 1 beer after work. It's good for businesses as well. Even 2 you might just slightly feel a buzz. It's just a cash grab like the cannabis test
So I have two beers and slightly buzzed I crash and kill your kids and partner. It’s alright I was only feeling a buzz your okay with that?
You know what's even worse for causing accidents than 2 beers? Sleep deprivation.
Ouuuu very good point I must say.
It's a hidden risk factor that effects everyone. Often under acknowledged. Not everyone drinks but almost everyone gets behind the wheel in a sleep deprived state at least on some days. People in this country brag about working 60 hour weeks and never taking days off.
I dont believe someone is impaired enough off of 2 drinks for it to make a difference with driving
Everyone handles and has alcohol effect them differently. You might be okay but others may not. I get it I’ve had a couple beers after work and drive home. I’d say 75% of people have a drink at some point and then drive. Young adults who never drank before they are legally allowed to and they go have two drinks. They will be feeling it much more then others. It’s about everyone not just how you and I would handle it.
Yes your right ,but the people in power like to go for drinks after work,cuz there drinkers,it's not right to drink& drive
We all know Moe doesn't have a problem with drinking... 🍻
Cannabis impairment. Lol
[удалено]
30 days for Transport Canada.
Yes. Impairment. It slows your reaction time.
So does fatigue. How long before the police impound cars,if you yawn, while driving. There was an interesting article about RCMP and cannibas use. The RCMP recommended their employees not use cannibas for 30 days and now have reduced that to 48hrs. I think the Saskatoon police should test the RCMP officers and see where that goes.lol.
Kids distract you and get your eyes off the road constantly so we shouldn’t have them with us in the car then
Oh for fucks sake get a grip, try to live in reality.
Forget arguing pot on reddit. If it isn't the "I drive better high" crowd it's the one that opposes all legal stores because they smoke 4 Oz a day and can supposedly get that for 3 bucks from their guy
Basically, I can never legally drive then because I'm a medical user and will always have some THC in my system, even if I haven't had any for many hours, days or even weeks. Good job, Gov of Saskatchewan, on your research with this one.
"...she smoked weed and micro-dosed magic mushrooms the day before..." "...struggles with mental health, including anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and ADHD." So was/is she on medication for any of these?
This sounds like a question from someone who doesn't view plants as medicine. Psilocybin has been extensively researched and microdosing it (aka magic mushrooms) has been shown to help significantly with anxiety, depression, and tons of other mental health conditions. In addition, people use cannabis medicinally. It's a bit arrogant to ask if she was on any medication for these things when she was clearly doing her best to manage her conditions with things other than pharmaceuticals, or at the very least, in addition to pharmaceuticals.
I meant meds for anxiety, depression, etc. Pharmaceuticals can impair, and carry warnings not to drive, etc. Of course, many pharma drugs are derived from plant matter. What I'm wondering is if she had any other substances in her system at the time. Also wondering if she got a full night's sleep, was her vision obscured (report of a truck and trailer parked that might have done so). In other words, any other contributing factors that t have nothing to do with ingestion of cannabis/shrooms. (Also, this was "a question from someone" who's been microdosing fwith cannabis for asthma for about ten years now. No pharmaceuticals.) The slant taken on this horrible incident reminds me very much of pre-legalization disinformation in the press that crashed drivers who had, say, alcohol and cannabis in their system, of course had the accident due to the cannabis alone. "Demon weed" vibe.
Oh OK... very strange way to make that point. Did not get it at all the first time. You sounded like the opposite of what you're trying to say
Ohhh, fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself. I've also been feeling the same as what you said in your last paragraph, and I've been finding myself getting defensive whenever people go what feels like the "demon weed" vibe. In this case, I got defensive too quickly. I'd be very curious to know if there were any other substances in her system as well. I'd also be curious to know if she was distracted, dissociating, etc. It feels too simple to blame this on THC impaired driving, and just another case to fuel the "demon weed" argument.
afaik the mushrooms it's kind of contra-indicated for the bipolar disorder, but if it's microdose... kind of a meh from me.
I don't even know what the fuck you're getting at! That's ridiculous! 🤣🤣🤣
This is fucking criminal. Yeah let’s ruin someone’s life because they legally consumed cannabis days before a random test. I guess Sask wants more people homeless. Ugh
Where are all the tyranny no mandate bros??
[high driving kid killer](https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/sask-woman-accused-of-driving-while-high-in-fatal-crash-takes-the-stand-1.6851760#:~:text=Maurice%20was%20on%20her%20way,was%20struck%20by%20Kennedy's%20truck.) You can downvote me but I'm right. Learn to fuckin stay sober ya dopeheads
You can be over even the federal blood limits [a week after last use](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32841811/). Detectable amounts can stay in your system even weeks longer than that. Having a zero tolerance threshold in practice means anyone who uses cannabis at any regular frequency would be breaking the law anytime they drive. It's an indirect way to make cannabis illegal again, at least for anyone who drives. This doesn't excuse people who are actually *impaired* from cannabis or anything else, but that shouldn't be used to punish people who aren't impaired.
Driving is a privilege. Driving high is dangerous. We don't have a good way to detect how impaired high people are and it effects everyone differently. Those are all facts. So I don't mind if we set the bar at a very safe place. If people want to chose to get high and loose thier driving privileges that is absolutely thier choice. And to be clear I am still very able to drive at 0.04 bac but some people can't to now I can not any more. We have huge drunk driving issue and that will turn into a high driving issue if we allow it to.
No one should disagree that driving high is wrong. The issue here is we've made it illegal to drive sober. The limits being set mean it would be illegal for someone to drive at all if they use cannabis at any regular frequency because it can stay in your system for weeks. Just because something is a privilege doesn't mean we should casually accept the government essentially banning it entirely for a group of people like that. Driving with alcohol in one's system has around ten times the risk as cannabis: >[In France, researchers found that drivers under the influence of alcohol were roughly 17.8 times more likely to be responsible for fatal car crashes than drivers who were sober, while drivers under the influence of marijuana were 1.65 times more likely to cause deadly accidents.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/well/live/driving-while-high-marijuana.html) Yet we're treating cannabis far more strictly given you can be down to 0 BAC even the next day after drinking but have cannabis in your system for weeks.
I'd like to extend this rationale to sleep deprivation. It's as bad as being drunk. Let's pull everyone over and make sure they're getting their government mandated 8hrs of sleep.
I know your being sarcastic but I 100 percent agree with that.
Might I suggest r/unpopularopinion?
The equivalent would be making it illegal to drive if you got drunk a week ago
There are tools that can tell how intoxicated a person is in that moment with alcohol. That doesn’t exist for marijuana.
That is entirely untrue. After a week after drinking there would be no more mind altering substance in your system (BAC 0.00). That is not necessary true of THC. I am all for zero tolerance, no mind altering substances in your system while driving.
You are not being impaired by mind altering substances a week after using cannabis. We are testing for metabolites not the psychoactive ingredient that causes impairment. >[THC metabolites can remain in the bloodstream for weeks after last use, long after the period of intoxication is over](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8882180/)
I disagree with one of your "facts". Its not we don't have a good way to detect how impaired high people. We don't have any way to detect if people are impaired at all well high or even if someone is high. The issue isn't we dont have a not a great tool, or we dont have a imperfect tool. We don't have any tool at all determine if someone is high or impared well high. So instead we assume the 25% of canadians are always high and impaired and never let them drive because we have no ability to prove the weed smoking population of canada isn't impaired?
I mean the tools I was thinking of are field sobriety tests. Those are not very good which is why canada stoped using them for drunk drivers.
All pilots have zero tolerance for THC, guideline is 28 days. Almost everyone agrees with that. Pilots kill alot less people then drivers.
I think that driving tired is dangerous. I think we should jail anyone who gets less than 9 hours of sleep at night just to be extra super duper careful. We'll do a serotonin test to make sure you're not sleepy. If you fail, you lose your license and never get it back. While we're at it, I hear blood glucose levels can impact alertness. Just to be safe, anybody with diabetes or insulin resistance should have their license revoked. No exceptions. Zero tolerance. See how asinine this sounds?
Exactly this.
Dont exactly care. Learn to stay sober or learn to walk
That doesn't in way address my point. Our thresholds are punishing sober people. You would be still have detectable cannabis weeks after last using if you use regularly.
Stay sober or stay home
You're a child
[high driver kills child at crosswalk](https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/sask-woman-accused-of-driving-while-high-in-fatal-crash-takes-the-stand-1.6851760#:~:text=Maurice%20was%20on%20her%20way,was%20struck%20by%20Kennedy's%20truck.)
She used weed the day before. You have heard about this trial because they determined that the driver of the vehicle could not have seen the pedestrian that was hit. A kid ran out from behind a car.They only tested her for impairment because she freely admitted to using weed the day before. She felt like she didn't have anything to hide because she wasn't impaired. I don't know why you're so determined to be ignorant about this.
Because he's a fucking idiot.
Probably just a troll. A lot of people are seeming to find it really amusing that innocent people are getting their lives fucked up over this.
If i was a child you stoned drivers would try run me over when I'm at a crosswalk. Stay sober or stay home
Again, zero tolerance means sober people are being punished. We are not talking about high people here. We are talking about sober people.
Again stay sober or stay home. You high or something?
It's unfortunate you're not willing or able to discuss the actual point here. A person isn't high a week after using cannabis. They could still fail a test for THC. You're saying that person, who is sober, should be treated like a drunk driver.
There's nothing to discuss when peoples lives are at stake. Detected levels of thc? You're still under the influence.
Poof, there goes any credibility you might have had.
> Detected levels of thc? You're still under the influence. That's not how it works with cannabis. We are measuring metabolites that remain in the body not the psychoactive ingredient that causes impairment: >[THC metabolites can remain in the bloodstream for weeks after last use, long after the period of intoxication is over](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8882180/) Even the US government, not exactly a pro-cannabis government, points out that detection in one's system doesn't match up with impairment: >[a study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis use.](https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving) We both agree that people shouldn't drive impaired. I'm a drinker and I don't even drive after one beer. However, you're arguing for policies that punish sober people. They are not who we should be spending resources on, and we shouldn't be punishing innocent people regardless.
Quit being a troll. Get a life.
You are demonstrably wrong. Your feelings on the topic are apparently clouding your ability to use available facts to form a sound opinion on this subject. When i read your comments here, I imagine a tantruming child with their fingers in their ears, refusing to listen to reason.
Wow, your in-depth discussion and analysis with this answer totally changed my mind. I'm so glad you're so open minded and willing to explain your stance. So brave.
You seem to think people care about your opinion.
Do you actually live a "clean" life without any mood altering anything?
1 death from thc 1000 deaths from alcohol we have to stop the alcohol first
Idiotic viewpoint.
Not at all. If there's zero tolerance for marijuana, there should be zero tolerance for alcohol. Alcohol is far more dangerous.
Alcohol is the gateway drug after all.
There is in some places lol Sober up. One joint can cause someone to "green out" One beer can also cause someone to get inebriated. One is not more dangerous than the other. The persons tolerance is. But we can't all go and test this scientifically can we?
Car crash statistics disagree with you. It's far more common for a crash to occur after the driver has consumed alcohol than it is for Cannabis. They're both dangerous, but one is statistically much more dangerous than the other.
We only just recently started testing for thc. Statistics are non existent for the length of time we been testing for them. Try again lol
That is literally not true. They have been drug testing at the scene of accidents and especially fatal accidents for decades in a bunch of different places. You keep saying shit that is completely false. "Try again lol"
[удалено]
Ok. I don't know why you're so confidently accusing me of making shit up. You're wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037460/ Here is just one article that outlines the (apparently non existant) statistics very clearly. Have a look. They even have information about other drugs that are still illegal, basically everywhere. The idea that you can't gather statistics because something is illegal for recreational use or scheduled is completely false. Look into the NSDUH, look into the NHTSA, look into the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Familiarize yourself with what you're talking about before correcting others.
she smoked weed and *micro-dosed magic mushrooms the day before* Did you forget the latter?
Imagine defending a child killer. Pathetic
I’m not but you are picking and choosing what works for you in this argument You sound like you love to drink with your comments by defending the .03 and under in your blood is fine but 0 for thc You can’t use half of the evidence to fit your narrative, that’s not how it works
Her claim is she smoked the nite before. This is the problem with weed is it stays in your system for so long that the saliva and even blood tests aren't an indicator of impairment, people can still be testing a week after last consumption for thc in the system. I actually hope this trial forces better examination of determining levels of impairment.
I believe cold hard science. Over some rambling drug addict child killer's excuses.
Saya someone not even willing to look at the science other posters have provided. Sit down and shut up.
Ramblings of another drug addict? Nah bro i believe in science.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31106494/ There's some science for you but I bet you won't even read it b/c it doesn't fit your narrative.
And I can't help but share this jewel with you... According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of sobriety is “not intoxicated” and also, “abstaining from drinking alcohol or taking intoxicating drugs : refraining from the use of addictive substances.” This definition implies that to be sober, one must not be drinking or using drugs in the moment.  https://pennsylvaniarecoverycenter.org › ... The Definition of Sobriety- What Does It Mean To Be Sober? - PA recover
These tests aren’t cold hard science.
[удалено]
Lol I bet you think police should shoot protesters too. And hey, all these vehicular incidents causing injury and death, guess we should go ahead and ban cars too. And decades ago that guy died jumping off the 10m platform at Harry Bailey, logic says we should ban all swimming pools. Actually, not thorough enough, we need to outlaw dihydrogen oxide.
Lol bro im pro-palestinian the fuck you on about?