I have no problem with the legislation either.
However, if we're going to piecemeal every law, to deal with each specific drug we're still going to have a bunch of confusing, possibly illegal laws.
The way I see it, you have to cover them all.
You can't vilify alcohol and cannabis, while letting people drive around on tranquilizers, opioids and other drugs that cause impairment..
Here's the conjecture, some what ifs and where I (playing Devil's Advocate) think they may have a problem. In order to make the law non discriminatory, we'll have to establish tests, limits and screening criteria and force everyone, taking any kind of impairing substance to have a roadside to determine their ability to drive. We'll need to decide the impairment based on amounts of a specific drug compared to body weight and blood toxicity. People that operate vehicles or equipment, while taking medication that states. "Not to be taken if operating machinery, may cause drowsiness" should also be charged. That's only logical and fair, right? No Charter challenges allowed. After all when the greater good is involved, individual rights are forfeit.
These are the types of arguments that the Crown and challenging lawyers and legislators from all levels will have to engage with.
I said previously, it will become legal on 010001JUL18. There will likely be a number of Charter challenges on 020001JUL18.
Like John, my day starts with "What do I have to do? Do I need to drive anywhere or is this a day I can medicate fully? Have I taken a CBD dominant strain or a THC one? Lot's of variables on the way to making a decision to drive or not.
I don't know what it's going to look like in 2018, but I don't think it's going to resemble anything like we've been discussing. It's something I'll be watching, but not being capable of influencing any kind of law in Canada, I'm not going to worry about all the bluster from the House until we start getting down to the short strokes.
We knew from the beginning, with the appointment of Blair to the file, that nothing was going to be easy and that there would be no rhyme or reason to what they dreamed up. Put in the hands of a biased, virulent, anti cannabis cop, instead of someone with a more rounded and open scientific, approach.
But, like I say, this is only a jumping off spot and no plan survives first contact.
My
