So BC bud is not as good as Amsterdam bud? I find it difficult to believe that they had TCH levels in the 20% area 15 years ago. BTW, your link to the Marijuana magazine is interesting. Certainly not an unbiased source of "fact". To comment on the single Sask. provincial court decision as the reason Police can never stop and search if there are indicators present, is a huge stretch. You would have to be completely familiar with all the facts of the case and have a legal background far beyond ours, to even comment on it.

It is interesting to note that the Cop was fully justified in searching as a large quantity was found in the vehicle. Articulation of your grounds is a very important part of your testimony. Don't say the exact words, in the right tone of voice, in the right order at the right time...and things get tossed. Miss a comma in a search warrant and the whole thing gets tossed. In the case you chose to use shows that the Cop was 100% right, the guy was guilty but not convicted because of the way the testimony went down. Nobody in the case you linked to said that this was an impaired driving investigation...it was the seizure of an illegal drug, based on grounds that proved correct, but were not accepted in court. Bet he didn't get his pot back?

Hey Zulutango,

Definately Amsterdam is years ahead of "BC Bud".

I removed the posting to the searching because it really has no relevance. It does raise an interesting point, and since Canadian law is based on precedent, even more interesting. I am up to date with many areas of the law. Don't go doubting me zulutango.

That is the way the law is. Things can and will be tossed out if one thing is not done properly. Cops have to follow the rules too!

I am quoting from sources that provide me with releative information. The courts would see that information as relevant and legitimate. Just because an article is written on a cannabis site, and assembled facts from many different sources does not make it wrong.

I think I am presented enough information to prove a point. You seem to just respond back with smart remarks and your opinion. Very interesting to say the least.

You keep refering to this THC percentage level like its some guideline for how "impaired" someone is. Ever think that with such a "high level" of THC, the user may not smoke as much? Not all users some to get retarded. There are other chemicals in play such as CBN and CDB. Do you know what roles they play?

This is getting off topic....arguing with a cop about THC contents and all..

Just ONE question, officers.

How do you tell if I'm high on a reefer or I drank 2 full cans of energy drink, one immediately after another?

Coz I can't.

If you're impaired, it doesn't really matter how you got that way.

"I think I am presented enough information to prove a point. You seem to just respond back with smart remarks and your opinion. Very interesting to say the least."

You know what....you ARE 100% right, I'm wrong, so is medical science, Police training, the law and everything else. I apologize for questioning your superior reasoning and experience...it far outweighs my 28 years of law enforcement, my hundreds of impaired driving investigations, my SFST training and that of all the law enforcement officers I have ever worked with or been trained by. I'm an idiot for ever having questioned you. How dare I come here and offer my opinion and experience in a discussion forum where people come to ask Cops for their opinion and experience. As punishment, I will sign off now and swear off Red Bull and black coffee for the next 2 weeks. I'm obviously out of control. ;) Right Soundy??? You know that!???

ZT, I think you need to hit stutterr with some of your trademark drunk posting... if that doesn't confuse him, nothing will ;)

It's just that I'm not sure how he feels about fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent? I'd hate to have him feel bad about hitting the handicapped.:(

stutterr......first thing...you are posting on the police fourm, which requires you to have a mature discussion only. right now your coming across as a high school stoner who is trying to use his gr 10 socials's logic to argue with the police.

i think we can all agree that right now it is much easier to "slip thru the cracks" on an impared driving charge based on being high on weed. however the whole point of this thread started on the bases of officers handing out 24hr suspension.

he officer doesnt need to know whether or not you are high on weed, prescription drugs, vitamins or w/e, all he needs to determine is that you are impared, and is unable to operate your motor vehical in a safe manner.

end of the day, you can be a smart ass all you want and try to get urself out of a criminal conviction, but by pulling over the driver, and handing out a 24h suspension, the officer has done his duties in protecting the public from being hurt by the driver whom was impared at the time.

ie. if the officer pulled you over and suspended you for 24h because he thinks your high on weed, but in fact you are just tired from studying and not sleeping for two days, and your eyes are red because of allergies or w/e, and you stink of weed because the dude next to you earlier was smoking it. the charge may not hold up in court, but the officer took you off the road because you obviously were impared in a sense that you cannot operate your moter vehical safely.

so ultimately it comes down to that, you CAN and WILL be handed a 24h suspension if you choose to drive stoned, and then if you can argue your way out of a criminal charge all you want.

Hahahah, nicely played :D

wow either you are just blind or a complete fool. When did I advocate driving stoned?

Just because I am arguing a valid point that there is no definate testing for driving being stoned, does not me I advocate it. I have said many times.

Get your head out of your behind

Plus if you knew anything about the law you wouldnt be posting such ridiculous answers. Did you just make these up?

The officer has to prove why he thinks you are unable to drive. There are roadside tests to determine this. Walking a line etc etc.

Do some research before you continue to make a fool of yourself. Yes this is a police forum to answer and discuss questions. You obviously have no grasp of the law, so please just be quiet. This is a discuss about detecting marijana impairment not for you to talk about how bad weed is. If you actually read the post you would be able to contribute instead of being a dick. Your little story makes no sence as well.

Tell me what logic did you use to come to your answer? Do you even know about the law? Or do you just post to make yourself feel like a
cool guy?

Oh an Zulu, definately Police are wrong all the time. Just because your an officer does not make you a super human. All I am getting is you jack*sses telling me how much you hate people driving stoned. You obviously have no idea how to have a discussion. Instead of posting usless banter how about contributing to the discussion with some facts? How about contributing and making some posts about marijuana impairment detection. Cops just dont tell you thats the way it is and its written in stone. If Skid wanted you all to chime in and tell you how much you love cops and how bad weed is the thread would have a different title.

If it were that easy for an officer to say well you have red eyes, it smells like skunk outside, you are impaired, there would be TONS more charges laid. Thats why we have breathalizer tests and other standarized tests to determine if a persn is impaired. Logic has to be backed up with proof for charges to be laid. That is why Skid made a thread titles "Detecting Marijuana Impairment" not 'Whats your opinion on Impaired Driving"

STAY ON TOPIC

gay boy