Canada's incoming Cannabis Legalization

[toor]

As many of you are no doubt aware, weed will be legal in Canada, for everyone, effective Wednesday.   What I don't know, mostly because the media are doing everything they can to confuse the utter living fuck out of people.

 

I can tell you the first three are a "no", which quite frankly is disturbing as it means they themselves have no idea.   I do however have alergies and know many airborne products like tobacco and weed have in the past cause me grief.   Could be more the chemicals people use to cover said odors (air fresheners, and burning insents leave _nasty_  powder on everything).

 

Disclaimer I have NFI how to do a poll, sorry.

[GoodBytes]

-- Not tech related. Moved to Off Topic. --

[dizmo]

Realistically, the policy for employers shouldn't be too hard to figure out; it'll likely follow the same rules as any other intoxicant.

Your poll is confusing though, you didn't really give us a question with options, just a statement with a bunch of options.

[GoodBytes]

I don't know, media here are clear about it. Every province and city (municipalities) has their own rules and regulations.

Like tobacco based products and alcohol, it is your responsibility to know the laws of where you are and abide by them.

Your pool makes no sense.

[toor]

2 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

-- Not tech related. Moved to Off Topic. --

Hm.. thought that's what general was for o_O ..  ah well.

[EPENEX]

Might have to pay Canada a visit.

[toor]

3 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Realistically, the policy for employers shouldn't be too hard to figure out; it'll likely follow the same rules as any other intoxicant.

Your poll is confusing though, you didn't really give us a question with options, just a statement with a bunch of options.

It's not quite the same though.  We don't consider smoking to be an intoxicant to the extent alcohol and actual drugs are.   Yet the Government and Police forces appear to be heading exactly that way.  You can't drive while "intoxicated"...  yet also trying to apply smoking regulations (Smoke Free Ontario for example).    The question wasn't meant to ask if you do smoke or not rather have you been made aware of the laws around it.   There  are a _lot_ of people who haven't even heard about the change.   I've called a few Police forces, they are not really sure what to do either but most agreed their position on stopping you for simple posession will not be something they're targeting.   A bigger issue for me comes down to the driving while intoxicated since odor is (or at least was), used to determine if you have any period.   

 

I don't for example see ANYTHING about drug dogs knowing the difference now.

 

 

 

[dizmo]

7 minutes ago, toor said:

It's not quite the same though.  We don't consider smoking to be an intoxicant to the extent alcohol and actual drugs are.   Yet the Government and Police forces appear to be heading exactly that way.  You can't drive while "intoxicated"...  yet also trying to apply smoking regulations (Smoke Free Ontario for example).    The question wasn't meant to ask if you do smoke or not rather have you been made aware of the laws around it.   There  are a _lot_ of people who haven't even heard about the change.   I've called a few Police forces, they are not really sure what to do either but most agreed their position on stopping you for simple posession will not be something they're targeting.   A bigger issue for me comes down to the driving while intoxicated since odor is (or at least was), used to determine if you have any period.   

 

I don't for example see ANYTHING about drug dogs knowing the difference now.

Uhh....yeah, it is the same. What are you smoking? A drug. Just because it's legal does not change the fact that it's an intoxicant. Just like smoking crack would fall under the same category. Driving while high is just as bad as driving while drunk, and will carry the same penalties. They can't stop you for possession, it's a legal substance.

There's currently no widely adopted test for roadside marijuana impairment.

[GoodBytes]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

There's currently no widely adopted test for roadside marijuana impairment.

And also, now that there is a need, it will take time for proper tools are made and available for the police, and like alcohol, these tool will naturally get better over time.

And I am sure that, like alcohol, if the police stops you while driving, smelling the order is enough for them to execute a test or bring you in if you refuse to take it. (Usually the police will stop you because of dangerous driving, or driving under the influence, which will be visible). You can also, expect your insurance premium to raise a lot if you are found guilty. So far, they recommend 5h between you smoking and driving, if I am not mistaken.

[toor]

9 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Uhh....yeah, it is the same. What are you smoking? A drug. Just because it's legal does not change the fact that it's an intoxicant. Just like smoking crack would fall under the same category. Driving while high is just as bad as driving while drunk, and will carry the same penalties. They can't stop you for possession, it's a legal substance.

There's currently no widely adopted test for roadside marijuana impairment.

Don't think you followed ... That is what they are claiming DOES exist.  The Ottawa Police have at least come out against one of the proposed tests but of the forces I talked to, all of them believe standard DRE officers will be used... which contradicts the point -- it ISN'T illegal.      Short answer is they could in the past use smell as probable cause for search.  As of Wednesday they will NOT be able to since it won't be a crime.

 

I'm not referring to people who are high enough to be driving recklessly rather being stopped period.

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/company-defends-first-device-approved-by-feds-for-roadside-thc-detection-1.4070151

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/with-72-hours-until-legal-cannabis-is-canada-ready-pot-point-man-blair-offers-the-latest-1.4132314

 

 

[captain_to_fire]

Canada looks nice to visit just for the blunt 

[dizmo]

32 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

And also, now that there is a need, it will take time for proper tools are made and available for the police, and like alcohol, these tool will naturally get better over time.

And I am sure that, like alcohol, if the police stops you while driving, smelling the order is enough for them to execute a test or bring you in if you refuse to take it. (Usually the police will stop you because of dangerous driving, or driving under the influence, which will be visible). You can also, expect your insurance premium to raise a lot if you are found guilty. So far, they recommend 5h between you smoking and driving, if I am not mistaken.

Exactly. I figure we're still another 5 or 10 years away from having a testing tool that's deemed accurate. Until then there are other measures that can be taken, but they take up valuable time and resources. Roadside tests aren't widely available or adopted, which is one of the issues with cannabis. Though the penalties are pretty severe, which is good.

25 minutes ago, toor said:

Don't think you followed ... That is what they are claiming DOES exist.  The Ottawa Police have at least come out against one of the proposed tests but of the forces I talked to, all of them believe standard DRE officers will be used... which contradicts the point -- it ISN'T illegal.      Short answer is they could in the past use smell as probable cause for search.  As of Wednesday they will NOT be able to since it won't be a crime.

 

I'm not referring to people who are high enough to be driving recklessly rather being stopped period.

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/company-defends-first-device-approved-by-feds-for-roadside-thc-detection-1.4070151

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/with-72-hours-until-legal-cannabis-is-canada-ready-pot-point-man-blair-offers-the-latest-1.4132314

I don't think you followed. I said widely adopted. There are several cities and even provinces that refuse to use the testing tools currently available because they're highly inaccurate, and their findings would be easily thrown out if it was ever taken to court.

 

Someone driving drunk who is driving perfectly fine is just as likely to get caught as someone who's high and driving perfectly fine. The substance doesn't change that. So, if the police have no reason to pull over the vehicle, they won't.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, toor said:

It's not quite the same though.  We don't consider smoking to be an intoxicant to the extent alcohol and actual drugs are.   Yet the Government and Police forces appear to be heading exactly that way.  You can't drive while "intoxicated"...  yet also trying to apply smoking regulations (Smoke Free Ontario for example).    The question wasn't meant to ask if you do smoke or not rather have you been made aware of the laws around it.   There  are a _lot_ of people who haven't even heard about the change.   I've called a few Police forces, they are not really sure what to do either but most agreed their position on stopping you for simple posession will not be something they're targeting.   A bigger issue for me comes down to the driving while intoxicated since odor is (or at least was), used to determine if you have any period.   

 

I don't for example see ANYTHING about drug dogs knowing the difference now.

A lot of police forces are actually retiring their Cannabis sniffing dogs, and new police dogs will not get Cannabis training.

 

Also, how they decide to test you will be the same as if you were drunk. the cop will make a personal decision on to whether he thinks you're intoxicated. The smell of it will likely be one of several ways they will make that decision, but the smell won't be used by itself.

 

Also, anyone that doesn't know Cannabis is legalized on Wednesday has their head under a rock. It's literally in every major news publication several times a week.

[Guest]

I don’t live in Canada and only flew over it like twice so... I just ticked the bottom 3. I haven’t had Doritos in forever. 

[Canada EH]

Its a cluster fuck that is for sure.

 

Condo Boards cant deny someone if they are using it for medicial, its a human rights violation.

 

Courts will be clogged up even more now.

 

Doctors, Police, Guards, EMT's, Delivery drivers, long haul otr, pilots, train conductors

 

Then there are the dumbfucks that take it across the border thinking its legal hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

straight to the clinker for you

come again

 

Landlords can stipulate anything they want in the lease.

More surprise inspections for leaking windows n such

I had a dingy motel manager/employee pull that move on me. I saw his head pivot around the room.

 

[Andreas Lilja]

Here they want to raise the age to 21.

 

I work security, they better not make me piss into a cup, à la 'Murica.

[Canada EH]

Ouch @ 21

 

Most get into it at 13 or 14

[kokakolia]

The legalization of weed is kind of a bummer for really odd reasons: 

 

- You can’t buy edibles online anymore. It’s weed only. 

- Landlords will kick you out of they suspect you smoke weed. 

- Employers will double down on drug testing because consuming weed is worse than killing babies, apparently. If you ever injure yourself at work, or something bad happens you can bet 1 million dollars that you’ll get drug tested. And if they find traces of THC metabolites, you’ll have to find a new job. 

 

Unless you’re retired and own a house, you may as well do anything but weed. Because weed stays in your body for too long. I am honestly considering shrooms as an alternative. 

[dalekphalm]

11 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

The legalization of weed is kind of a bummer for really odd reasons: 

 

- You can’t buy edibles online anymore. It’s weed only.

Anymore

 

Anyway, Edible specific legislation is coming next year. And please, as soon as actual stores start showing up, there will be edibles available whether the government has legislation covering it or not. Same with those somewhat shady but oddly reliable Cannabis online stores right now (the ones that are technically illegal).

11 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

- Landlords will kick you out of they suspect you smoke weed. 

Depends on the province you live in, and also the conditions of your lease. If smoking in general is already against your lease, then by default, smoking Cannabis is also against the lease. However, the landlord cannot legally prevent you from consuming edibles or other non-smoke methods (though Vaping likely would still be considered "smoking").

11 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

- Employers will double down on drug testing because consuming weed is worse than killing babies, apparently. If you ever injure yourself at work, or something bad happens you can bet 1 million dollars that you’ll get drug tested. And if they find traces of THC metabolites, you’ll have to find a new job. 

Honestly, I don't think many businesses will change their policies. Most that were concerned about Cannabis use, likely already do drug testing.

 

Furthermore, getting fired based on trace THC in the blood will inevitably be challenged in court. The testing methodology is, shall we say, imprecise at best.

11 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

Unless you’re retired and own a house, you may as well do anything but weed. Because weed stays in your body for too long. I am honestly considering shrooms as an alternative. 

Some provinces are going to allow outdoor smoking in public spaces - basically anywhere you can smoke cigarettes. Ontario has recently announced this.

 

Besides, if you go into a forest or a park and no one is near you, nobody is going to come arrest you.

[kokakolia]

@dalekphalmThere are horror stories already about people injuring themselves at work and getting drug tested. But that is more common in the trades or oilfield. I doubt that you’ll ever get drug tested working in a restaurant or call centre. 

[NinJake]

7 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

@dalekphalmThere are horror stories already about people injuring themselves at work and getting drug tested. But that is more common in the trades or oilfield. I doubt that you’ll ever get drug tested working in a restaurant or call centre. 

Unless you're at a call center and fall off your chair, breaking your arm while you try to catch yourself. Then you'll get tested to see if you had any intoxicants in your system.

[dalekphalm]

10 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

@dalekphalmThere are horror stories already about people injuring themselves at work and getting drug tested. But that is more common in the trades or oilfield. I doubt that you’ll ever get drug tested working in a restaurant or call centre. 

Yes I'm sure that happens in the trades - but those industries are already highly likely to do drug testing anyway.

 

Point being, it's just a matter of time before something like that goes to court. Unlike Alcohol, there's not a precise way of measuring if someone is "stoned", or intoxicated.

 

Right now, they're using a THC blood concentration, but a regular user could pass the concentration threshold while being 100% sober (not having smoked within 4-6 hours), while a novice user could get high as fuck without reaching the concentration.

 

Basically, the testing methodology is flawed right now, but will improve in the upcoming years. Until the tests are reliable to that degree, expect a lot of court challenges.

[kokakolia]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes I'm sure that happens in the trades - but those industries are already highly likely to do drug testing anyway.

 

Point being, it's just a matter of time before something like that goes to court. Unlike Alcohol, there's not a precise way of measuring if someone is "stoned", or intoxicated.

 

Right now, they're using a THC blood concentration, but a regular user could pass the concentration threshold while being 100% sober (not having smoked within 4-6 hours), while a novice user could get high as fuck without reaching the concentration.

 

Basically, the testing methodology is flawed right now, but will improve in the upcoming years. Until the tests are reliable to that degree, expect a lot of court challenges.

And THC metabolites stay in urine for up to 30 days. And urine (and breathalyzer) is the only drug test used by employers as far as I know. 

[toor]

8 hours ago, kokakolia said:

And THC metabolites stay in urine for up to 30 days. And urine (and breathalyzer) is the only drug test used by employers as far as I know. 

 

At the end of the day that is what scares the ever living shit out of me  You can't compare Alcohol to cannabis  (or is it Canada-bis now?) .   Not only is there less of a stigma around it but it doesn't cling to your clothes or have any smell after a few hours.   Weed is more like tobacco for that except it (tobacco) can't be used as grounds for search.   Regarding DRE and dogs I've heard nothing about Police forces retiring their old K9s for "new".

 

Frankly I'd love to see some of the old order in MSM and law enforcement thrown out on their asses now for pushing the drug agenda so long.

[wasab]

where is my Doritos?