Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Canada Congrats Canada

On the new substance recreation...enjoy?

Only online in Ontario, delivered by Canada Post, if they don't strike that is. All that if you are talking the legal stuff, the illegal same as always I suppose.

I don't partake myself--but i was 100% behind this. Should have happened at least 20 years ago.
What suprized me was the number of congradulations from Poloticians from Australia--Great Briton and Germany.

i don't think it's a good idea...and my state is getting ready to vote it in

From the individuals I've seen on TV at various demonstrations my feeling is that it is a great thing for losers. Since the Prime Minister has admitted to having used then I'm convinced it is for losers.

Jim

X2

had an old boss who would call them 'brain drains'

X4

Probably

Maybe, those that drove high before, will still drive high now !

Hopefully the fuzz bust a whole pile of DUI's, right off the bat.

As it will be classed as a DUI, anybody that wants to travel, across the border either way, or Internationally better consider the consequences.

Once charged, ya's fugged !

As if we don't have enough problems on our roads already,impaired,distracted and some down right dangerous roads

Actually, there are a variety of things in dispute. I am not necessarily confident in the accident claim data, although I'm sure it could be verified one way or the other.

Also, I heard that younger people are particularly susceptible to brain damage from THC. That would be unfortunate, since this will surely provide greater access to minors.

Well, it only took our esteemed leader 3 years to put Canada in the pot!!

Maybe so, but the type that would go to that kind of a demonstration and rant/rave for legal access would be a dipstick anyways. There would be many more "normal" folks who would not attend that rally but still be in support of the change of law.

There is very little or any negative to this law change here among any group of people. Making pot illegal didn't slow it's use down.Prohibition didn't work either. It just put a lot of money into the hands of criminals.

So, under the new law, can employers still refuse to hire new employees, or discipline existing ones for using, as presumeably they can and do with alcohol? Intoxicated is intoxicated, regardless of the substance.

On the other hand, there's no need to mandate three hots and a cot to drunks of any sort, unless they drive that way.

i expect unintended consequences

Pappy348;
Good morning to you sir, I hope all is well in your world on this second last Friday of October.

The short answer is that labor law remains largely in the realm of the provinces, which in my view is as it should be.

Here in BC, where the consumption of pot has to be the highest in Canada - double entendre intended - employers have the ability to stop any worker any time they deem them "unfit or unsafe" to work. There is no burden to prove the causation of the impairment either by the way.

That said, we can't summarily fire anyone for it who isn't a probationary employee - under 90 days with the company.

Again though, if a given employee is deemed "unfit or unsafe" to perform their given task too, too many times, their days absolutely are numbered and there isn't a labor board member green/Green enough to make a case for such a person. Union members will have their individual union and rep to back them up - or not.

It is - in my experience - pretty thin ice to skate upon trying to make a case to remain employed at that point.

Anyway sir, hopefully that makes sense - impaired is impaired whether it's weed, alcohol, prescription meds or a really bad flu - same as always.

All the best to you this fall and good luck on your remaining hunts this fall.

Dwayne

Edit;
While it's still untested, I'd expect that mandatory drug testing for dry camps or specific tasks will still hold up in court as long as the testing is for all employees.

It was the "random tests" which didn't hold up, so nowadays everybody going to a site or camp can get tested and a fail is a fail same as always.

I suspect there are going to be some very busy defence lawyers,prosecutors,judges and labour experts trying to figure out what impairment actually is.
We—as a society have accepted that .08 millilitres of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood constitutes impaired driving—as determined by a breathalyzer. It’s not so easy with Cannabis.
I remember when the first breathalyzer came out. The results from those things weren’t universally accepted—that took years of studies—educating the public and literally thousands of cases before the courts.
In this locality throughout the 1970’s drink and driving was tolerated—even by the police. Up until about 1980 the only drunk driving charges I heard about involved an accident.
People are nowadays more aware and the penalties are very severe but there are no doubt going to be some bad actors.

When Colorado first made pot legal, I opined that there would be more crashes and property crimes. Indeed we have seen a considerable rise in both, where neighboring Utah has remained relatively flat.