Velvet Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Talking on cell phones while driving should definitely be illegal. It absolutely astounds me that it's not. Hands-free or hand-held is irrelevant, talking on the phone while driving is potentially extremely distracting. Really, so should eating and driving, which I do all the time. Soup is tough, but doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 [color:red]R. v. Reimer Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Richard Reimer [2003] O.J. No. 728 Court File No. 02-0277 Ontario Court of Justice Pembroke, Ontario MacPhee J. ¶ 1 MacPHEE J. (orally):— While the issue of marijuana use is a subject of much political debate these days, I found the issue before me really not that complex. ¶ 2 To frame my decision this afternoon, Mr. Reimer is charged that, on the 11th of February in the year past, 2002, in the Township of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards, while his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or a drug, operated a motor vehicle contrary to Section 253(a) of the Code. And the specific allegation here is, Mr. Reimer's ability to operate his motor vehicle was impaired by the consumption of cannabis marijuana. ...¶ 21 We have been blessed in this lengthy impaired proceeding with a good deal of evidence of the effects of cannabis marijuana. Lest we be distracted and misled, the issue here is about whether this particular accused was impaired by cannabis marijuana on the date in question. There is not a plethora of evidence in relation to that, apart from what I have already referred to. I draw this conclusion from the evidence that I have heard, which would be classified as professional evidence, largely through Doctor Langille, who kindly joined us for two days. ¶ 22 Doctor Langille is a forensic toxicologist with the Center of Forensic Sciences in Toronto, and he determined, and I accept, that the ability to operate a motor vehicle can be impaired by the consumption of cannabis marijuana. The consumption of cannabis marijuana can impair one's coordination, perception, tracking ability, inter alia. Its effect varies with the amount of, and the potency of, the cannabis marijuana use, and from individual to individual. It is not useful to draw parallels with the consumption of alcohol, but as the consumption of alcohol and its effect varies from individual to individual so it can be said, from my consideration of the professional evidence, the effects of cannabis marijuana can vary from individual to individual. Doctor Langille told us that the observations of Constable Burton of the accused's driving are consistent with the effects one sees from the consumption of cannabis marijuana. ¶ 23 While I say this as an aside, (and it may very well not be necessary), Mr. Reimer's assertion that his ability to operate a motor vehicle generally is not effected by the consumption of twelve to fifteen joints of cannabis marijuana to the extent of impairment, lacks one salient feature and that is, an objective assessment in terms of whether or not that is correct, and it seems to be contra-indicated by what is the weight of scientific authority. ¶ 24 I would allow this: there is much more study to be done. What seems to be the most prominent feature from the studies that have been done, on the effects of cannabis marijuana on those who operate a motor vehicle, is their inability to maintain themselves within a proper lane of traffic. The experts indicate that, that impairing fact is more pronounced the more cannabis one consumes. ¶ 25 However, the overall conclusion of Doctor Langille that one's ability to operate a motor vehicle can be impaired by the consumption of cannabis marijuana remains on the evidence that I had before me. ¶ 26 But I must say, it remains in my mind equivocal on these facts, whether the accused was impaired by cannabis marijuana on February the 11th. I say that, for the indicia of impairment, apart from the driving, may be nothing more than the manifestations of his illness and not impairment, specifically, his speech. ¶ 27 I have now had over three days of listening to Mr. Reimer speak and advocate before me, and testify, and I have had evidence from Officer Burton and others that his speech on the 11th was the same as his speech was throughout this trial. There is no baseline with which to compare Mr. Reimer in this particular trial. We do not have Mr. Reimer not under the influence of cannabis marijuana so as to assess how he was and the differences that we would see. ¶ 28 Mr. Reimer, with profound regret, suffers from multiple sclerosis and has been authorized by the Minister of Health, for therapeutic purposes, to take cannabis marijuana. It is his uncontroverted evidence that the taking of cannabis marijuana alleviates some of the negative symptoms of his multiple sclerosis, specifically, the morning nausea and the lack of balance. I do know that what we have seen in terms of the manifestations of impairment, or so alleged, may be nothing more than the manifestations of his illness - the speech, the gait, the balance. ¶ 29 Given what I would categorize as the modest departure from the normal driving observed here, it is my view that the evidence, while not inconsiderable, falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, and for those brief reasons, which I hope are as cogent as the arguments of counsel before me, it is my view that the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the charge before the Court. Thank you, gentlemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 While we're at it, let's make speeding illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deranger Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 I haven't attempted to find the report on line but some interpid surfer I'm sure could. I'm not that intrepid surfer.but it does exist. I drive high. Watch out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 "Why are people seriously fighting this campaign for safe driving?"because SOME PEOPLE dont feel this is a campaign for safe driving AT ALL!and if other can't see that, well, .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booche Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 "Reimer argued marijuana users tend to overestimate their impairment and are overly careful drivers"You know what? My dad's generation used to say the same completely stupid thing about drinking and driving. Fuck, what a ridiculous argument. Anyone arguing that it is a right to drive stoned or that they are better or safer is a complete moron. End of story. Get a grip, grab a mirror and wake the fuck up. Dont be so naively stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyberHippie Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 As far as cell phones go... Just being devil's advocate here, but how is talking to someone on a cell phone really any different than talking to your passengers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deranger Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 stoned rivers drive slow because they're stoned, most of the ones I know do. Most accidents are not the result of stoned or drunk drivers. There the result of guys who think they're gods gift to driving and do stupid things like; multiple lane changes with or without signalling, a lack of patience and its brother, speeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 a right? who said its their right? better? safer?how about it doesn't make you an unsafe driver. nothing about better or safer. (other than for one joke on this thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 cyber, from most cases i've heard, there isnt' a problem talking on a cell phone, just HANDLING the cell phone, while talking....you dont use a hand to talk to passangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booche Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 I guess I am talking to my fathers generation because they were so stupid. You would think people would learn, but nooooooooooooooooooo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 True, they were/are stupid. I mean, look at how many of them smoke(d) cigarettes...Aloha,Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 learn what?seriously. that it is not ok to drink and drive? we've learned. that driving under the influence of marijuana impares your ability to drive safely. find me a single study or any shed of proof. you see, there was actual proof of drinking and driving....you know, those crazy studies..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 True, they were/are stupid. I mean, look at how many of them smoke(d) cigarettes...Brad - you disappoint me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 As far as cell phones go... Just being devil's advocate here, but how is talking to someone on a cell phone really any different than talking to your passengers?If something comes up that requires the driver to pay particular, undivided attention to the road, the passengers generally are aware of this and shut up. People on the other end of the phone do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 thanks velvet. another strong point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 If somebody hits me or you while driving stoned or drunk, none of those rightious arguments about 'better or safer' will apply. Any measure to get impaired drivers off the streets is 100% welcomed by me.From what I know, might be untrue, but the reason there's no law against driving stoned (nevermind that pot is illegal) is that there's no roadside test for the drug. I hope they come up with a test, and then hand out massive fines. And stiffen the penalties for drunk driving while they're at it.AD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 To clarify the speeding thing - everybody speeds and the cops don't pull them over. However, if a cop wants to pull someone over who is doing 5 over the limit, they can. Ergo, we have grown accustomed to speeding so everyone does it, and now a cop can pull over any car on the highway he wishes for any reason he wishes, under the guise of stopping them for speeding.By the way, I spent about three years never, ever speeding (drove across Canada and back at the speed limit), and man, if there's one way to create road rage, it's to drive the speed limit. It can be very, very dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Situation: Drunk driver is driving in his lane at the speed limit, in all outward respects driving safely. A sober driver carelessly pulls out of a parking lot right in front of the drunk driver causing an accident.Who gets charged?No, the answer isn't both.I remember an auto trade magazine had an article about this once. The author of the article was fired for writing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 This might have gone over my head, but why isn't it both?ad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 (edited) i think i agree with AD. i know plenty of people drive stoned and they drive just fine. i have no problem with them. but there have been several friends who have almost killed me while trying to light a pipe while driving and almost driving under a semi or hitting the median. so generally, i'd feel safer if it was not allowed. sorry peeps! Edited November 23, 2005 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Drunk guy charged due to breaking the law.Liability for the accident, however, may be split between the two drivers (due to "contributory negligence" by the drunk guy) or else the sober, negligent guy may be on the hook for the whole accident as he was negligent. (It turns on the facts in any particular case.) If the drunk can prove he drove safely, he would not be found liable at all. That said, given that he was impaired at the time of the accident, he will have an uphill battle arguing he was not negligent. (Likely, this would need to be addressed by evidence from an accident reconstructionist and possibly other experts.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deranger Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Question: How many skanks who admit to driving stoned have been in a car accident while stoned? How many of those same group have been in a car accident when they weren't stoned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 Question: How many skanks who admit to driving stoned have been in a car accident while stoned? How many of those same group have been in a car accident when they weren't stoned?Answer 1: 2 accidents (no injuries), $6000 damage, too many close calls to count.Answer 2: 0, a few close calls that would have been surefire accidents had I been impaired in any way.AD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now