Recreational marijuana legal here in Canada as of tomorrow

[Colleen27]

Traffic safety and enforcement has been one of the major issues cited by Law Enforcement Agencies nation-wide as a reason they are/have been against recreational legalization. I’m unclear as to whether there is any actual empirical test that can be administered to drivers for drug impairment other than blood or urine tests that can’t be administered in the field when a driver is pulled over.

To my knowledge LEOs are depending on old-school field sobriety tests of physical/mental acuity to apprehend drug-impaired drivers. There’s also a huge public awareness campaign on - ads and billboards that are just everywhere now. Hopefully they will have some impact on those (like a pp upthread) that actually seem to believe they drive better while high. It’s not a new problem though - criminally reckless idiots that do it didn’t just start last week.

In Michigan, the state and county police are testing a cheek swab test that is supposed to be an effective way of identifying impaired drivers (when paired with a field sobriety assessment that provides "cause" for testing). It is being promoted as a big step forward in dealing with impaired driving because unlike blood and urine tests, it doesn't detect use from last week or last month. It isn't quite as narrow as a breathalizer, but it is far more targeted than previous testing methods, and from what I understand from our county sheriff, the early results seem promising.

 

[lifesavacation]

Toronto Police officers are not allowed to have any marijuana in their system for 30 days prior to active duty which pretty much cancels out recreational use. I’m sure it willl be challenged at some point. If anything inhaling second hand smoke could be an issue. And I agree that if you can drink off duty why shouldn't you be able to smoke off duty?

That said the police officers I know well have zero interest in ever smoking marijuana.

My son just applied to the FBI and marijuana use is prohibited for three years prior to the application. I’m not sure the rationale, but I wonder what percentage of population is eliminated by that requirement.

 

[NFLDERS]

Think of all that tax revenue that will go back into the community!

I'm trying to think of it that way, but for me it's a hard sell.

 

[ronandannette]

My son just applied to the FBI and marijuana use is prohibited for three years prior to the application. I’m not sure the rationale, but I wonder what percentage of population is eliminated by that requirement.

I'm going to guess it's because federally, marijuana use/possession is a illegal. It doesn't seem too off-the-wall that there would be zero tolerance for illegal activity amongst federal LEO recruits.

 

[lifesavacation]

I'm going to guess it's because federally, marijuana use/possession is a illegal. It doesn't seem too off-the-wall that there would be zero tolerance for illegal activity amongst federal LEO recruits.

It’s been legal in WA since 2012. But you’re right, federally it is still illegal. I suppose all those recruits who apply for top security clearance can claim they didn’t inhale

 

[bcla]

I'm going to guess it's because federally, marijuana use/possession is a illegal. It doesn't seem too off-the-wall that there would be zero tolerance for illegal activity amongst federal LEO recruits.

It might be across all federal law enfacement. Not sure about the FBI though. They’re rarely tasked with anything as minor as an arrest for personal possession.

There are lot of federal law enforcement agencies in the US. Most are specialized and generally don’t worry about routine law enforcement. However, some effectively serve the function of local law enforcement (such as some park rangers) and enforce state laws in addition to federal. Some people are getting tripped up because the local law enforcement might consider state law only as well as directives on priorities but that’s different where federal LE operates.

How did they handle it in Canada before decriminalization? I understand that there were local decisions to make marijuana possession a low priority for arrests. However, I’ve also heard that some municipalities contract out local policing to provincial police or the RCMP, who might have different directives.

 

[Disney_Alli]

It might be across all federal law enfacement. Not sure about the FBI though. They’re rarely tasked with anything as minor as an arrest for personal possession.

There are lot of federal law enforcement agencies in the US. Most are specialized and generally don’t worry about routine law enforcement. However, some effectively serve the function of local law enforcement (such as some park rangers) and enforce state laws in addition to federal. Some people are getting tripped up because the local law enforcement might consider state law only as well as directives on priorities but that’s different where federal LE operates.

How did they handle it in Canada before decriminalization? I understand that there were local decisions to make marijuana possession a low priority for arrests. However, I’ve also heard that some municipalities contract out local policing to provincial police or the RCMP, who might have different directives.

Random Fun Fact because I can... Did you know that only 3 Provinces have set Provincial Police Forces? In those 3 provinces municipalities in need of local police that can't sustain their own contract through them. In the other 7 provinces and 3 Territories municipalities contract through the RCMP... even some fairly large cities choose to contact out a police force instead of running their own. The capital has a city force, provincial detachments and the RCMP that all have cars on the road but all are responsible for different things.

But to answer your question I think it was fairly consistent country wide that small amounts were basically not a cause for arrest unless there were extenuating circumstances...

 

[bcla]

Random Fun Fact because I can... Did you know that only 3 Provinces have set Provincial Police Forces? In those 3 provinces municipalities in need of local police that can't sustain their own contract through them. In the other 7 provinces and 3 Territories municipalities contract through the RCMP... even some fairly large cities choose to contact out a police force instead of running their own. The capital has a city force, provincial detachments and the RCMP that all have cars on the road but all are responsible for different things.

But to answer your question I think it was fairly consistent country wide that small amounts were basically not a cause for arrest unless there were extenuating circumstances...

It's kind of complicated here. I know California, where local law enforcement is usually done by city police or county sheriffs. The county sheriff is always responsible for unincorporated areas as well as cities that have contracted for their services. It certainly gives up a level of control, but often saves costs. We have some state law enforcement, but they don't really have any routine, local policing duties such as in other states.

One weird cross-section every year is Burning Man in Nevada, especially now that recreational marijuana is legal in the state. It's on Bureau of Land Management property, and they provide some of the law enforcement (authorized to enforce state law) along with the county sheriff. But as federal law enforcement they're not obligated to follow state law. Strangely enough, when personal possession wasn't legal, the feds almost never made any marijuana citations, but the local sheriff did. I don't think it really has stopped anyone from smoking weed.

https://survival.burningman.org/rules-regulations/law-enforcement/
The federal government does not recognize state laws decriminalizing marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.
The possession or use of marijuana is a federal infraction in the Black Rock High Rock National Conservation Area where Burning Man takes place, and having a medical marijuana card is NOT a defense.

As of 2017, adults aged 21 and over are permitted under Nevada law to possess and transport up to one ounce of marijuana (1/8 ounce of concentrated marijuana) and marijuana paraphernalia within the state. But the use of marijuana in public places is still prohibited, as is possession or transportation of more than an ounce (which could be evidence of trafficking under state law). Other restrictions also apply.

See Nevada Revised Statues Chapters 453A and 453D for the full text of Nevada’s laws regulating medical and recreational marijuana. Remember that marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and BLM may cite anyone for possession of any amount.​

 

[cabanafrau]

Toronto Police officers are not allowed to have any marijuana in their system for 30 days prior to active duty which pretty much cancels out recreational use. I’m sure it willl be challenged at some point. If anything inhaling second hand smoke could be an issue. And I agree that if you can drink off duty why shouldn't you be able to smoke off duty?

That said the police officers I know well have zero interest in ever smoking marijuana.

From what I understand there is already quite a bit known when it comes to urinalysis regarding the levels present and whether they point to secondhand contact. I've never understood the explanations because frankly they are way over my head and mindnumbingly boring for someone like me who has almost no understanding of what is being discussed, but it seems there is some basis of knowledge among scientists in the area of drug testing regarding this very subject.

 

[cabanafrau]

It might be across all federal law enfacement. Not sure about the FBI though. They’re rarely tasked with anything as minor as an arrest for personal possession.

There are lot of federal law enforcement agencies in the US. Most are specialized and generally don’t worry about routine law enforcement. However, some effectively serve the function of local law enforcement (such as some park rangers) and enforce state laws in addition to federal. Some people are getting tripped up because the local law enforcement might consider state law only as well as directives on priorities but that’s different where federal LE operates.

How did they handle it in Canada before decriminalization? I understand that there were local decisions to make marijuana possession a low priority for arrests. However, I’ve also heard that some municipalities contract out local policing to provincial police or the RCMP, who might have different directives.

I think you've missed the point of the comment you responded to. It wasn't about the FBI serving as law enforcement on marijuana possession cases. The subject was FBI recruits being prohibited from having partaken in use themselves 3 years before applying. That policy would likely stem from the overall federal prohibition on marijuana as ronandannette stated.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

From what I understand there is already quite a bit known when it comes to urinalysis regarding the levels present and whether they point to secondhand contact. I've never understood the explanations because frankly they are way over my head and mindnumbingly boring for someone like me who has almost no understanding of what is being discussed, but it seems there is some basis of knowledge among scientists in the area of drug testing regarding this very subject.

I’m not sure I buy that scientists can differentiate through any test. My artist/author neighbours are big weed smokers. When they smoke in their yard it drifts quickly over to my yard. When they have parties my whole backyard is sometimes a haze of smoke. I have gotten a nice buzz (by osmosis?) more than once when I was sitting in my yard the same time. No scientist is going to know whether I put a joint to my lips rather than inhaled second hand smoke.

My grandmother died of COPD from secondhand smoke since her husband and kids smoked in the house. She never touched a cigarette a day in her life.

 

[cabanafrau]

I’m not sure I buy that scientists can differentiate through any test. My artist/author neighbours are big weed smokers. When they smoke in their yard it drifts quickly over to my yard. When they have parties my whole backyard is sometimes a haze of smoke. I have gotten a nice buzz (by osmosis?) more than once when I was sitting in my yard the same time. No scientist is going to know whether I put a joint to my lips rather than inhaled second hand smoke.

My grandmother died of COPD from secondhand smoke since her husband and kids smoked in the house. She never touched a cigarette a day in her life.

I think I'll stick with the scientific evidence, even if I don't understand it in depth.

Even with my lack of understanding I can see a huge disparity between a lifetime living in an enclosed environment with smokers and open air contact with a party of smokers and the likely effects.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

I’m not sure I buy that scientists can differentiate through any test. My artist/author neighbours are big weed smokers. When they smoke in their yard it drifts quickly over to my yard. When they have parties my whole backyard is sometimes a haze of smoke. I have gotten a nice buzz (by osmosis?) more than once when I was sitting in my yard the same time. No scientist is going to know whether I put a joint to my lips rather than inhaled second hand smoke.

My grandmother died of COPD from secondhand smoke since her husband and kids smoked in the house. She never touched a cigarette a day in her life.

That would drive me nuts. I'm for marijuana legalization - not because I think people should use it recreationally; I just don't think people should be charged over it. I treat it like cigarette smoke and think your neighbors should too by being more considerate.

 

[bcla]

That would drive me nuts. I'm for marijuana legalization - not because I think people should use it recreationally; I just don't think people should be charged over it. I treat it like cigarette smoke and think your neighbors should too by being more considerate.

A lot of people have been conditioned over the years to believe that it's somehow evil because it's been illegal for so long.

I've never smoked nor consumed marijuana in any form. It's not for me, but I'm not going to worry about it if people are doing it away from my family.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

A lot of people have been conditioned over the years to believe that it's somehow evil because it's been illegal for so long.

I've never smoked nor consumed marijuana in any form. It's not for me, but I'm not going to worry about it if people are doing it away from my family.

Just talking about the smell. I guess I could try and compare to scented candle I don't care for....but it's just way too gross.

 

[bcla]

Just talking about the smell. I guess I could try and compare to scented candle I don't care for....but it's just way too gross.

I don't like the smell either. However, a lot of dislike of it seems to be more rationalizing why it should be illegal than simply understanding why it's silly to make it illegal.

 

[dlavender]

I'm encouraged by the constant progress towards legalization everywhere.

Now, if Canada could just do something about those winters, I'd be brushing up on my French

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

I think I'll stick with the scientific evidence, even if I don't understand it in depth.

Even with my lack of understanding I can see a huge disparity between a lifetime living in an enclosed environment with smokers and open air contact with a party of smokers and the likely effects.

There's definitely going to be a huge difference in someone being exposed to second-hand smoke outdoors vs a poorly ventilated area. Studies have shown that under some conditions though, second hand smoke exposure certainly can cause people to test positive for it as well as experience the psychoactive effects.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5741419/

An excerpt:
"There is no universal threshold that can differentiate between those who have actively smoked marijuana and are intoxicated, those who have actively smoked marijuana in the past, and those who have been exposed to second-hand smoke. In many jurisdictions that have adopted thresholds for THC for drivers, 5.0 ng/mL for blood and 10.0 ng/mL for urine are common thresholds to indicate intoxication... These levels were present 4-8 hours after exposure in those exposed to second-hand smoke."

Sure the risk of this is far less in well-ventilated areas. For those that partake in cars and homes, everyone else there can potentially be affected.

A lot of people have been conditioned over the years to believe that it's somehow evil because it's been illegal for so long.

I'm 29. Frankly, it's difficult to find almost anyone my age who doesn't think it should be legal. It seems like many in favor of legalization refuse to acknowledge that there could possibly be any negatives to marijuana use. For many years, people felt that smoking cigarettes was safe...until we realized it wasn't.

However, a lot of dislike of it seems to be more rationalizing why it should be illegal than simply understanding why it's silly to make it illegal.

Respectfully, just because someone disagrees with you about this doesn't mean they are simply not understanding or that their concerns are silly.

 

[bcla]

I'm 29. Frankly, it's difficult to find almost anyone my age who doesn't think it should be legal. It seems like many in favor of legalization refuse to acknowledge that there could possibly be any negatives to marijuana use. For many years, people felt that smoking cigarettes was safe...until we realized it wasn't.

Respectfully, just because someone disagrees with you about this doesn't mean they are simply not understanding or that their concerns are silly.

I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation why it should be illegal when there are other more dangerous drugs (alcohol and tobacco) that are legal. And because of the federal prohibition on cannabis sativa, industrial hemp can't be grown in the US. And that it's Schedule I when even cocaine is Schedule II. And when I've heard some concerns, it seems to be far more rooted in a belief that pot smokers are all going to turn into stereotypical potheads.

I do understand that there are negatives. Intentionally smoking or taking in vapors is inherently unhealthy, and there are of course safety concerns from intoxication. However, we generally allow adults to decide if they want to engage in dangerous or unhealthy behavior.

 

[dlavender]

I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation why it should be illegal when there are other more dangerous drugs (alcohol and tobacco) that are legal. And because of the federal prohibition on cannabis sativa, industrial hemp can't be grown in the US. And that it's Schedule I when even cocaine is Schedule II. And when I've heard some concerns, it seems to be far more rooted in a belief that pot smokers are all going to turn into stereotypical potheads.

I do understand that there are negatives. Intentionally smoking or taking in vapors is inherently unhealthy, and there are of course safety concerns from intoxication. However, we generally allow adults to decide if they want to engage in dangerous or unhealthy behavior.

Yes.

I feel if you don't think it should be legal, you should also be fighting to make alcohol, tobacco, gambling, high caloric sugary foods, etc. illegal as well. And if you do, I can respect that. But just calling out marijuana I can't get behind.

Now, arguing against myself, going the other way, I guess you could say if you want all the above legal, then other drugs should be as well. But there is a key difference, IMO between marijuana and real drugs like heroin and cocaine. The latter have a demonstrative effect on the user. We have to draw the line somewhere, but marijuana is not the marker.