MOUNTIES LET 'HONEST' POT-SMOKING DRIVER GO

Man Lit Up a Joint While Waiting to Go Through Traffic
Checkpoint

YARMOUTH -- At least he was honest.

A Yarmouth driver who smoked a joint while an RCMP officer chatted
with drivers a few cars ahead of him at a roadside checkpoint last
week fessed up when asked if he had smoked any dope recently.

Yup, he said. Like, 30 seconds ago.

But was the 20-something man's seatbelt securely fastened?
Absolutely.

Was he co-operative? Yes.

And was the odour of that freshly smoked joint still wafting through
the air as the cops waved him up? Yeah, but he seemed fine, so after
he put his small stash of dope into the outstretched hand of a
Mountie, he was on his way.

But smoking a joint while waiting in line at an RCMP checkpoint may
not be the smartest thing to do, said Cpl. Andy Hamilton of the RCMP's
western traffic services.

"I don't know the exact distance, but it wasn't very far (back in the
line)," Hamilton said.

"I can't get into this guy's mind, but he felt comfortable enough to
light a joint within eyesight of the police, probably figuring he'd
finish it off before he gets there and no one will be the wiser."

When he got to the front of the line, the joint was gone but the
Mounties noticed other evidence.

"He was honest," said Hamilton, who was not at the scene but read the
report later.

The RCMP were checking cars and their drivers on Hardscratch Road,
near the end of Highway 103, last Wednesday.

The mellow man was detained for a while but eventually
released.

"This guy has not been charged yet," Hamilton said, but charges are
still possible.

The Mounties assessed the man to determine if he was OK to drive. They
often don't lay a charge in cases involving only a gram or two of marijuana.

"The main reason we don't is because whenever we present those cases
to the Crown, they usually don't go forward with them," Hamilton said.

No one from the federal prosecution service was available Monday to
discuss drug charges.

The fact that the driver was smoking up at a checkpoint did not
surprise Hamilton. Officers often smell weed after pulling over a car,
and the driver will say he or she smoked a joint the night before.

"They're very nonchalant about it," he said.

Drug-impaired drivers are often more commonly encountered than drunk
drivers, Hamilton said.

"I would say there's at least a 50-50 chance that if we pull over a
person and they're impaired . . . it's by drugs and not alcohol."

So if a driver with one or two grams of dope is not likely to be
charged, is the same likely to be true of a driver with one open
bottle of beer?

"You have to go case by case," Hamilton said.

The recent spate of prom and graduation parties in Yarmouth and
Shelburne counties saw cops dump out "a ton of liquor" at road stops.
Mounties set up checkpoints when they knew most vehicles would be
carrying booze. Most of the drivers were not impaired and were headed
to a party rather than returning from one.

"So they seized the liquor and dumped it there on the spot," Hamilton
said.

"Could they have laid charges? Absolutely."

Susan MacAskill of MADD Canada acknowledged there's a lot of
dope-smoking and driving going on.

"It mellows a person out so they don't realize they're a risk," she
said. "They think they're more relaxed, and we've had many people who
claim 'I'm a better driver when I've smoked a joint,' and that's just
absolutely not true.

"People who are impaired by marijuana can cause a horrific
crash."

She said the RCMP are very diligent in seeking out and apprehending
impaired drivers.

"It is really quite bold to be smoking a drug that's illegal . . . at
a traffic stop," she said.

The level of alcohol in someone's blood can be measured, but to
determine drug impairment, specially trained police officers called
drug recognition experts are often used, MacAskill said. And they must
do roadside tests.

"If all officers don't have that training, then they would be
presuming someone is influenced by marijuana," she said.

A defence lawyer could argue that the police officer who laid the
charge was not a trained drug recognition expert or that evidence was
not provided to prove the accused had a specific drug in his or her
system.

Evidence is obtainable through urine samples. But MacAskill conceded
that collecting urine samples at the side of the road could prove more
challenging than getting breath samples.