Guys all the car in the world is no good without the tires to back it up!

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

The bolded parts are where you're changing the facts. Those "if" statements are actually false. The driver did, in fact, have the weed in the car where it was accessible to him.



Actually my statement was that he was an idiot for going 2.5x the speed limit on a public road with weed with him in the car. If he was simply driving around like a grandma with weed on him, well... actually I'd still think he was an idiot. Just much less so than while also blazing down the road at 160+ mph in a neon green car with "707 hp" written down the sides. What a douche

The weed ticket is irrelevant to the speeding. It is as if he received a ticket for tinted windows or no front plate after being caught. You are placing far more importance on it then there is. The "if" statement is a clarification of the requirements and as such is not false.
The only way the weed would have factored in is if he had been charged with impaired.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The weed ticket is irrelevant to the speeding. It is as if he received a ticket for tinted windows or no front plate after being caught. You are placing far more importance on it then there is. The "if" statement is a clarification of the requirements and as such is not false.
The only way the weed would have factored in is if he had been charged with impaired.

It's much closer to an open container/bottle charge than a tinted window or front plate violation. It factors in precisely because the guy was going 160+ mph on public roads.

I'll put it this way. If a guy arrived to a track day with a bag of weed or alcohol in his cupholder, I absolutely would not run in the same group or session as him. It may not have been proven that he's high or drunk, but certainly the risk is there and moreover there is circumstantial evidence that he is or is intending to be. And that's just with a track day in a controlled setting! The danger is much higher with some random guy deciding he wants to go 160+ on public roads.

[p1l0t]

I'm pretty sure even the cops don't even care about the weed they just wanted to throw the book at him.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Atmo]

Busted for among other things "driving stunts"?

In NASCAR that's called feature and would be cheered.

The driver, the cop who would have pursued him, and those around both of them were lucky he maintained control, wow.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

It's much closer to an open container/bottle charge than a tinted window or front plate violation. It factors in precisely because the guy was going 160+ mph on public roads.

I'll put it this way. If a guy arrived to a track day with a bag of weed or alcohol in his cupholder, I absolutely would not run in the same group or session as him. It may not have been proven that he's high or drunk, but certainly the risk is there and moreover there is circumstantial evidence that he is or is intending to be. And that's just with a track day in a controlled setting! The danger is much higher with some random guy deciding he wants to go 160+ on public roads.

We dealing with facts or circumstantial evidence?
He was stunt driving and was caught.
Pot is legal here he just happened to have it in the wrong spot.
The ticket was issued in conjunction the same as any other one would.
Assuming he was impaired is not a fact as you have stated.
There is zero indication he was charged with impaired so if the pot was in his cupholder, glove box or anyplace but the trunk doesn't make him dumber just for having it in the car while speeding.
Doing over twice the limit makes him dumb.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

I'm pretty sure even the cops don't even care about the weed they just wanted to throw the book at him.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

THIS ^ This is all it is.
There is no higher (no pun intended) meaning with his being ticketed. It isn't even a criminal charge just a ticket.
Having pot in Canada is totally meaningless.

[PulsarBeeerz]

The devils lettuce, OH NO!

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

We dealing with facts or circumstantial evidence?
He was stunt driving and was caught.
Pot is legal here he just happened to have it in the wrong spot.
The ticket was issued in conjunction the same as any other one would.
Assuming he was impaired is not a fact as you have stated.
There is zero indication he was charged with impaired so if the pot was in his cupholder, glove box or anyplace but the trunk doesn't make him dumber just for having it in the car while speeding.
Doing over twice the limit makes him dumb.

Simply saying pot is legal doesn't mean it's legal in all circumstances. That's like saying alcohol is legal so you can drink while driving or have an open container in the car. Just like alcohol, there are circumstances where having or smoking weed is illegal, such as when you're driving, much less doing 160+.

[RToyo86]

Originally Posted by Atmo

Busted for among other things "driving stunts"?

In NASCAR that's called feature and would be cheered.

The driver, the cop who would have pursued him, and those around both of them were lucky he maintained control, wow.

It was done around 1-2am on a dead part of the highway. Nobody would be driving around there at that time of night with the C-19 stuff happening. The traffic is dead here already during the day as it is.

What's stupid is that there are a lot of people doing 100+ in 60km residential areas. I've had more dumb encounters with people the last month than I have in the last year. Cops must be having a field day with racers.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Simply saying pot is legal doesn't mean it's legal in all circumstances. That's like saying alcohol is legal so you can drink while driving or have an open container in the car. Just like alcohol, there are circumstances where having or smoking weed is illegal, such as when you're driving, much less doing 160+.

And you are assuming he was. There is no fact involved there. His only pot related offense was that it was not stored properly. Like I said before it is totally meaningless to this situation. He could indeed be driving around with a factory sealed bottle of booze on his lap and it would be legal. He could have had the pot in his pocket if it was still factory sealed and it would be legal.
The FACT he had it in the car does not automatically mean that there is a FACT he was using it.
They obviously did not think he was since there was no impaired charge. You can bet that if the thought he was he would have been!

[mrderp]

Originally Posted by RToyo86

That happened about 10 minutes from my house. I know the area, definitely not a great spot to speed. I'm fairy certain they're Quebec plates too.
]

Can confirm: Those plates are Quebec business plates.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And you are assuming he was. There is no fact involved there. His only pot related offense was that it was not stored properly. Like I said before it is totally meaningless to this situation. He could indeed be driving around with a factory sealed bottle of booze on his lap and it would be legal. He could have had the pot in his pocket if it was still factory sealed and it would be legal.
The FACT he had it in the car does not automatically mean that there is a FACT he was using it.
They obviously did not think he was since there was no impaired charge. You can bet that if the thought he was he would have been!

I'm not assuming anything. He was charged with driving with marijuana readily available, in addition to stunt and careless driving for going 160+ mph. That's fact. And for doing so, the dude is an idiot. If you've got some problem with the driving with marijuana readily available law, that's a different story.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

I'm not assuming anything. He was charged with driving with marijuana readily available, in addition to stunt and careless driving for going 160+ mph. That's fact. And for doing so, the dude is an idiot. If you've got some problem with the driving with marijuana readily available law, that's a different story.

He was ticketed with having it available. That does not mean he was charged with impaired or under the influence. It is a simple storage issue.
I have no issue with the law I have a big issue with how much credence you give it. It is totally meaningless in the scope of the actual CRIMINAL charges.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mrderp

Can confirm: Those plates are Quebec business plates.

For the life of me I can not see how that blurry dark pic looks like anything beyond a normal Ontario plate.