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

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

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.

Not sure why you underlined ticketed. If you're arguing he wasn't charged with driving with marijuana readily available, here it is straight from the OPP:

The driver was charged with Stunt, Careless and drive with cannabis readily available.

Also not sure how you're assessing how much credibility I'm giving to the marijuana charge vs. the stunt and careless driving charge, but regardless that doesn't matter to me. It's not worth having an internet debate over the relative importance of them, but sufficient to say that the charge (and those similar to it, such as open container) are on the books for a reason.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Not sure why you underlined ticketed. If you're arguing he wasn't charged with driving with marijuana readily available, here it is straight from the OPP:



Also not sure how you're assessing how much credibility I'm giving to the marijuana charge vs. the stunt and careless driving charge, but regardless that doesn't matter to me. It's not worth having an internet debate over the relative importance of them, but sufficient to say that the charge (and those similar to it, such as open container) are on the books for a reason.

They used the term as part of the overall write up. The pot is just a ticket not a criminal charge as the others are. I live here. I know the laws here.
I am not for one second saying there should not be a ticket. He was a moron for speeding but the pot had nothing to do with that.
I will point out that this debate was the result of my clarifying a point and you seemingly to not being able to accept that the only issue with the pot was it's location.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

They used the term as part of the overall write up. The pot is just a ticket not a criminal charge as the others are. I live here. I know the laws here.
I am not for one second saying there should not be a ticket. He was a moron for speeding but the pot had nothing to do with that.
I will point out that this debate was the result of my clarifying a point and you seemingly to not being able to accept that the only issue with the pot was it's location.

The location is the violation. Simple as that. You can argue that if the weed was somewhere else or if it was sealed or if it was medical or if it was <insert modified facts here> that it would have then been legal, but that's neither here nor there. As I said, I prefer to deal with the facts as they actually exist. He had the weed with him in the car. He was rightfully charged with driving with cannabis readily available.

Also I don't get your issue with the term "charged". That is the proper usage of the word. Simply because it's a ticketable offense doesn't mean there isn't a charge.

There are literally dozens of other examples of this from Canada:

Sean Holley, 36, of Port Hope, Ont., was charged with:

Drive vehicle or boat with cannabis readily available

...

David Coulter, 43, of Trent Hills, Ont., was arrested and charged with

Drive vehicle or boat with cannabis readily available

https://globalnews.ca/news/4594705/p...lable-charges/

OPP CHARGE THREE DRIVERS FOR IMPROPERLY STORED CANNABIS

http://www.thealgomanews.ca/opp-char...tored-cannabis

As a result of the investigation, [Edited by ONN] a male, a 48-year-old from Pond Inlet, Nunavut, was arrested and charged with the following:

https://www.karinahunter.com/2019/08...river-charged/

I'd go on, but you get the point.

[Dave-ROR]

This is what happens when you take away hockey in Canada. Both this driver and two pages of silly arguments.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

This is what happens when you take away hockey in Canada. Both this driver and two pages of silly arguments.

DANG, HE was about to win the debate and then you had to go put a damper on the thread -

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by humfrz

DANG, HE was about to win the debate and then you had to go put a damper on the thread -

Meh. There is no winning. His version of the "facts" and mine do not jive and are not going to.
I will leave it with the statement that with the criminal charges of stunt driving the fact that he was ticketed for easy access to pot is so small a consideration that it will have zero impact in the sentencing. They will probably max out all of the possible fines and jail time and not even mention it.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

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.

I show up to every trackday with alcohol in my cupholder.

The day before the track day starts.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

I show up to every trackday with alcohol in my cupholder.

The day before the track day starts.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

I show up to every trackday with alcohol in my cupholder.

The day before the track day starts.

Exactly! Thankfully I don't know anyone who's ever been stupid enough to try to keep alcohol or drugs with them in the car while actually doing a track day.

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

This is what happens when you take away hockey in Canada. Both this driver and two pages of silly arguments.

Hah true, too much time with CV and an argument going in circles.

[Tcoat]

We have a new record!





“This is the fastest speed that I’ve ever heard of,” OPP Sgt. Kerry Schmidt said in a video posted to Twitter Sunday morning.
Schmidt said that the 19-year-old driver was in his father’s car at the time of the incident with another 19-year-old passenger alongside him.
“Unbelievable speeds, we’re talking 191 miles an hour, we’re talking 85 metres a second, 280 feet per second,” Schmidt said, questioning how a driver could properly react to potential obstacles on the highway at those speeds"

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/unbelieva...hway-1.4932981

[RToyo86]

That's gotta be one unhappy father.

[Sasquachulator]

Nice typical Canadian light sentence....license suspended for only 7 days and car impounded only for 7 days......

Those should be changed to 7 years each so that the punishment really hits home.

Edit: oh n/m i guess thats just the immediate action, and the actual charges isnt determined yet.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

Nice typical Canadian light sentence....license suspended for only 7 days and car impounded only for 7 days......

Those should be changed to 7 years each so that the punishment really hits home.

That is just point of incident penalties. They will have to go to court for the actual sentence. I doubt it will be light and will no doubt hit home.

[RToyo86]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

That is just point of incident penalties. They will have to go to court for the actual sentence. I doubt it will be light and will no doubt hit home.

If he's smart he'll lawyer up. If it is the kids first offense they can often work things in to mitigate license suspension, and reduce it to a fine and maybe a defensive driving course.

His insurance is Likely screwed though with a major 50 over.