Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There are plenty of laws that people decide to break all the time, yet they agree that the law should exist.
Yes. Thus the difference from this case.
The majority of people agree that speeding should be illegal. The majority of drivers speed on occasion.
The majority of parents have smacked their children. The majority of New Zealanders do not agree that that should be illegal.
One can agree or disagree. But this is, I think, the substantial difference between smacking and speeding.
-
pot remains in your system for ages without your being impaired by any stretch of the definition.
I don't like the idea of a scheme that's supposedly about road safety being used as a fishing expedition for drug use.
I believe the standard response is that if you're not impaired you won't fail the impairment test, and thus cannot be convicted.
For your second point, I would note:
1. it isn't just illegal drugs.
2. New section 73A is quite clear that the evidence obtained under the compulsory test cannot be used for a charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act. -
The concerning thing most immediately obvious is if you used cannabis a few days back - it will presumably still be in your blood stream, but clearly not affecting your driving at the relevant time - (although for some reason you did fail the 'roadside impairment test) you go down.
The police still have to prove impairment.
I think.
To be honest, it's not all that clear.
-
One wonders if they will test for people under the influence of (legal) prescription drugs...
Why wonder? Just read the Land Transport Amendment Act =)
The answer is yes.
But if you had a prescription, and complied with all the instructions given by the manufacturer, in the prescription and by your doctor, you can use that as a defence.
-
If, based on the subjective tests, they think you're impaired the Polcie can require you (as per alcohol tests) to undergo a blood test. If that proves you had a drug in your blood (no level required, unlike alcohol) you will be charged.
Charged - but not necessarily convicted.
The law still requires police police to establish that the individual charged in a situation like this is incapable of exercising proper control of a motor vehicle.
I would note that for this offence (breach of section s 58 of the Land Transport Act) alcohol and other drugs are treated the same - neither has a certain minimum level required.
-
via Family Guy's Emmy campaign.
They're not even from here, man.
-
With thanks to the New Zealand Herald for alerting me.
-
Woohoo!
-
This video, from Bronowski's The Ascent of Man (episode "Knowledge or Certainty") seems apposite:
I commend the series to everyone.
-
but as far as I understand, its only convention and the presence of witnesses that removes the actual ability to check who someone voted for... if no-one was watching you can easily figure out who people voted for.
Not just convention - there's also the fact that it would be a criminal offence...