Blog

The Vancouver Sun recently published an op-ed piece, written by Dr. Patrick McGeer. He is an emeritus professor at the UBC School of Medicine and continues to conduct research in the field of neurology. Sounds like a smart guy. In his op-ed, he claims that cannabis legalization is harmful to Canadians. And he is wrong.

Not only has Dr. McGeer overlooked the numerous social benefits that will flow from legalization, but his article stinks of reefer madness. And it’s simply not supported by any scientific research. As a professional researcher and professor, I would expect more from the good doctor. But it appears that he is more interested in fear-mongering and scare tactics than publishing a reasoned and supported opinion.

So let’s break it down.

After the preliminary steps are done, taking first pulse and an initial examination, the DRE officer is then able to move on to the more complex eye examinations. The results of these examinations are said to be used to help the DRE officer determine whether a person is impaired by a drug, and identify the class of drugs that is causing the impairment.

Eye examinations are particularly interesting because they do not actually say much about impairment at all. What they do say a lot about is the condition of a person’s eyeball and whether that person may have suffered head injuries, has or is suffering a stroke or a seizure, or whether a person may have neurological conditions. Of course, a police officer is in no position to determine any of this.

So read on to find out the three types of eye examinations that are used in the DRE Evaluation.

This week, on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we focus on how a series of bad decisions can seriously impact a person. From a lawyer who has not one but two troublesome marriages, to a man whose viral Internet fame cost him his employment, and finally to the case of a guy who tried to buffalo buffalo and ended up buffaloed in court, this week takes us through the interesting world of how one bad decision can lead to hilarious and then disappointing results.

On Episode Nineteen of the Driving Law with Kyla Lee podcast, I speak with Paul Doroshenko about common client questions we get in relation to driving prohibitions. In particular, we discuss what to do when you receive a driving prohibition for points and the various options available to a person who has already received the prohibition. The answers may surprise, and probably disappoint, you.

You can listen to the podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud, or PlayerFM.

Once the interview of the arresting officer is done, the DRE officer is armed, largely, with the knowledge needed to start the evaluation. After all, they’ve already been told what the subject said and did and therefore are aware of what to look for. So at this stage the DRE officer conducts a preliminary examination and takes the first in a series of pulses.

This is the step designed to create a chaotic baseline so that impairment can be inferred.

This week we have a very sexy edition of Weird and Wacky Wednesdays. We cover off three separate cases that show you how sex, love, and marriage can get you in a whole world of trouble. First, we look at a case involving a woman in Vancouver who was allegedly sleeping with her lawyer after marrying another man for money. Then, a police officer in trouble for using his body camera in a more Kardashian-esque manner. And finally, we look at the case of a couple who got more meat than they wanted at a steakhouse dinner.

Recently, the BC Provincial Court had the opportunity to consider an important issue that has, heretofore, never been considered. And it was considered in traffic court, of all places. In the case of R. v. Sutton, the court considered the implications of a decision in an Immediate Roadside Prohibition review hearing and its impact on a traffic ticket issued in the same series of events.

I’m personally very excited by the legal developments that have been coming from our traffic courts and it is refreshing to see this level of court make so much progress in developing the law.

And while the argument did not work out in Mr. Sutton’s favour, the case raises a much more important issue. That is, how the RoadSafetyBC tribunal fails people in producing review decisions that do not properly outline the facts and law that led to the conclusion.

This week on the Driving Law podcast, I sit down with Roy Ho of Acumen Law Corporation to talk about the changes to ICBC insurance rates, and whether this will actually do anything to change driving behaviour, crash rates, or insurance claims in the province. Roy’s opinion may surprise you, so be sure to tune in to that. But first, Paul Doroshenko and I speak about two new traffic court decisions that change the law in BC, and which promise to spell big trouble in future cases. And we’ve taken the podcast on the road, literally, for this discussion!

You can listen on SoundCloud, PlayerFM, or subscribe on iTunes and tune in every Friday for a new episode.