Marihuana at Hunting Camp.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gatehouse said:
The toking hunter will want to pick up some of these stylish marijuana containers that symbolize his passions- pot and hunting. Just don't mix these up with your waterfowl ammunition!

smokin-gun-marijuana-containers-colorado-pot-shops-500x334.jpg
Click to expand...

Replace lead shot with marijuana BBs... now there’s a “green” solution to the lead issue.

Except instead of eating the duck, you sit across from it debating what’s the best way to suddenly tell a duck to lower its head.
 
trebor2880 said:
I like to hunt the way I drink...alone.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that idea.
Never do anything that would endanger someone, but when everything is put away enjoy yourself.
The next morning if your still feeling the effects of the previous nights debauchery have a camp day and do chores.
As a 60 year old I will not have my life dictated to me, life is too short and you guys that like to lay down the rules are not my mom.
Use a little commonsense and all should be good.
 
Here it is in proposed Bill C-46 – Drug-impaired driving. Has gone through the 2nd reading process then on to receiving Royal Assent. It recognizes the need to establish hybrid offences for THC and alcohol impairment. Way more stringent than the laws in Colorado concerning this.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/sidl-rlcfa/c46/p3.html

Part 1 of Bill C-46 – Drug-impaired driving
Bill C-46 proposes to supplement the existing drug-impaired driving offence by creating three new offences for having specified levels of a drug in the blood within two hours of driving. The penalties would depend on the drug type and the levels of drug or the combination of alcohol and drugs. The levels would be set by regulation.

For THC (the main psychoactive compound in cannabis), the proposed levels would be:

2 nanograms (ng) but less than 5 ng of THC: Having at least 2 ng but less than 5 ng of THC per millilitre (ml) of blood within two hours of driving would be a summary conviction criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000;

5 ng or more of THC: Having 5 ng or more of THC per ml of blood within two hours of driving would be a hybrid offence. Hybrid offences are offences that can be prosecuted either by indictment, in more serious cases, or by summary conviction, in less serious cases; and

Combined THC and Alcohol: Having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 50 milligrams (mg) of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, combined with a THC level greater than 2.5 ng per ml of blood within two hours of driving would also be a hybrid offence.
 
Gatehouse said:
This will become the new preferred camo pattern


call-of-duty-ghost-chron.jpg
Click to expand...

Gatehouse said:
The toking hunter will want to pick up some of these stylish marijuana containers that symbolize his passions- pot and hunting. Just don't mix these up with your waterfowl ammunition!

smokin-gun-marijuana-containers-colorado-pot-shops-500x334.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh wow!! You are definitely the cool kid on your block!!
I only wish I could be that cool....:( You’re like a modern day Fonzie! Ayy! :cool::cool::cool:
 
Last edited:
Drinking and weed at camp is fine in moderation and not while handling firearms.

I'd rather screen fellow hunters with "how do you think the liberals are doing so far?" instead of "do you drink or smoke dope?" That will really show you how responsible they are.
 
Slamfire said:
Here it is in proposed Bill C-46 – Drug-impaired driving. Has gone through the 2nd reading process then on to receiving Royal Assent. It recognizes the need to establish hybrid offences for THC and alcohol impairment. Way more stringent than the laws in Colorado concerning this.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/sidl-rlcfa/c46/p3.html

Part 1 of Bill C-46 – Drug-impaired driving
Bill C-46 proposes to supplement the existing drug-impaired driving offence by creating three new offences for having specified levels of a drug in the blood within two hours of driving. The penalties would depend on the drug type and the levels of drug or the combination of alcohol and drugs. The levels would be set by regulation.

For THC (the main psychoactive compound in cannabis), the proposed levels would be:

2 nanograms (ng) but less than 5 ng of THC: Having at least 2 ng but less than 5 ng of THC per millilitre (ml) of blood within two hours of driving would be a summary conviction criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000;

5 ng or more of THC: Having 5 ng or more of THC per ml of blood within two hours of driving would be a hybrid offence. Hybrid offences are offences that can be prosecuted either by indictment, in more serious cases, or by summary conviction, in less serious cases; and

Combined THC and Alcohol: Having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 50 milligrams (mg) of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, combined with a THC level greater than 2.5 ng per ml of blood within two hours of driving would also be a hybrid offence.
Click to expand...



Hmmm, are we gonna see forced assaults on our bodies when the fuzz decide to hold us down and take blood, at "their" discretion? Probable cause is loose ambiguous wording to allow the "authorities" to violate basic human rights. It would have been better if the Turd kept his mouth shut and let things carry on as they were. Then these useless FUDD discussions wouldn't be wasting our time. These laws won't change what is/has been happening all along, and we don't see too many reports about drugged out shooters, do we? People love to bi*ch and get all paranoid about non issues.....
 
Don't get busted by the deer by using a traditional white rolling paper! This is what you need to use when you are lying in wait and want to mellow out....


gi-jays-camouflage-hemp-rolling-paper-3.jpg
 
HadEnuff said:
Hmmm, are we gonna see forced assaults on our bodies when the fuzz decide to hold us down and take blood, at "their" discretion? Probable cause is loose ambiguous wording to allow the "authorities" to violate basic human rights. It would have been better if the Turd kept his mouth shut and let things carry on as they were. Then these useless FUDD discussions wouldn't be wasting our time. These laws won't change what is/has been happening all along, and we don't see too many reports about drugged out shooters, do we? People love to bi*ch and get all paranoid about non issues.....
Click to expand...

Provinces already have their own penalties outside the criminal code for driving drunk, BC's IRP program for example. The police will not take you in for a blood sample so you can defend against a frivolous IRP penalty so I can't see them doing this for Marijuana either.

The IRP levies an instant penalty at roadside with no opportunity to dispute it in court, Marijuana impairment will be rolled into that system guaranteed
 
HadEnuff said:
Hmmm, are we gonna see forced assaults on our bodies when the fuzz decide to hold us down and take blood, at "their" discretion? Probable cause is loose ambiguous wording to allow the "authorities" to violate basic human rights. It would have been better if the Turd kept his mouth shut and let things carry on as they were. Then these useless FUDD discussions wouldn't be wasting our time. These laws won't change what is/has been happening all along, and we don't see too many reports about drugged out shooters, do we? People love to bi*ch and get all paranoid about non issues.....
Click to expand...

yup, the civil rights lawyers are telling government that thier roadside saliva test for THC is totally in violation of our basic rights. So they are making a law that will be challenged the minute it is put into practice.... costing us all millions in tax payer funded court cases.
The thing is, "everyone" will be subject to this saliva test , even the anti weed people will have thier civil rights violated at the roadside if they consent to that saliva test. I know for myself personally, the first cop that pulls out a saliva test kit roadside on me.... is gonna wish he hadn't. Not without a court order you don't. In fact I am willing to be arrested when I decline to cooperate with the testing of my bodily fluids at roadside..... ain't happening...... not in my Canada.
Breathalizer, sure, that's not my blood or saliva.
Road side sobriety test , performing verbal commanded tasks with a flash light in my face, sure, no problem..... this method has worked for decades to allow trained police officers to observe impairment.
 
There was a guy I used to work with that they charged for impaired on marijuana 5 or 6 years ago. They could smell it and seen a couple of joint butts in the ashtray. Their was no blood,saliva or any type of roadside test that they performed. They laid charges based on smell, dialated pupils and the smell as well as the butts in ashtray. They did search the car and didn't find any more dope or contraband of any type.
He fought it in court and charges were dropped for insufficient evidence. I'm guessing now though being as it will be legal soon, they have everything they need to administer the road side tests all ready to go.
Makes no difference to me though, I don't touch the stuff (I have no problem with anybody that does though). I don't get behind the wheel on days when I have to meds either. I honestly don't feel as though I'm impaired, but don't take the chance on it either.
 
Last edited:
Duuuuudes......To beat a mouth swab test you gotta mess up the test by swishing some hydrogen peroxide around in your mouth when they pull you over....High Times magazine said there is even chewing gum with peroxide in it for this purpose.

cc-oral-clear-gum-01.jpg
 
Cops have been dealing with people driving under the influence of of weed for many many years .hunt camps have had people who smoke weed every year. It's never been a problem. Just because Thy change a few laws is not going to make weed smoking a huge problem.most folks never know what's going on around them
 
45ACPKING said:
yup, the civil rights lawyers are telling government that thier roadside saliva test for THC is totally in violation of our basic rights. So they are making a law that will be challenged the minute it is put into practice.... costing us all millions in tax payer funded court cases.
The thing is, "everyone" will be subject to this saliva test , even the anti weed people will have thier civil rights violated at the roadside if they consent to that saliva test. I know for myself personally, the first cop that pulls out a saliva test kit roadside on me.... is gonna wish he hadn't. Not without a court order you don't. In fact I am willing to be arrested when I decline to cooperate with the testing of my bodily fluids at roadside..... ain't happening...... not in my Canada.
Breathalizer, sure, that's not my blood or saliva.
Road side sobriety test , performing verbal commanded tasks with a flash light in my face, sure, no problem..... this method has worked for decades to allow trained police officers to observe impairment.
Click to expand...



Thats all well and good and completely your right. However it is far easier to convict someone for "refuse breath demand" than it is for "over 80". Basically because there is no defence for refuse and it carries the same penalty as "Impaired" and "over 80" I imagine it will be the same when a standardized saliva testing is released for marihuana.

So yeah, you can make your stand, however you will probably wish you didn't when you lose your licence for a year, have a criminal record and can't afford your insurance premiums when you do eventually get your licence back.
 
Saliva tests...about 3-4 years back I saw the Daylight crew get swabbed about 20 min's after smoking a 'J'. The boys swished a mouthfull of water on the stroll over, spit it outside the Push Shack door and passed the test.
I hope the tests have improved somewhat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom