Driving complaint leads to $679,000 drug seizureMonday, May 26, 2014 by: SooToday.com Staff
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at approximately 6:20 p.m. Sault Ste. Marie Ontario Provincial Police received a traffic complaint involving a white Chevrolet van traveling southbound on Highway 17 in Aweres Township.
A short time later the van was located and stopped by OPP on Great Northern Road near Fourth Line in the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
As a result of this traffic stop, further investigation revealed that the driver was in possession of a large quantity of a substance believed to be cannabis marijuana.
OPP seized at total of approximately 100 pounds of cannabis marijuana with an estimated street value of $679,000.
40-year-old Devon Robinson of Cambridge, Ontario was arrested and charged with one count of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking a controlled substance, contrary to the controlled Drugs and Substance Act.
The accused was held for bail court and released on a Recognizance of Bail to appear in Provincial Court in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario on June 16, 2014.
justsomeguy 5/26/2014 10:31:01 AM Report
I thought all those consumers & advocates of cannabis were supposed to be more laid back, safer on the roads, etc?
At least that's what a lot of the comments on here have claimed.
havenesegal 5/26/2014 10:37:12 AM Report
I think that these drug drivers should avoid the soo area lol and maybe they were drinking as well lol
Mike58 5/26/2014 10:40:20 AM Report
Just goes to show you... people who continuously do drugs aren't all that bright.
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 10:44:54 AM Report
I can only speak for myself as to how I drive while under the influence of cannabis and I'm a much safer driver, imo. My speed goes WAY down (but not 40 in a 80 dangerous slow) and my spacing between other cars improves. They (a select few studies) tell me my reaction time slows (which, my performance in ultimate frisbee and tennis and video games argues against...) and even if true the reduced speed and spacing more than makes up for but to each his own.
It doesn't matter if you're totally sober or strung out on heroine or whatever. No free will without consequence. You are always responsible for your own actions.
Also, posters here seem to take it for granted that the police are always telling the truth in these matters (even though they've been caught lying so many times before and again today with their magical $20/gram weed). Police are tipped off with illegal wiretaps, hacked computers and cell phones and have a nifty new device called a 'Stingray' that imitates a cell tower and receives all your outgoing calls/texts before anyone else. So, not to say this guy wasn't driving like an idiot as claimed, but common sense suggests this isn't the first time this guy has transported pot and I'm pretty sure he'd drive legally if he wanted to keep his job and stay out of jail (which seems like a safe bet).
justsomeguy 5/26/2014 10:47:47 AM Report
So you openly & freely admit to your own impaired driving?
Lots of drunk drivers also believe that they are safer drivers & more cautious because they've had some drinks.
Sam C 5/26/2014 10:54:26 AM Report
IgnorantNortherner... you are earning your nickname.
You cannot be a "better driver" while under the influence of ANY substance, whatever you may believe.
Sledneck1976 5/26/2014 11:02:28 AM Report
Leave the pot dealers alone....pot heads are chill...go after the real criminals. Coke, Oxy's and crack are drugs people steal and pull b and e's to attain.
Thim 5/26/2014 11:06:41 AM Report
My guess is that the police have had an inside track on these people and are using these means to apprehend them so has to disguise that fact.
No doubt, they've infiltrated several of these groups.
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 11:10:12 AM Report
I hate this term "impaired driving".
I'm not impaired if I have a Tim's in one hand and a burger in the other, or if I'm on my phone, or have my radio jacked or just found out my wife died...
...but if I smoked a few hours ago I am somehow less qualified to drive than the 90yr old granny who hasn't passed a driving test in decades and can't legally see at night. I'm not 'under the influence' if I've got caffeine or tobacco or anti depressants in my system but if I have THC in my system I am danger?
Doesn't make sense to me, except with 'the war on drugs' in mind.
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 11:12:38 AM Report
...and in no way was it my intention to defend drunken driving, which has taken many lives and is something I hope to never do.
Vmax-4 5/26/2014 11:13:11 AM Report
The magical price of $20/gram as you state, actually works out to $15 if you had taken the time to do the math.
thumbs4208 5/26/2014 11:17:27 AM Report
ignorantnortherner, it's obviously a waist of time explaining this to you regardless of the terms used. Just send us a picture of your car/truck and tell us your plate numberso we can a/ avoid you on the road and b/ call the police to get your stupid ass off the road.
Simple enough for you ?
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 11:21:47 AM Report
@Sam C, do you literally mean 'any substance'?
I doubt it, as that wouldn't allow me to eat or drink or maintain life...
Do you mean 'any drug'? But then why are caffeine and tobacco and prescription drugs fine when they have clear 'influencing' effects on the psyche?
Tell me how you really feel.
@VMax, I said $20 'cause I did the math the last couple times and that's what it worked out to. I assumed they would maintain some consistency with their lies (and posters say they have a price chart they must follow) but, alas, I guess they're quoting the Pyongyang price and it's daily ups and downs.
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 11:23:14 AM Report
@thumbs, is it a 'waist of time' proofreading your responses?
I'm here to learn.
Explain to me the difference between 'driving under the influence' and the examples I listed above.
anapeg 5/26/2014 11:32:09 AM Report
Prescription drugs come with a warning label that warns as the Pharmacist will when you pick up your drugs that prohibit your driving. In some cases doctors will notify the Ministry to have your license revoked be it temporarily or in perpetuity.
To inflict oneself on the motoring public when experiencing any impairment beit food, phone, drugs or alcohol is the ultimate in abuse of privilege and self absorption. How often has the phrase "I drive better while under the influence of (insert recreational choice here. Laws are in place for a reason, if you feel said law draconian or out of touch, fight it, change it but do not ignore or worse break it.
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 11:53:41 AM Report
No, I get it, anapeg. To anyone who doesn't do a fair amount of 'high' driving my admission will seem no different than that of a drunk who regularly drives less than sober. All I was trying to explain was how some drugs are treated so radically different than others with no scientific basis for doing so.
As described in the article above, the soldiers were simply following lawful orders when they murdered three civilians.
That something is law does not make it right, imo. Just words on paper to me.
justsomeguy 5/26/2014 11:57:41 AM Report
Ignorant - is all that weed smoking getting to you? You're not even keeping your arguments together.
roxpin 5/26/2014 12:09:30 PM Report
They need to legalize pot and have it sold in stores. The reason for this is your kids will less likly get into harder drugs why? well when he goes to chongs house to get a gram of weed and he is having a bad day chong can't offer him a hit of crack which most dealers have other drugs,,
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 12:15:06 PM Report
I actually haven't 'smoked' in years as I opt for other methods but what exactly about my argument is it you're having a hard time understanding?
TFinn 5/26/2014 12:16:28 PM Report
FYI ....After 80yrs of age ...driving tests are manditory every two years ....not decades ..!
justsomeguy 5/26/2014 12:20:10 PM Report
The bottom half of your comment was about soldiers.
superior87 5/26/2014 12:27:58 PM Report
@justsomeguy: who says drug dealers are more laid back and safer on the roads?
Cannabis advocates actually want to get it out of the hands of dangerous drug dealers and regulate it.
justsomeguy 5/26/2014 12:36:50 PM Report
@superior - it was typed tongue-in-cheek. I assumed that the argument would be 'he's not a user, just a dealer'.
I work with a regular heavy cannabis user and he's anything but a safe responsible driver. He's lost his license again yet he still drives to work. Of all the workers here, he's the least safe and worst with attention to detail. Not I'm sure you'll say it's just him and has nothing to do with smoking lots of weed.
I'm not against legalization for the record. Some of the arguments on both sides just make me laugh.
MYPOINT 5/26/2014 12:37:47 PM Report
Why is it that those who complain about the police doing their jobs are also the first ones who will complain when the police are not doing their jobs?
If a law is on the books, the police must enforce it to the best of their ability - simple as that! To say that the police should only enforce those laws which 'you or I ' believe are legal is to ask that we turn this Country into a dictatorship that is even worse that the current sort- of dictatorship that we enjoy.
Therefore, let us allow the police to do their jobs without being hassled because they somehow got their math screwed up and said that some illegal product that they confiscated was worth 10 X the actual true value of same. ( I am not saying this is the case, I am merely using an example here ).
As always, others will think differently :)
methos 5/26/2014 12:47:47 PM Report
It's a good thing criminal are stupid.... or they may have taken over the world by now!
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 12:52:25 PM Report
MYPOINT, I think a lot of the contradiction stems from people having different opinions as to what, exactly, their job is. Many would say it is enforcing every law on the books and generating a ton of revenue in doing so, as you do.
I've always believed police exist primarily to keep the peace and reduce violent crime. With this in mind you might see how I disagree with much of their day to day activities...
...and I don't believe you meant it this way but it is so tiring when people use 'they're just doing their jobs!!" as a defence of everything the police do. I hate proving Godwin's law but much of the murdering the Nazis carried out was entirely lawful so by this line of reasoning they did nothing wrong.
To condone something because it is LAW (or not) and not because it is inherently right or wrong is a logical fallacy and is not a valid argument ever.
ranny 5/26/2014 12:56:01 PM Report
MYPOINT it's because people don't have respect for the law and country. We're in a age .... people aren't appreciating and think the human rights is to do whatever they want with on consequences.
justsomeguy 5/26/2014 1:01:16 PM Report
I think Ignorant's example is a poor one.
By your example, the police 'just doing their job' would be pulling over a pregnant woman in labour who was speeding to the hospital and ticketing her regardless.
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 1:10:28 PM Report
Well it's a poor one in that our police aren't out murdering local jewry (and I wasn't trying to insult them w my example), but I think the basis of the argument is sound.
"He's just doing his job"
"They were just following orders"
"It's the law"
These are never valid arguments.
Sam C 5/26/2014 1:28:24 PM Report
Ignorant... no, I don't literally mean any substance... I do not mean just "drug," unless you wish to include alcohol in that category. But you knew what I meant, didn't you?
However, your premise is inaccurate.
You're correct; you are not "impaired" if I have a Tim's in one hand and a burger in the other, or if I'm on my phone, or have my radio jacked, or if you just found out your wife died.". You are DISTRACTED, and can get a $280 fine for that.
253. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug;
As for the 90-year-old lady, she HAS passed a driving test, and likely more recently than you or I. Senior 80 and over must renew their license every 2 years, including an in-class screening and may be required to take a road test if indicated by the screening.
Frio 5/26/2014 1:48:49 PM Report
IgnorantNorthern, maybe you should figure out the difference between "distracted driving" and "impaired driving"? Quit thinking that anything broadly classifed as a "drug" like caffine in a cup of coffee is equal to and has the same effect as alcohol or THC from marijuana on someones brain and their ability to drive safely within the present requirements of the law..It was proven smoking dope and breaking the law makes people paranoid.They think the police are always out to get them, so some bash them at every opportunity and even go so far as trying to make comparisons back to the nazis.
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 2:02:10 PM Report
I still don't know what you mean, Sam C....I wasn't being facetious. I THINK you mean any drug that impairs your cognitive faculties....but different drugs affect people differently and in different doses, a fact most would prefer to ignore and instead put each drug into a 'good' or a 'bad' box. How helpful.
If you are addicted to caffeine or tobacco (read a majority of Saultites) you're probably a better driver once you've had your 'fix' ie. your focus and concentration improve and you become less distracted....so why is it impossible for someone else to be more aware of what's going on around them after the consumption of some other drug?
Will you continue to deny the existence of so called 'performance enhancing drugs'?
I'm with MYPOINT in that if you can't put aside all your personal sh!t and remember it is your responsibility to everyone else on the road to give 100% of your undivided attention to the task at hand then you shouldn't be on the road....but so many of you drive distracted daily when it's really the same thing as driving impaired!
TO BE DISTRACTED IS TO BE IMPAIRED.
@Frio "Quit thinking that anything broadly classifed as a "drug" like caffine in a cup of coffee is equal to and has the same effect as alcohol or THC from marijuana on someones brain and their ability to drive safely within the present requirements of the law..It was proven smoking dope and breaking the law makes people paranoid.They think the police are always out to get them"
Without intending to you are proving my point that all drugs affect people differently.
You really believe that anyone that smokes pot instantly becomes paranoid of the police? LOL
STOP GENERALIZING....and I'd love to read the study from which you found 'proof' for your theory.
justsomeguy 5/26/2014 2:04:18 PM Report
Take a look at the Milgram Experiment sometime if you think your logic of following orders was unique to the German national socialist party.
IgnorantNortherner 5/26/2014 2:14:01 PM Report
lol omg I DON'T -- THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!
HUMAN ARE NOT INFALLIBLE
THE LAW IS NEVER INFALLIBLE
I'm done...you guys are too much and I've probably got half the comments here anyway.
iamtc 5/26/2014 2:28:11 PM Report
Frio is a joke.
superior87 5/26/2014 2:33:44 PM Report
Maybe everyone should stop generalizing entire segments of the population?
"I know a marijuana user who drives fast" does not mean most marijuana users drive fast, nor does it invalidate arguments in favour of it's legalization.
"Why is it that those who complain about the police doing their jobs are also the first ones who will complain when the police are not doing their jobs?"
What? First, how on earth would you know this? Seriously. There are no studies on this, there are no surveys on this. So seriously, how do you KNOW that the people who complain about the police doing their jobs are the first to complain about the police not doing their jobs?
Stuff like this is just ridiculous and does nothing to further debate or conversation. It's the equivalent of nothing because it is some made up talking point devoid of any statistical basis or any basis in fact at all.
It happens so often on here it's ridiculous. Why bring up something if you have nothing to back it up? That would not fly at a job, why should it fly here?
Dragging the level down even further because it lacks even basic intelligence. We have to provide sources for our statements as far back as elementary school.
Killer_Spawn 5/26/2014 5:51:45 PM Report
you really think that's how people get hooked on harder drugs? I've smoked weed on and off for the past 16/17 years and have never come across nor experienced a situation like that. If weed were to made legal and sold in stores there would still be other drug dealers out there and they would continue to push their drug. it's friends families and doctors that enable others into harder drugs. I have myself tried mushrooms and ecstasy before and it wasn't because my dealer saw me having a bad day, I tried the X because my roommate just picked up a couple and I was curious to see what it was like (I enjoyed it but never plan to do it again) the mushrooms were at a party with friends and again it was the same thing, I was curious about them... it's up to individuals to determine if they want something in their body or not... I've been offered coke, crack, and smack before... those have never once interested me or had my curiosity peaked. Having weed legal wont change circumstances like that from happening. I have never understood why people think weed is a gateway drug
kodak11 5/26/2014 7:42:59 PM Report
if i had 100lbs of pot in my car id follow the law....stupid way to loose 288,000.00$
thumbs4208 5/27/2014 9:48:10 AM Report
ignorantnortherner - my apolagies -
"Waste" - and why bother as i said and I guess many see - you're an idiot
MYPOINT 5/27/2014 10:28:03 AM Report
YOU stated ... Maybe everyone should stop generalizing entire segments of the population? "I know a marijuana user who drives fast" does not mean most marijuana users drive fast, nor does it invalidate arguments in favour of it's legalization.
MY response ... I totally agree with you!
YOU stated ... " What? First, how on earth would you know this? Seriously. There are no studies on this, there are no surveys on this. So seriously, how do you KNOW that the people who complain about the police doing their jobs are the first to complain about the police not doing their jobs?".
The above comment was in response to MY post of "Why is it that those who complain about the police doing their jobs are also the first ones who will complain when the police are not doing their jobs?"
MY response ... I never once said that there was any studies or surveys of any kind supporting my comment. That is not to say that there isn't same however. Although I did not post any 'proof' for my statement, I firmly believe that to be a true statement merely from the numerous observations I have seen from this site alone. It seems to me that there are always those who will 'diss' the police one minute for doing their jobs and then 'diss' them again if they are not doing their jobs. At no point did I say that this was a 'proven' hypothesis nor did I claim that it was 100% correct. I was merely asking a simple question my friend.
YOU stated ... Stuff like this is just ridiculous and does nothing to further debate or conversation. It's the equivalent of nothing because it is some made up talking point devoid of any statistical basis or any basis in fact at all. It happens so often on here it's ridiculous. Why bring up something if you have nothing to back it up? That would not fly at a job, why should it fly here? Dragging the level down even further because it lacks even basic intelligence. We have to provide sources for our statements as far back as elementary school.
MY response ... It is never ever ridiculous to ask a question and it does further debate and conversation in that others will take the time to debate that particular comment that was made in the form of a question. In fact, WE are conversing because I put that comment in the form of a question. WHY would I put in some phony statistical information when I was merely asking a question? If YOU would like MY reason for bringing it up, it is simply because I wished to see what others thought and it seems that I have accomplished that feat to some degree.
YOU stated ..."it lacks even basic intelligence and we have to provide sources for our statements as far back as elementary school".
MY response ... I believe that YOU ARE IN ERROR because I was never told even once during my 13 years in school that I had to provide any kind of 'proof' or 'statistics' or 'sources' when I was merely asking a simple question.
In conclusion ... My advice to you is that you should actually take the time to read things correctly before making comments regarding posts from others.
As always, this is my opinion only :)