Let me recall a point, one that was raised, if I may respond to the member. It is possible to prosecute someone for impairment even if you have no laboratory test, but it turns out as a practical matter that if there is a laboratory test and that individual tests below the per se limit, it is very, very rare to find a successful prosecution.
We had a case that occurred just last year in Boulder County, Colorado, of a little eight-year-old girl riding a bicycle and being killed by a driver who was determined by the DRE on the scene to be impaired. The prosecutor said he had enough evidence to convict that person of vehicular homicide due to driving under the influence. The laboratory results came back. The person was below the .08 alcohol level and below five nanograms THC level. The prosecutor said that in spite of that, with the DRE evidence, they had enough to convict. In the end, that person was convicted of careless driving resulting in death, which is a misdemeanour in Colorado, resulting in a 150-day sentence for killing an eight-year-old girl.
That's the kind of thing that occurs.