Between .05 and .08 fines
 

If your over .05 you have your vehicle towed and we impounded, but is there a fine with that also?

Sounds good to me. Hope a fine is included. From what little I’ve heard about this initiative, criminal charges will be discretionary for over .08?

No fine, being penalized by having your vehicle towed and impounded is already excessive, considering that you do not have the right to a trial to defend yourself.

.05 has always bothered me. Lots of folks .05 drive better than complete teetotallers.

Yep.

Id bet that a .05 driver has never caused an accident because of the alcohol in the system. Even the .08 drivers are not the problem. It’s the 1.0 and above that are ruining it for the rest of us.

The main issues I have with this law is that the federal law is .08. If AB wants to penalize drivers for operating a vehicle over .05, they should rally to have the federal law change and lower the BAC to .05.

I'm most opposed to AB's policy due to the fact you have no chance to defend yourself - you will be punished, whether you are guilty or not, and you are not allowed to defend yourself.

The police have become the judge and the jury , and they pass sentence, our right to a trial has been taken from us. We are one step closer to being a police state. Yet our government awards terrorists millions, because some foreign government supposedly violated their rights.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Low hanging fruit... going after criminals is hard!

You had a choice but chose to pour another drink down the hatch...how do you defend against that....push the drink away....gotta think for yourself or the police will do the thinking for you.

Couldn't agree more.

Are you going to tell us that every single person accused of impaired driving is guilty? Are you going to tell us that the portable roadside test equipment is always in perfect calibration, and never fails to operate properly? If that is the case, why are people accused of .08 taken in for further testing, and not charged with a criminal offense based solely on the roadside test equipment? Some people have the idea that because the penalty is less, you aren't entitled to a trial, yet you are given a trial for minor offenses like exceeding the speed limit or rolling through a stop sign.

The roll of the police is to uphold the law, not to be judge and jury.

ouch!
 

Couldn't disagree more!
The .05 rule was a "feel-good" law brought in as a vote-getter. Do you really mean to tell anyone that .05 drivers are a hazard? Might as well push back for prohibition days! Ridiculous.
By FEDERAL LAW, I am not impaired until .08. The precedent was already established long ago. Give it a rest.

Like I said you make a choice and then live with it, really simple stupid but we push the limits every time and when the police do the thinking for us they are the ones who are blamed for our bad decisions...always surrounded with excuses.

Yes faulty equipment, yes a mistake made, yes, yes, yes, but and yes the dreaded but and think real hard about this as I know the facts if we could dig that up would lean way over to the fact that for every 10000 idiots pulled over breaking the law maybe one, yes one was partially innocent...I'll take the odds to keep law and order to,our streets because if not the streets would run amuck with common folk being overwhelmed by criminals...think about it, hard.

:scared0015:

Like I mentioned earlier, I know a few scumbags that were guilty and hired a scumbag lawyer that combed over everything, twisted everything to the point the court handed down a lesser sentence, looser forked out 10K to the scumbag lawyer and moved on, guilty as hell.

Police are going to police, for the most part protect us from many bad decisions that we common folk tend to make everyday, just some really cross the line and then in comes the police to put things back into prospective...someone has to do the thinking for stupid!

Those roadside testing devices are not as accurate as many people assume they are.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/lawyer-questi...yzers-1.745362

As far as punishing innocent people to ensure that fewer guilty people get away without punishment I doubt that Donald Marshall, and David Milgaard would agree. And those people did have a trial, so imagine how many more innocent people would be have been sentenced, if everyone that was accused was sentenced without a trial.

I would be very interested in hearing from any of the police officers that may read this thread.

We truly must be the laughing stock of the world. Once again if there were real laws there wouldn't be many repeat offenders. There would be a crazy amount of innocent lives saved from repeat offenders. You can't stop anyone from doing an offence the first time, but you could stop it so there isn't a second.

If I was one I wouldn't, dammed if you do and dammed if you don't....they got a job to do and do it well, no explanations needed to justify there side...we as the people need to get better at being accountable for our actions and stop pointing fingers, laying blame and coming up with excuses for our bad decisions.


Had a fella the other day mention he got a ticket for not coming to a complete stop...man he was torqued, had a rant, a true rant, we all listened, most jumped on his rant and rolled...I asked if he came to a complete stop....ahhhh we'll sort of...I said guilty...and said your just torqued because it cost ya a mitt full of cash and now you go home to face the real music...all on you buddy....I got caught a few times too...hate facing the music...so to avoid the song and dance I try to be better and sure as heck don't give the cops a hard time for doing thier job.

Seems pretty simple to me ... the breathalizer is an unbiased scientific instrument. It is going to reveal if you have alcohol in your blood. Want to quibble over the degree of its accuracy at a roadside stop, you can always insist on a blood sample being tested. The “letting police be judge and jury” is a cop out argument most appealing to anti’s.

And maybe even another thread hearing from folks affected by drunk drivers.

X2

That would be a very sad thread, we all know the outcome to bad decisions as such...imagine having to be the officer to deliver the bad news...so let's keep it here quibbling over so called rights, bad decisions, little to know accountability...bury the potential bad outcome to driving impaired.:(

..

I say burry the offenders. When you cause a wreck and hurt or kill people drunk, that's the end of you. In need of a real justice system.

You don't have the legal right to insist on a blood sample if they are going to suspend your license and impound your vehicle for .05. If the officer decides that you are over .05, you are accused, convicted and sentenced on the spot. As for quibbling over the amount, of course the exact amount is worth quibbling over, if you are .05 you are guilty .04 you are innocent, so accuracy is very important. Nobody should accept being punished for being guilty if they are in fact innocent.

Wait didn't your post just get deleted?, just try and do us a favour and find a liberal outdoorsmen forum. Thanks. The death penalty should be for drunk drivers who cause harm or death.

By all means punish the people that have been found guilty in a court of law, and punish them harshly, but don't punish people until they have been found guilty in a court of law. As for our rights, of course they are worth quibbling for, would you rather lie in a country where people have no legal rights? Our government seems anxious to deny us our rights in order to rake in quick easy cash, but then they go easy on people that are convicted of actual criminal activities.

Save the jabs about political affiliation. Peoples' opinions on drunk driving are personal. This isn't a party issue. Further, though some may think it, this forum has no official political affiliation or preference.