Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:28 PM
rem338win's Avatar
rem338win rem338win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cowtown, agian
Posts: 2,812
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott N View Post
I just posted info to 2 incidents where sober people were charged, it's hard to defend that by saying that "I don't understand." I understand, and have some concerns.
Prove they were ok to drive. That they weren't subtantiatively impaired in some way? We've heard one side of the story, the one you want to believe obviously.

The other side is silent so it makes it difficult to say doesn't it. The system can never be perfect because people are involved. I've watch judges make terrible mistakes too. You put all your faith in them?

So you have two examples out of the thousands and thousands of interactions.

Sounds like we are in pretty good hands really.
__________________
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
- Sir Winston Churchill

A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.
-Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:32 PM
rem338win's Avatar
rem338win rem338win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cowtown, agian
Posts: 2,812
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikergolf View Post
Really? Think about it! A cop with a hard on for you can make your life pretty miserable on a whim. To far left for me.
No they can't. Lawful placement, etc still stand. It's far harder to be a cop this day and age in this country than ever before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered user View Post
They lowered the blood alcohol limits in AB because they weren't getting enough people at 80mg to make it worthwhile. BTW warrant-less searches of your home's gun storage area have been around since the cretien era.
They didn't lower anything in Alberta. They just included legislation on top of the criminal code because people are still being azzholes and driving whizzbanged.

And they don't have warrantless searches without reasonable grounds and exigency, even with firearms.
__________________
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
- Sir Winston Churchill

A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.
-Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:35 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rem338win View Post
No they can't. Lawful placement, etc still stand. It's far harder to be a cop this day and age in this country than ever before.



They didn't lower anything in Alberta. They just included legislation on top of the criminal code because people are still being azzholes and driving whizzbanged.

And they don't have warrantless searches without reasonable grounds and exigency, even with firearms.
.05 is wizzbanged, give your head a shake.
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-13-2018, 09:51 PM
tri777's Avatar
tri777 tri777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,032
Default

The only questions remaining for me after this entire thread,
-How much is 2ng(nanograms) ?

-Is there access to a video, or this report on how they arrived at the decision:
"Yes, we conclude 1.9mg to be safe behind the wheel"
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screenshot_2018-12-13-21-36-16.jpg (33.0 KB, 30 views)
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-13-2018, 10:20 PM
ssyd ssyd is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rem338win View Post
No they can't. Lawful placement, etc still stand. It's far harder to be a cop this day and age in this country than ever before.



They didn't lower anything in Alberta. They just included legislation on top of the criminal code because people are still being azzholes and driving whizzbanged.

And they don't have warrantless searches without reasonable grounds and exigency, even with firearms.
I googled "lawful placement" and all I got was a bunch of Dungeons & Dragons articles. What conspiracy theorist website did you learn this term from?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-14-2018, 04:44 AM
Scott N's Avatar
Scott N Scott N is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rem338win View Post
Prove they were ok to drive. That they weren't subtantiatively impaired in some way? We've heard one side of the story, the one you want to believe obviously.

The other side is silent so it makes it difficult to say doesn't it. The system can never be perfect because people are involved. I've watch judges make terrible mistakes too. You put all your faith in them?

So you have two examples out of the thousands and thousands of interactions.

Sounds like we are in pretty good hands really.
Childish.... how would I prove that they were ok to drive? Why wouldn't they be? The woman had a blood test done.... 0 alcohol, and dilated pupils don't automatically mean that someone is under the influence of any intoxicating substance. I'm drawing my conclusions from the facts of incidents, not what I "believe".
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-14-2018, 05:53 AM
58thecat's Avatar
58thecat 58thecat is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: At the end of the Thirsty Beaver Trail, Pinsky lake, Alberta.
Posts: 24,504
Default

Just glad they are cracking down, imagine if our streets were lawless, lots of people here would fall victim and then you would see the complaint departments phones start to ring, this minor complaining is just that....minor....going to happen....expected...given our privilidged expected society 1%'ers.
__________________

Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the "M" is silent...
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-14-2018, 05:33 PM
The Elkster The Elkster is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,358
Default

Rather than talk about this proposition perhaps we should take steps to stop drunk driving before it happens? Forget about infringing on privacy and just make the punishment sufficient to act as a deterrent given the (low) risk of getting caught. ie if the risk of getting caught is relatively low because of privacy and rights then you up the consequences of those caught BIG TIME.

First offense $100,000 fine and 5yrs imprisonment, 10 years if you don't have the 100k then 5 yrs of touring schools teaching about the implications of DD. Many will cry that is draconian and unfair? WTF is fair in this context? I don't give a hoot. You had a choice. You knew the rules and you chose wrong and could have killed or injured someone causing massive costs. SO SUCK IT. Money goes to victim services/restitution/education. Many will cry wail and curse the harsh actions "ohhhh that is so not fair people only get 3 years for manslaughter". But I expect they'd ultimately tuck their tail between their legs and get the picture real quick if rules held fast.

But then again I hear from a certain element of the left that punishment never works...so there's that. People never operate based on actions Vs consequence right?

Might not be perfect but I dare say it'd be a might more effective than catching a few more people, infringing the rights and privacy of many more people, while administering a hand slap to the guilty parties who will soon be out to reoffend.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-15-2018, 09:08 AM
58thecat's Avatar
58thecat 58thecat is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: At the end of the Thirsty Beaver Trail, Pinsky lake, Alberta.
Posts: 24,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Elkster View Post
Rather than talk about this proposition perhaps we should take steps to stop drunk driving before it happens? Forget about infringing on privacy and just make the punishment sufficient to act as a deterrent given the (low) risk of getting caught. ie if the risk of getting caught is relatively low because of privacy and rights then you up the consequences of those caught BIG TIME.

First offense $100,000 fine and 5yrs imprisonment, 10 years if you don't have the 100k then 5 yrs of touring schools teaching about the implications of DD. Many will cry that is draconian and unfair? WTF is fair in this context? I don't give a hoot. You had a choice. You knew the rules and you chose wrong and could have killed or injured someone causing massive costs. SO SUCK IT. Money goes to victim services/restitution/education. Many will cry wail and curse the harsh actions "ohhhh that is so not fair people only get 3 years for manslaughter". But I expect they'd ultimately tuck their tail between their legs and get the picture real quick if rules held fast.

But then again I hear from a certain element of the left that punishment never works...so there's that. People never operate based on actions Vs consequence right?

Might not be perfect but I dare say it'd be a might more effective than catching a few more people, infringing the rights and privacy of many more people, while administering a hand slap to the guilty parties who will soon be out to reoffend.
Nope then we are paying to house the hammerhead.....hang'em.....I know a little over the top.....just confiscate the ride, suspended license for 5 years and 5000 hrs of community work cleaning ditches etc.....
__________________

Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the "M" is silent...
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-15-2018, 10:17 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 58thecat View Post
Nope then we are paying to house the hammerhead.....hang'em.....I know a little over the top.....just confiscate the ride, suspended license for 5 years and 5000 hrs of community work cleaning ditches etc.....
I agree on much harsher penalties for those who are convicted. One idiot in Manitoba , took his employer to court, because they fired him while he was in jail for his seventh impaired driving conviction. When he was caught for the seventh time, he was driving to work. He should never have been allowed to drive after six convictions.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 12-15-2018, 11:29 PM
^v^Tinda wolf^v^ ^v^Tinda wolf^v^ is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 4,134
Default

I like the term wizzbanged lol. I’m sure everyone who uses cannabis is afraid to get pulled over even 100% sober. Until better research and refinement in new technology to detect impairment is in place it’s all just whizzbanging in the wind lol.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-16-2018, 06:47 AM
Unregistered user Unregistered user is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rem338win View Post
No they can't. Lawful placement, etc still stand. It's far harder to be a cop this day and age in this country than ever before.



They didn't lower anything in Alberta. They just included legislation on top of the criminal code because people are still being azzholes and driving whizzbanged.

And they don't have warrantless searches without reasonable grounds and exigency, even with firearms.
They brought in the 50mg because they weren't getting enough revenue from the "Over 80" crowd.
Yes if you have more than 10 guns in your collection the police can inspect your storage facility without a warrant, this was and is one of the more disgusting parts of c68. Harper's boys promised to scrap that law but all they took away was the LGR, now the marxists in charge are bringing it back. Pathetic.
__________________
Former Ford Fan
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-16-2018, 04:28 PM
Deo101 Deo101 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tri777 View Post
The only questions remaining for me after this entire thread,
-How much is 2ng(nanograms) ?

-Is there access to a video, or this report on how they arrived at the decision:
"Yes, we conclude 1.9mg to be safe behind the wheel"
No one knows. There is literally no science to validate the numbers they came up with for thc in the blood and how intoxicated you are. A steady user could quit for a week and still be excreting 2ng/ml into the blood while stone sober. Inversely someone could have under that in the blood and be high as a kite. Thc is fat soluble and doesnt excrete to the blood in any kind of a consistent matter like alcohol. Point is that blood levels dont equal brain levels. Cannibis related DUI charges wont stick and lawyers are licking their chops.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-16-2018, 04:48 PM
elkdump elkdump is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In a tree near ALTA
Posts: 3,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssyd View Post
https://globalnews.ca/news/4739507/e...stop-campaign/

Saw this story on the news tonight and we got talking about checkstops and field sobriety tests.

First off, I don't care about the new mandatory testing without probable cause. It's never taken much for an officer to claim probable cause to give a field test so this news doesn't concern me one bit.

My real question for the LEOs here is this: If I know I am sober and I know I have crappy balance, can I (politely) ask to go straight to a breathalyzer instead of dancing a newfie jig while touching my nose on the side of the road?
Newfie gigs are not possible with drivers with amputations or parapalegic etc, there are tens of thousands licensed to drive across Canada

Politely officer "Bite me", I do not dance on road allowances, get me immediately to nearest medical centre/hospital I will be glad to give blood/body fluid to competent doctor,RN
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-16-2018, 06:07 PM
schmedlap schmedlap is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,692
Default Exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The instrument is the problem if your actual level is .04, or .045, and you blow a warning because the instrument is not accurate . The limit is .05, it isn,'t .04 or .045.. That is why they don't charge anyone with exceeding .08 based on the roadside unit. They take the person to the station to test them on a more accurate unit. And regardless of what you are charged with, you should be entitled to a trial. As my link demonstrates ,there have been issues with the roadside units, one officer blew a fail and he had not consumed any alcohol at all. From that link



This may not be common, but without a trial to prove guilt or innocence, innocent people will be wrongly punished.

This isn't supposed to be a police state, where the police declare you guilty and sentence you without a trial.
This whole approach by governments is very similar to their approach to firearms laws. Instead of really punishing and removing the rights of the offenders who are the cause of 90% of the problems - the multiple repeaters who also have no licenses, insurance, etc. - they remove fundamental rights from and cause unjustifiable grief to people who never or seldom offend and cause little or no societal harm.

The real criminals don't care. They will just get another short remand with free meals, some further minor fines they won't pay, and will go right back to the same behaviour the minute they are free. They will cause more havoc and uncovered damage with no recourse and still receive no contextually effective consequences.

Meanwhile, a BC grandma (actual case) who has not touched alcohol for decades will have her car towed and impounded after being pulled over with no grounds, and the LEO judging that she is impaired because of her relative feebleness. It will cost her thousands in legal fees and impound charges and cause her to lose her car for weeks, with no recourse for the wrongful seizure and charges, when the charges are summarily dismissed. There have been a number of similar cases during the period before courts forced modification of the original versions of the horrid ".05 laws" in AB and BC.

Its very easy to just sheepishly accept such abrogations of the right to be presumed innocent, and to not be subjected to unreasonable police actions and seizures, when the measure in question appears so relatively victimless and you have never been the victim of interim dissipation of your own rights, and unrecoverable financial and other costs, due to false allegations and charges and/or unreasonable such actions. This type of regulatory approach has to be resisted by anyone who wants to preserve any modicum of individual freedom in society.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-16-2018, 07:22 PM
tri777's Avatar
tri777 tri777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,032
Default

I just wrote a letter to cbc Marketplace asking if they could please do an
Episode on light-moderate-heavy users and see if they would be over
1.9ng's/fail a DUI roadside test "after" 3days/1week/3weeks of consuming it.
All these kinds of tests should have long ago been completed before
this legalization imo.

Last edited by tri777; 12-16-2018 at 07:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-16-2018, 08:03 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tri777 View Post
I just wrote a letter to cbc Marketplace asking if they could please do an
Episode on light-moderate-heavy users and see if they would be over
1.9ng's/fail a DUI roadside test "after" 3days/1week/3weeks of consuming it.
All these kinds of tests should have long ago been completed before
this legalization imo.
They haven’t done similar tests? How do you know they haven’t already?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-16-2018, 09:09 PM
tri777's Avatar
tri777 tri777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
They haven’t done similar tests? How do you know they haven’t already?
They've never done such an episode as of yet..
all episodes:

https://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/

If by "they" you mean other than marketplace,
please post links/tests.

Last edited by tri777; 12-16-2018 at 09:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-16-2018, 09:22 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tri777 View Post
They've never done such an episode as of yet..
all episodes:

https://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/

If by "they" you mean other than marketplace,
please post links/tests.
By they, I mean anyone.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:01 PM
Deo101 Deo101 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
They haven’t done similar tests? How do you know they haven’t already?
Any scientific testing that has been completed shows that thc level in blood can not be reliably used to prove impairment.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 12-17-2018, 12:03 PM
Don_Parsons Don_Parsons is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricki Bobby View Post
Don't drive impaired.....no problem
Exactly,,, use wizer judgements before climbing behind the wheel.

Just remember the tears of loved ones left behind to pick up the peaces of brothers and sisters that never made it home.


I shut all of it down when my friends son never came home,,, unfortunately he was a passenger that should of never got into the vehicle with the driver that assured him that things would be OK.

Sad deal for both families that they live with for the rest of their lives.

A shame to see young lives cut short.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-17-2018, 11:47 PM
58thecat's Avatar
58thecat 58thecat is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: At the end of the Thirsty Beaver Trail, Pinsky lake, Alberta.
Posts: 24,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tri777 View Post
They've never done such an episode as of yet..
all episodes:

https://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/

If by "they" you mean other than marketplace,
please post links/tests.
You asked CBC to accurately gather data and not screw it up along the way....
__________________

Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the "M" is silent...
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-18-2018, 09:11 AM
spoiledsaskhunter spoiledsaskhunter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,701
Default

reading the news this am and find that roadside testing will be going the way of the dodo bird......police can now make a demand on any driver stopped, 'without having reasonable grounds to believe they have been drinking'.

YAHOO! makes the policemans job way easier when all they have to say is,'you are driving and i thereby demand you provide a breath test'. should have been that way years ago.

rights be damned..........if you are dumb enough to drive after you've been drinking, you should be taken to account for it.

i enjoy a shot as much as anyone, but wifey drives when i've had one.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-18-2018, 09:47 AM
Sledhead71 Sledhead71 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spoiledsaskhunter View Post
reading the news this am and find that roadside testing will be going the way of the dodo bird......police can now make a demand on any driver stopped, 'without having reasonable grounds to believe they have been drinking'.

YAHOO! makes the policemans job way easier when all they have to say is,'you are driving and i thereby demand you provide a breath test'. should have been that way years ago.

rights be damned..........if you are dumb enough to drive after you've been drinking, you should be taken to account for it.

i enjoy a shot as much as anyone, but wifey drives when i've had one.
I will agree with the erosion of my personal rights when these same officers are allowed to search your cell phone with-out cause. Since 2016, distracted driving has killed more people in Canada than impaired driving. Fair is fair right ? Immediate licence suspension and vehicle seizure when your suspected of distracted driving.. Oh right, we will never see this day
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-18-2018, 10:10 AM
bobtodrick bobtodrick is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,939
Default

Haven't had a drink before driving for over 20 years...ever since a close friend was killed by a drunk driving...leaving a wife and 2 small children to deal with the aftermath. The driver charged has got on with his life years ago...the wife and children...not so much.
I have no problem with this at all if it saves live...and if you look the penalties starting today have a lot more bite in them.
About time is all I say.
As to the invasion of rights argument...driving is a licensed privilege...it is not a right...so there goes that argument.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-18-2018, 10:37 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
As to the invasion of rights argument...driving is a licensed privilege...it is not a right...so there goes that argument.
That is all well and good for suspending a license, but the vehicle is private property with a title, owning it is not a privilege. So that excuse does not apply to seizing private property.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-18-2018, 08:47 PM
spoiledsaskhunter spoiledsaskhunter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sledhead71 View Post
I will agree with the erosion of my personal rights when these same officers are allowed to search your cell phone with-out cause. Since 2016, distracted driving has killed more people in Canada than impaired driving. Fair is fair right ? Immediate licence suspension and vehicle seizure when your suspected of distracted driving.. Oh right, we will never see this day

sure am with you on this one sled
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-18-2018, 10:01 PM
WSMLEO WSMLEO is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sledhead71 View Post
I will agree with the erosion of my personal rights when these same officers are allowed to search your cell phone with-out cause. Since 2016, distracted driving has killed more people in Canada than impaired driving. Fair is fair right ? Immediate licence suspension and vehicle seizure when your suspected of distracted driving.. Oh right, we will never see this day
No?

https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/i...an-1003105880/
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-19-2018, 06:57 AM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...cism-1.4950396
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-19-2018, 07:50 AM
tri777's Avatar
tri777 tri777 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,032
Default

I have NO issue with any roadside test(s)..what I DO have issue with is some poor sap
coming home after shopping and getting a DUI/big fines/insurance drama etc because he/she
smoked a bunch pot 9days ago and still having 2.1ng's in their system.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.