2018 impaired driving to be decriminalized.

[Talking moose]

Same suspensions fines etc... no criminal charges
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ence-1.4468021

[Talking moose]

Interesting that MADD supports this move.

[Weedy1]

Is it April 1st?

[elkhunter11]

Just what we need, more police issuing long term suspensions and impounding vehicles for long terms, costing owners thousands of dollars, without a chance to defend yourself in a court of law. More of our rights taken away, and one step closer to being a police state.

[Hillbilly 12]

What the hell is happening, this country's laws are screwed. Is there nothing that is going in the right direction?

[grouse_hunter]

Now that's efficiency! Now the cops will perform the roles of the judge, the jury and the executioner! Public safety uber alles.

[elk396]

Hmmmmm, missed that one by about 30 years

[Pixel Shooter]

All motivated by the mighty dollar.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Pixel Shooter

All motivated by the mighty dollar.

Exactly, we give up our right to a trial, to provide more money for the province.

[roper1]

Someone will challenge it in court for sure.

[JReed]

It’s ironic that these scummy lawyers are whining in the article that these changes are over dollars and cents, when they’re the one’s getting these losers off on petty technicalities over “dollars and cents”

Don’t want a licence suspension, impound fees, or time in court.......then don’t drink and drive. It’s pretty simple

[Sierra1]

We’re finally getting on track with other countries...defending impaired driving is a law firm industry and a farce of justice.
MADD supports it because drunk driving is increasing again after years of decline.
How about another option for those who want their day in court...you get convicted...you lose your driving PRIVILEGE for life.
That sound fair?

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Just what we need, more police issuing long term suspensions and impounding vehicles for long terms, costing owners thousands of dollars, without a chance to defend yourself in a court of law. More of our rights taken away, and one step closer to being a police state.

Originally Posted by grouse_hunter

Now that's efficiency! Now the cops will perform the roles of the judge, the jury and the executioner! Public safety uber alles.

All part of the program, tovarisch!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tovarishch

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Sierra1

We’re finally getting on track with other countries...defending impaired driving is a law firm industry and a farce of justice.
MADD supports it because drunk driving is increasing again after years of decline.
How about another option for those who want their day in court...you get convicted...you lose your driving PRIVILEGE for life.
That sound fair?

Even people accused of murder are entitled to a trial, so why wouldn't a person accused of impaired driving get a trial?

But if you want to try to penalize people for demanding their right to a day in court, make the other option that the officer that presented the charges lose his license for life for making a false accusation, if the accused is found not guilty. That sounds just as fair.

[CMichaud]

I am confused by this story....

If I remember right, decriminalized does not mean legal.

The new rules will see administrative penalties eg suspension (already happening) instead of criminal charges....however....

It seems that Police will have the ability to lay criminal charges at their discretion which will mean administrative penalties will also be in effect?

Officers will be given wide discretion whether to criminally charge those who blow over the legal limit. But, for the most part, first time offenders will see roadside administrative sanctions rather than face criminal charges according to CBC sources.

This is where I really get confused as isn't this exactly why the Government had to come up with a new policy?

The changes follow an Alberta Court of Appeal decision in May that struck down existing drunk driving laws. The province's top court found tying the suspension of a driver's licence to the outcome of their court case was unconstitutional.

So confused........

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by Sierra1

We’re finally getting on track with other countries...defending impaired driving is a law firm industry and a farce of justice.
MADD supports it because drunk driving is increasing again after years of decline.
How about another option for those who want their day in court...you get convicted...you lose your driving PRIVILEGE for life.
That sound fair?

Yes

[roper1]

Smoke a fat one & head 'er home. No prob crossing the border, no criminal record affecting employment, MADD thinks this is good why?

[sns2]

Originally Posted by JReed

It’s ironic that these scummy lawyers are whining in the article that these changes are over dollars and cents, when they’re the one’s getting these losers off on petty technicalities over “dollars and cents”

Don’t want a licence suspension, impound fees, or time in court.......then don’t drink and drive. It’s pretty simple

You sir deserve a prize! Pretty simple I would say.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Even people accused of murder are entitled to a trial, so why wouldn't a person accused of impaired driving get a trial?

But if you want to try to penalize people for demanding their right to a day in court, make the other option that the officer that presented the charges lose his license for life for making a false accusation, if the accused is found not guilty. That sounds just as fair.

This too deserves a prize.

[sns2]

You know what a good system would be? Put a blower on the wheel of every vehicle that detects both booze and pot. It's not foolproof, but it's a helluva lot better than drunks and stoners killing people on our roads, and to a lesser extent clogging up our courts. If you are not a boozehound or stoned you should have no objection to such a system.

[bucksman]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Even people accused of murder are entitled to a trial, so why wouldn't a person accused of impaired driving get a trial?

But if you want to try to penalize people for demanding their right to a day in court, make the other option that the officer that presented the charges lose his license for life for making a false accusation, if the accused is found not guilty. That sounds just as fair.

Do you have any rich friends that always get out of their DUI’s by paying a hefty fine but have been caught multiple times? This is cancelling that out...

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by bucksman

Do you have any rich friends that always get out of their DUI’s by paying a hefty fine but have been caught multiple times? This is cancelling that out...

The fines and no criminal charges is a lot cheaper than a good lawyer.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by bucksman

Do you have any rich friends that always get out of their DUI’s by paying a hefty fine but have been caught multiple times? This is cancelling that out...

It is also taking away our right to a trial to defend ourselves in a court of law, which is a basic right in all free countries. When our most basic rights are taken from us, our society is doomed.

[Silvercreek]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Just what we need, more police issuing long term suspensions and impounding vehicles for long terms, costing owners thousands of dollars, without a chance to defend yourself in a court of law. More of our rights taken away, and one step closer to being a police state.

When did driving impaired become 1 of your rights?

If you are stupid enough to drink and drive you deserve everything you get.

[Scott N]

Originally Posted by Silvercreek

When did driving impaired become 1 of your rights?

If you are stupid enough to drink and drive you deserve everything you get.

I think the obvious point is that everyone accused of impaired driving aren't actually guilty of impaired driving.

edit: poor choice of words... just because someone accuses you of something, it doesn't always mean that the accusation is true.

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by Silvercreek

When did driving impaired become 1 of your rights?

If you are stupid enough to drink and drive you deserve everything you get.

Don't be ridiculous, no one thinks they have the right to drink and drive and you know that. Every one is entitled to a fair trial, that's the basis of our entire legal system, that is the point being made.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Silvercreek

When did driving impaired become 1 of your rights?

If you are stupid enough to drink and drive you deserve everything you get.

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension if you think my post is saying that we have the right to drive while impaired. I am simply stating that we have the right to a day in court , whether we are accused of a minor offense like exceeding the posted speed limit, or a criminal offense like murder, and that should not change. Our entire legal system is based on our right to a trial, so it is one of our most basic rights, a right that should never be taken away from us. You might be willing to live in a police state, where the police become the judge, jury and executioner, but myself and many other people prefer a free country where we still have some rights.

[58thecat]

I know of a few scumbags that were guilty as hell and got off with a scumbag lawyer....sad.
Driving is a privileged, not a right, break the rules and the penalties should be harsh but the snowflakes will squeeeeeel and as always there will be heard first.

[Unregistered user]

Well I guess I picked the wrong year to quit drinkin'!

[silver]

Originally Posted by JReed

Don’t want a licence suspension, impound fees, or time in court.......then don’t drink and drive. It’s pretty simple

Don't be SUSPECTED of drinking and driving.