B.C.'s new drunk driving laws declared unconstitutional

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Scott N

I agree... while I can see what the new law is trying to do, it's focusing on the wrong group of people.

you give the government too much credit, they want to do this as a pilot project under the guise of protecting us to see how much people can take and how many rights they are willing to give up. so they can use it elsewhere when it fits their plans, land stewardship bill anybody?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by spaded

I guess it is a hard concept for some to understand.
don't drink and drive seems simple enough to me,

Good luck, hope you don't hit any checkstops and if you do and you do happen to lose the privilege of driving all because you had 2 drinks, I say you deserve it. One less idiot on the road.
you can sit at home on the ao trying to justify the fact that you have every right to drink a few before driving....

Well, I for one am glad that the proposed legislation does not infringe upon your lifestyle. Fortunately, you do not get to make the rules for a .00 BAC. As far as your hopes for people that like to have a sociable drink on occasion......maybe there's a ditch somewhere between your house and your Temperate Movement meeting with your name on it.

[rwm1273]

It seems too many people here have forgotten what the first temperance movement caused.

[Scott N]

I'd like to know how some of you guys / gals who support these new laws and changes would feel if you got pulled over, had not had a drink, but due to a problem with the equipment, blow over .05? Would you still support the immediate (without any chance of defending yourself) suspension of your license and impoundment of your vehicle? If you lost your job to a BS charge, would you still support the new powers that police have? They now have the right to be your judge. The police and their equipment are not perfect, and that's why our current legal system gives a person the right to defend themselves.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Scott N

I'd like to know how some of you guys / gals who support these new laws and changes would feel if you got pulled over, had not had a drink, but due to a problem with the equipment, blow over .05? Would you still support the immediate (without any chance of defending yourself) suspension of your license and impoundment of your vehicle? If you lost your job to a BS charge, would you still support the new powers that police have? They now have the right to be your judge. The police and their equipment are not perfect, and that's why our current legal system gives a person the right to defend themselves.

excellent point.

wait til a few more guys and girls challenge this is court and win, what will the people who support them do then?

[rwm1273]

For the most part I believe police try to do a good job given the circumstances, however there are a few out there who are only in it for the power they get to wield. Those are the ones that can ruin your whole day, and will cause the most problems, because the government just gave them more power to control you.

Remember that waste of skin who was the former chief's son? Remember all the complaints about him? Just imagine what he would do with this new law. 65yrs ago he would have been gladly stuffing ovens. 45yrs ago he would have been burning crosses.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

For the most part I believe police try to do a good job given the circumstances, however there are a few out there who are only in it for the power they get to wield. Those are the ones that can ruin your whole day, and will cause the most problems, because the government just gave them more power to control you.

Remember that waste of skin who was the former chief's son? Remember all the complaints about him? Just imagine what he would do with this new law. 65yrs ago he would have been gladly stuffing ovens. 45yrs ago he would have been burning crosses.

washalyshin?

listen most cops are decent hard working guys who believe in their cause, but some are your typical guy who powerlifts at the local gym and stares in the mirror more than he works out, this will be abused as much or more than cops abuse other rights, the courts and lawyers are the balance to meathead cops,take that out of the equasion then their meatheadedness will only grow.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

washalyshin?

listen most cops are decent hard working guys who believe in their cause, but some are your typical guy who powerlifts at the local gym and stares in the mirror more than he works out, this will be abused as much or more than cops abuse other rights, the courts and lawyers are the balance to meathead cops,take that out of the equasion then their meatheadedness will only grow.

This is exactly why I am against providing police the power to be judge, jury, and executioner all at the side of the road.

How many people will suffer I don't know, but I do know there will be suffering. And the wrong people will suffer. This law does not stop drunk driving. Period.

[BGSH]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

when you stretch to compare nazi attrocities to reducing deaths due to drunk driving...ummm...you win. Best razzie post of the thread award.

I think you should be able to drink and drive, what the hell, but know your limit, if you are tipsy and leave the club, take a cab home, if you have one beer you are fine to drive, look at all the pot heads smoking up in there vehicle and driving, what happens to them, jack all, you never here anything about people who smoke up or on heavy drugs and driving, wake up people..

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by BGSH

I think you should be able to drink and drive, what the hell, but know your limit,

I got nothing against the current limit. It has been tested, and tested, and retested, and it has been proven to be an acceptable limit.

[BGSH]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

I got nothing against the current limit. It has been tested, and tested, and retested, and it has been proven to be an acceptable limit.

Have you ever been pulled over by the POLICE before? trust me man they do not care if you have ten drinks or a sip, trust me man, they take you through the test and all that crap and will still tow your car even if not been drinking over the limit or will look for any excuse to give you a fine.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by BGSH

Have you ever been pulled over by the POLICE before? trust me man they do not care if you have ten drinks or a sip, trust me man, they take you through the test and all that crap and will still tow your car even if not been drinking over the limit or will look for any excuse to give you a fine.

Yes I have been pulled over. Yes I have had to blow, and guess what. I blew green, but still lost my license for 24hrs because I told the cop I had drank a couple beers that evening. I know exactly what happens when you give some police too much power.

I have also worked in a few countries where I would get stopped 3 or 4 times on the way to work because I was the white guy driving by. Unless they had a gun or had a radio in hand, I would not stop, because all it was was a shake down.

We do not need to give our police more powers. I do not need to be shaken down in this country too.

[BGSH]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Yes I have been pulled over. Yes I have had to blow, and guess what. I blew green, but still lost my license for 24hrs because I told the cop I had drank a couple beers that evening. I know exactly what happens when you give some police too much power.

I have also worked in a few countries where I would get stopped 3 or 4 times on the way to work because I was the white guy driving by. Unless they had a gun or had a radio in hand, I would not stop, because all it was was a shake down.

We do not need to give our police more powers. I do not need to be shaken down in this country too.

Oh come on man, it will be fun if they take out the weapon and out it to our head and ask if we have been drinking tonight, wouldnt it?? other countries have there own issues worst then drinking and driving far worst like flies to butter,.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by BGSH

Oh come on man, it will be fun if they take out the weapon and out it to our head and ask if we have been drinking tonight, wouldnt it?? other countries have there own issues worst then drinking and driving far worst like flies to butter,.

Shawn

Have you been drinking again?

[BGSH]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Shawn

Have you been drinking again?

Yea, just started, going out to the club in a bit, but getting a ride there and back though

[hornhead]

sounds to me like you are turning the police into "Judge Dredd", especially if you have no recourse to trial.

power corrupts, total power corrupts totally.

cheers

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

The 50% stat is BS, ICBC claims only 40%. They give no definition for alcohol related death. What does alcohol "related death" mean? BAC over 0.08 in a driver? We found a full case of beer in the trunk? There were 50 empty rum bottles in the back seat? We found a beer cap under the floor mat? With the vagaries in the reports any of those could mean "alcohol related". In order for the stat to be useful we need to know what the BAC levels of drivers involved in accidents were before/after the laws came in. What other changes were made to the highway traffic act during that year?

As you say the lifetime ban doesn't work, neither does charging and convicting people who are not drunk at the side of the road. Circumventing due process can only lead to abuse. The system is there for a reason.

You defeat your own argument, the guy had three previous impaireds, no license and was still driving. Lock HIM up and throw away the keys, leave Grandma and her glass of wine with lunch alone.

40%...50%...neither are insignificant life saving statistic.

If you actually read what I wrote...maybe you could comment on it better. I said if 40 or 50% reduction in deaths is attributed to this law...then likely this law is effecting change in behavior. Yes...chronic drunk drivers...will continue to try and drive...but in essence the financial penalties and removal of their vehicle for longer and longer periods will work wonders...as a long term fix.

So...there are short term behavioral changes to those that imbibe to much once they get started..plus longer term behavioral changes for standard alcoholics.

As for your grandmother driving at an old age with one drink...yes please stop her now. She is likely a danger to herself and others.

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

It sure is hard for some to understand what the government is actually doing.

This new law is not about getting drunks off the road. That is what check stops do. This new law is all about appearing to do something, when in fact they are doing nothing but taking more rights away.

Some people on here need to understand that a drink does not make one a drunk or impaired. There have been many people who posted about European laws, however very few could even point out which European countries have what laws. When I worked in France, we were permitted to have wine with our lunch, and in fact it was supplied by our employer in the cafeteria. Same thing in Germany. The crew room had a beer vending machine.

In some people's industries, it is common to go for a wet lunch or dinner with a client. When I was in the military, it was common for a bosses night when the bosses bought the first round of drinks. Most people respect the laws, and don't drink and drive. There is nothing wrong with having one drink with some wings after work, and then driving home. You are not close to impaired, nor close to the legal limit of .08, which has been a good limit since it was introduced to law in 1969.

The new law is about stopping behavior likely...being proactive rather than reactive. Once a drunk is behind the wheel it is too late. While sheer luck may catch the odd one before they kill someone...nothing beats stopping them before they break the law. Everyone stays safe then.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

you give the government too much credit, they want to do this as a pilot project under the guise of protecting us to see how much people can take and how many rights they are willing to give up. so they can use it elsewhere when it fits their plans, land stewardship bill anybody?

Sure is a stretch to make this a conspiracy. A conspiracy to save lives...keep drunks off the street...just to get a bill through on something else?

Seriously.

While I have some skepticism on stats...there sure is teeth behind the merit.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by BGSH

Have you ever been pulled over by the POLICE before? trust me man they do not care if you have ten drinks or a sip, trust me man, they take you through the test and all that crap and will still tow your car even if not been drinking over the limit or will look for any excuse to give you a fine.

another police is evil rant.

give it a rest.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Sure is a stretch to make this a conspiracy. A conspiracy to save lives...keep drunks off the street...just to get a bill through on something else?

Seriously.

While I have some skepticism on stats...there sure is teeth behind the merit.

so your saying governments don't take people's rights away bit by bit? have you not been paying attention the last few decades?

maybe the governments has the best intentions I don't know but I can bet someone in the back room is thinking "well if they gave up a few rights for that what else can we get away with", it happens all the time.maybe they won't need a warrant to enter your house anymore? maybe they don't have to read you your rights who knows, but once they take them away they are very very hard to get back.

[greylynx]

This province currently has a bad deficit.

I find this drinking law as a temporary diversion to hide the real problems that Alberta is experiencing.

Redford goes liberal and creates a straw man drinking law to blow down, and everyone is upset.

Let us look at the big picture.

We have a deficit in Alberta, We have health care problems. We have infrastructure problems.

Redford can not handle the big problems. Redford will continue her little liberal laws until there is another leadership review and she is gone like Stelmach.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by greylynx

This province currently has a bad deficit.

I find this drinking law as a temporary diversion to hide the real problems that Alberta is experiencing.

Redford goes liberal and creates a straw man drinking law to blow down, and everyone is upset.

Let us look at the big picture.

We have a deficit in Alberta, We have health care problems. We have infrastructure problems.

Redford can not handle the big problems Alberta has a will continue her little liberal laws until there is another leadership review and she is gone like Stelmach.

never thought of it that way, you may be onto something, a diversion.

[ctd]

The best way to solve this issue is to limit all vehicles to working only between 0700hrs and 1700hrs M-F and only 1000hrs to 15hrs S-S.

Being realistic.
Today on Hwy2 to Hwy 1 and back again I seen no less then 6 cars in the ditch. Two vehicle collisons. I doubt that any of those people were drunk, had one or two drinks.... But I bet they were driving outside of their abilites and their vehicles capabilites...
Yet we have a law that states driving speeds are under ideal conditions. We were doining 60 in 4x4 and being blown all over the road at times and getting passed by people flying by us.

I vote to reduce speed limits to 50km/hr on all major highways and secondary roads. Also to lower all speed limits within town to 20km/hr or less...

It is a proven fact that reducing speed results in shorter stopping distances, better control of a vehicle and less vehicle collisions. That is actually proven.

You think it sounds stupid, and extreme, I agree but it will stop those who may go over the speed and get into a incident from getting into one in the first place. Now we have reduced the number one killer on roadways in Canada. "Speeding"

It is being proactive in the prevention of vehicle collisions. As is reducing the limit from .08 to .05.

Next law is to install cameras to moniter bad drivers.......

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by ctd

The best way to solve this issue is to limit all vehicles to working only between 0700hrs and 1700hrs M-F and only 1000hrs to 15hrs S-S.

Being realistic.
Today on Hwy2 to Hwy 1 and back again I seen no less then 6 cars in the ditch. Two vehicle collisons. I doubt that any of those people were drunk, had one or two drinks.... But I bet they were driving outside of their abilites and their vehicles capabilites...
Yet we have a law that states driving speeds are under ideal conditions. We were doining 60 in 4x4 and being blown all over the road at times and getting passed by people flying by us.

I vote to reduce speed limits to 50km/hr on all major highways and secondary roads. Also to lower all speed limits within town to 20km/hr or less...

It is a proven fact that reducing speed results in shorter stopping distances, better control of a vehicle and less vehicle collisions. That is actually proven.

You think it sounds stupid, and extreme, I agree but it will stop those who may go over the speed and get into a incident from getting into one in the first place. Now we have reduced the number one killer on roadways in Canada. "Speeding"

It is being proactive in the prevention of vehicle collisions. As is reducing the limit from .08 to .05.

Next law is to install cameras to moniter bad drivers.......

they already have them they are called photo radar and red light camera's.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...2259047/page2/

The magic number

It’s all in one one-hundredth of a per cent. If you get pulled over for a Breathalyzer test and blow 0.08 per cent (that’s 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood), you could be criminally charged with impaired driving. If you’re just under that, you can avoid court.

How did 0.08 become the magic number to indicate drunkenness?

In 1969, based on medical evidence available at the time, 0.08 was entered into the Criminal Code of Canada as the legal limit for blood-alcohol concentration for a driver.

Back then. Canada’s measurement was seen as progressive. Until 2000, when a U.S. federal law set 0.08 as the national standard for the legal limit, many states had theirs at 0.1. Decades earlier, when a few glasses of scotch at the office followed by a handful more at happy hour preceded the drive home, some had them at 0.15 based on recommendation from the American Medical Association, no less. Oh, how times have changed.

Since 0.08 entered the Criminal Code, a batch of new studies has prompted the Canadian Medical Association to recommend the legal limit be changed to 0.05.

Vision impairment starts at 0.03. Steering accuracy takes a nosedive at 0.04. Braking ability decreases by 30 per cent at 0.03. In on-road tests, ability to do tasks that required divided attention declined at 0.04.

Medical research and lobbying on the part of advocacy groups has pushed other countries to adjust their limits. Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. are the only ones in the Western world that still have a 0.08-per-cent legal limit. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Greece have theirs set to 0.05 per cent, while Norway and Sweden’s are at 0.02 per cent.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...2259047/page2/

The magic number

It’s all in one one-hundredth of a per cent. If you get pulled over for a Breathalyzer test and blow 0.08 per cent (that’s 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood), you could be criminally charged with impaired driving. If you’re just under that, you can avoid court.

How did 0.08 become the magic number to indicate drunkenness?

In 1969, based on medical evidence available at the time, 0.08 was entered into the Criminal Code of Canada as the legal limit for blood-alcohol concentration for a driver.

Back then. Canada’s measurement was seen as progressive. Until 2000, when a U.S. federal law set 0.08 as the national standard for the legal limit, many states had theirs at 0.1. Decades earlier, when a few glasses of scotch at the office followed by a handful more at happy hour preceded the drive home, some had them at 0.15 based on recommendation from the American Medical Association, no less. Oh, how times have changed.

Since 0.08 entered the Criminal Code, a batch of new studies has prompted the Canadian Medical Association to recommend the legal limit be changed to 0.05.

Vision impairment starts at 0.03. Steering accuracy takes a nosedive at 0.04. Braking ability decreases by 30 per cent at 0.03. In on-road tests, ability to do tasks that required divided attention declined at 0.04.

Medical research and lobbying on the part of advocacy groups has pushed other countries to adjust their limits. Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. are the only ones in the Western world that still have a 0.08-per-cent legal limit. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Greece have theirs set to 0.05 per cent, while Norway and Sweden’s are at 0.02 per cent.

I have no problem with changing the laws if need be, but they way they are going around it and violating people's rights is never something I will agree with, lobby your mp to change the federal driving limit to .05 and this is a non issue with me.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

so your saying governments don't take people's rights away bit by bit? have you not been paying attention the last few decades?

maybe the governments has the best intentions I don't know but I can bet someone in the back room is thinking "well if they gave up a few rights for that what else can we get away with", it happens all the time.maybe they won't need a warrant to enter your house anymore? maybe they don't have to read you your rights who knows, but once they take them away they are very very hard to get back.

Yes I am saying that. Maybe you should get involved in your community. You will find they are not all out to get you.

As for why there are laws...here is one groups opinion that find civil liberties important. Guess which one falls under drunk driving.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/his...Laws-Exist.htm


Laws exist for five basic reasons, and all of them can be abused.

1. The Harm Principle
Laws created under the Harm Principle are written to protect people from being harmed by others. Laws against violent crime and property crime fall into this category. Without basic Harm Principle laws, a society ultimately degenerates into despotism--the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent. Harm Principle laws are essential, and every government on Earth has them.

2. The Parental Principle
In addition to laws intended to discourage people from harming each other, some laws are written to prohibit self-harm. Parental Principle laws include compulsory attendance laws for children, laws against neglect of children and vulnerable adults, and laws banning the possession of certain drugs. Some Parental Principle laws are essential to protect children and vulnerable adults, but even in those cases they can be oppressive if they are not narrowly written and sensibly enforced.

3. The Morality Principle
Some laws are based not strictly on harm or self-harm concerns, but also on promoting the personal morality of the law's authors. These laws are usually, but not always, grounded in religious belief. Historically, most of these laws have something to do with sex--but some European laws against Holocaust denial and other forms of hate speech also appear to be motivated primarily by the Morality Principle.

4. The Donation Principle
All governments have laws granting goods or services of some kind to its citizens. When these laws are used to control behavior, however, they can give some people, groups, or organizations unfair advantages over others. Laws promoting specific religious beliefs, for example, are gifts that governments extend to religious groups in hopes of gaining their support. Laws punishing certain corporate practices are sometimes used to reward corporations that are in the government's good graces, and/or to punish corporations that are not. Some conservatives argue that many social service initiatives are Donation Principle laws intended to buy the support of low-income voters, who tend to vote Democratic.

5. The Statist Principle
The most dangerous laws are those intended to protect the government from harm, or to increase its power for its own sake. Some Statist Principle laws are necessary--laws against treason and espionage, for example, are essential to the stability of government. But Statist Principle laws can also be dangerous--laws restricting criticism of the government, such as flag burning laws that prohibit the desecration of symbols that remind people of the government, can easily lead to a politically oppressive society full of imprisoned dissidents and frightened citizens who are afraid to speak out.

[ctd]

They should install cameras in every vehilce to moniter distracted drivers..

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

I have no problem with changing the laws if need be, but they way they are going around it and violating people's rights is never something I will agree with, lobby your mp to change the federal driving limit to .05 and this is a non issue with me.

We both agree on that. Police can not be judge, jury and executioner unless they ride a wicked motorbike that flies.

We both agree that changes can be made to the legal alcohol limit as well.

Crazy...but an agreement has been reached

Cheers

Sun