Cops don't like new drinking and driving laws

[Kreskin]

It's refreshing to know that the police know this is a joke too.

B.C.’s harsh new drunk-driving laws are stretching police resources, says Vancouver Police Union president Tom Stamatakis.

Officers now face the potential for more pursuits and are wasting time waiting for tow trucks and taxis after vehicles are impounded, he says.

“Ultimately, from a front-line police officer’s perspective, we’re ending up not targeting the person that’s responsible for the very serious tragedies that we deal with on an ongoing basis,” said Stamatakis.

“Even if you support the change of regulations, I don’t think any of us support the fact that we’ve now become the judge and the jury. Our job is to enforce the law and another part of our criminal justice system should be dealing with the guilt or innocence thing and imposing what the penalties should be.”



Read more: Police union says tough drunk-driving laws targeting the wrong drinkers

 

[taxslave]

This and the rules against cell phones have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with turning the police into a revenue stream for cash strapped governments now that municipalities get a cut of the take.

 

[Unforgiven]

All the politicians are lawyers or corporate sycophants. What should we expect from them? From law school onward, they are told over and over that they are special, head and shoulders above the crowd. The cream of the crop. The only people they talk to are other lawyers and corporate sycophants that are either trying to cut the legs out from under them or suck up to them to further their own career. We haven't attracted the best and brightest to the job, we've attracted the slipperiest and the greedy to the job. So we get legislation that fails to address the problem. Generates tons of unspecified cash and gives the legal system leverage over the average person who will plea bargain rather than go broke paying for the lawyer to take it to trial.

Because they have had a drink or two that what was legal not long ago. Those who pound the booze and drive like a maniac do so anyway regardless of the laws and fail to pay. How many times does it take for someone who doesn't give a damn to do some time?

The problem is changing that is a bitch and for the most part, we don't like to do anything difficult and not for our own immediate gratification.

 

[Colpy]

Actually, this is what you get when you let control freaks like MADD dictate policy.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Wow, didn't I mention what a goatfest this would probably turn into when the issue was first posted a while back? I just didn't think the police would be against it too, considering is has the potential of boosting their budget. They are right that they are targeting the wrong people, my neighbour was instrumental in instituting impaired driving enforcement in the Maritimes while he was in the force years ago; it is not the social tippler who is the problem, in his experience it is the ones who blow 1.6 and over, (and statisics still back this up). He is thoroughly disgusted that NS has now lowered the threshold to .05, these people are not the problem but now will stretch resourses that won't be available to deal with the real problem.

Actually, this is what you get when you let control freaks like MADD dictate policy.

The real problem is when we let these people dictate policy, much like the CGC, to name one other. It is often a matter of misplaced anger and retribution. Not only do they target the offender, but they target anyone who looks like him or her. To work through their greif they have to do something they deem as positive to themselves regarless of the scorched earth they leave behind. Anyone who disagrees is labeled indefferent and/or insensitive, and therefore part of the problem. Nobody wants to be tarred with that brush, and possibly become a specific target, so everyone just keeps quiet. Emotionally charged issues always lead to bad policy that threatens to ensnare many innocents in a widely cast net, and the real control freaks in government like it that way.

 

[#juan]

Wow, didn't I mention what a goatfest this would probably turn into when the issue was first posted a while back? I just didn't think the police would be against it too, considering is has the potential of boosting their budget. They are right that they are targeting the wrong people, my neighbour was instrumental in instituting impaired driving enforcement in the Maritimes while he was in the force years ago; it is not the social tippler who is the problem, in his experience it is the ones who blow 1.6 and over, (and statisics still back this up). He is thoroughly disgusted that NS has now lowered the threshold to .05, these people are not the problem but now will stretch resourses that won't be available to deal with the real problem.



The real problem is when we let these people dictate policy, much like the CGC, to name one other. It is often a matter of misplaced anger and retribution. Not only do they target the offender, but they target anyone who looks like him or her. To work through their greif they have to do something they deem as positive to themselves regarless of the scorched earth they leave behind. Anyone who disagrees is labeled indefferent and/or insensitive, and therefore part of the problem. Nobody wants to be tarred with that brush, and possibly become a specific target, so everyone just keeps quiet. Emotionally charged issues always lead to bad policy that threatens to ensnare many innocents in a widely cast net, and the real control freaks in government like it that way.

While I wouldn't call MADD freaks, I tend to agree that their emotional onslaught is not bringing a rational solution. Campbell is just a politician jumping on the "hate drunk driver" bandwagon. The government have always been hypocrites in this matter. They love all those lovely taxes that booze brings in but they don't assume any of the responsibility. Making criminals where there were none is just foolish and it will come back and bite them in the ass.

 

[petros]

What are these new horrible laws? Why would they be an issue unless you drive drunk. Those whining don't drive drunk do they?

 

[JLM]

I look at this new legislation as being a valuable tool for the cops to use to remove bad drivers from the road. A smart cop wouldn't sit outside a restaurant waiting to check patrons for sobriety. He would be parked 3 or 4 blocks down the road watching for tailgating, weeving in and out of traffic and drivers cutting off other drivers while changing lanes, failure to yield to pedestrians etc. So that anyone he stops is already guilty of bad driving. Only a fool would turn it into a witch hunt. :smile:

 

[#juan]

What are these new horrible laws? Why would they be an issue unless you drive drunk. Those whining don't drive drunk do they?

No. They don't. What Campbell is doing is widening the net to catch more revenue. Federal law has determined that a blood alcohol
level of point zero eight is evidence of impairment. Campbell lowered that level to point zero five. As we can see, it is not a reasonable solution. It causes hardships on both sides.

 

[JLM]

What are these new horrible laws? Why would they be an issue unless you drive drunk. Those whining don't drive drunk do they?

Exactly, if you are out dining the safest way is just to drink coffee and tie into the booze after you get home. Not a difficult solution. :smile:

 

[petros]

Campbell lowered that level to point zero five. As we can see, it is not a reasonable solution. It causes hardships on both sides.

They dropped it to .04 in SK years ago. We all died and nobody survived. It was a horrible thing.

Don't drink, toke or take pills (yes pills) before getting behind the wheel.

 

[JLM]

No. They don't. What Campbell is doing is widening the net to catch more revenue. Federal law has determined that a blood alcohol
level of point zero eight is evidence of impairment. Campbell lowered that level to point zero five. As we can see, it is not a reasonable solution. It causes hardships on both sides.

If he can get his revenue from people drinking and driving, all the more power to him, just eases my tax load. (in theory) :smile:

 

[petros]

Once the RFID license plate scanners are installed in all cop cars, traffic revenues are going to skyrocket anyway.

If you need more than 2 drinks with dinner then you might have a drinking problem.

 

[Spade]

No whine before its time!
Next, the abolition of parking lots at pubs and licenced restaurants. The provision of parking lots is aiding and abetting!

 

[#juan]

Once the RFID license plate scanners are installed in all cop cars, traffic revenues are going to skyrocket anyway.

If you need more than 2 drinks with dinner then you might have a drinking problem.

Here is the guy who wants DD penalties to be stiffer:

 

[petros]

A crack smoker will always blow 0.0..... I for one fully support the lowering and issuing of more 24hr roadside suspension if the suspect fails the roadside dance.

That roadside dance is what pulls the crack smokers like Campbell off the roads and gives police the ability to search vehicles for contraband once again.

I hope that helps paint a bigger picture.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

If he can get his revenue from people drinking and driving, all the more power to him, just eases my tax load. (in theory) :smile:

The problem with theories is sort of like the MacGyver syndrome, it never works when used in real life. The government has endless streams of revenue, and out here with million dollar fines for fishing infractions, contraband tobacco and such, and our taxes just keep going up. The revenue doesn't cover the costs of increased enforcement.

If you need more than 2 drinks with dinner then you might have a drinking problem.

2 glasses of wine at dinner is fairly minor, it won't put you over .08, but will likely put you over .05, and almost certainly over .04. A .04 BAC is likely less of an impairment than spending 12 hours at work and not having eaten in the past six. Maybe the next thing will be having to keep working and eating logs so people can be charged with having unacceptible levels of fatigue and low blood sugar.

 

[#juan]

The problem with theories is sort of like the MacGyver syndrome, it never works when used in real life. The government has endless streams of revenue, and out here with million dollar fines for fishing infractions, contraband tobacco and such, and our taxes just keep going up. The revenue doesn't cover the costs of increased enforcement.



2 glasses of wine at dinner is fairly minor, it won't put you over .08, but will likely put you over .05, and almost certainly over .04. A .04 BAC is likely less of an impairment than spending 12 hours at work and not having eaten in the past six. Maybe the next thing will be having to keep working and eating logs so people can be charged with having unacceptible levels of fatigue and low blood sugar.

2 glasses of wine at dinner is fairly minor, it won't put you over .08, but will likely put you over .05,

Two glasses of wine over an hour and a half with dinner would not put an average sized man over.05 but our government
changing the rules down to that is ridiculous.

I would rather not drive and have four glasses of wine with dinner if felt like it.

 

[JLM]

Two glasses of wine over an hour and a half with dinner would not put an average sized man over.05 but our government
changing the rules down to that is ridiculous.

I would rather not drive and have four glasses of wine with dinner if felt like it.

I never did find a wine that tastes better than root beer.

 

[#juan]

I never did find a wine that tastes better than root beer.

JLM I'm disappointed. I though you would have been a connoisseur of fine wines. The rest of the conoisseurs would definitely disagree
with you though.....Lol