B.C.s new drunk driving laws

[JLM]

yup, I'll never forget that incident, our drunken premier, what a joke, and no one even flinched, just
let him carry on, as I said before, if that had been the NDP premier, campbell and his cronies, along with
the lawyers, and police, would have had him thrown out of office, just like they did with that trumped up
fake charge that did ended Clarke's premiership.

That was another good thing that happened, knocked that supercilious grin right off his face. :lol::lol::lol:

Then they should put their own money where their mouth is and ban all liquor sales at restaurants. The presumption that everyone (or even anyone) takes a taxi or bus to and from a restaurant doesn't pass the laugh test.

Or use a designated driver or walk to the restaurant.

 

[Kreskin]

That was another good thing that happened, knocked that supercilious grin right off his face. :lol::lol::lol:



Or use a designated driver or walk to the restaurant.

And for public safety (which this is all about..right?) they should arrive with a notarize declaration of their non-driving status before alcohol is sold or consumed.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Let's face it. If any government was really serious about stopping drunken driving it would order the police to park their vehicles outside bars and administer random breathalyzers. They might also consider monitoring liquor stores and cheking out a few of the patrons heading in for a little late night shopping.

 

[JLM]

Let's face it. If any government was really serious about stopping drunken driving it would order the police to park their vehicles outside bars and administer random breathalyzers. They might also consider monitoring liquor stores and cheking out a few of the patrons heading in for a little late night shopping.

I agree, but lawyers screw things up for the cops. One guy was stopped and checked for drugs and sure enough he had the drugs in the vehicle, but the case was thrown out of court because the lawyer made the point that the cops didn't have any reason to stop him in the first place because he wasn't doing anything suspicious. Never mind the fact that the cop has a sixth sense or hunch about the guy. I would say it was just good police work.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I agree, but lawyers screw things up for the cops. One guy was stopped and checked for drugs and sure enough he had the drugs in the vehicle, but the case was thrown out of court because the lawyer made the point that the cops didn't have any reason to stop him in the first place because he wasn't doing anything suspicious. Never mind the fact that the cop has a sixth sense or hunch about the guy. I would say it was just good police work.

Lawyers might well do their best to screw things up, but somehow I expect that someone coming out of a bar and getting into his car might be just the excuse the police need to see if he is indeed sober. To do otherwise is to play games with drunks by giving them a fighting chance to escape detection; that is until they run into someone.

 

[TenPenny]

I agree, but lawyers screw things up for the cops. One guy was stopped and checked for drugs and sure enough he had the drugs in the vehicle, but the case was thrown out of court because the lawyer made the point that the cops didn't have any reason to stop him in the first place because he wasn't doing anything suspicious. Never mind the fact that the cop has a sixth sense or hunch about the guy. I would say it was just good police work.

I thought that was our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Under your ideas, the police could storm your house and do a search for illegal items at any time, with no reason, and no warrant?

 

[Praxius]

Is this acceptable? B.C.'s tough new drunk-driving laws kick in Monday - The Newsroom

Sounds fine to me.... if you're going to drink, then you shouldn't be driving.... why this is so complicated for so many idiots out there who continually think they're fine after a couple of drinks is beyond me.

Besides, they have to have a justifiable reason to pull you over to check if you were drinking in the first place, so if you're obeying the laws, not speeding, the car isn't going into other lanes it shouldn't and if you get home perfectly fine without killing anybody..... and you may have only had one beer, maybe two an hour and a half before you drove...... then what's the problem?

 

[JLM]

I thought that was our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Under your ideas, the police could storm your house and do a search for illegal items at any time, with no reason, and no warrant?

The fact he had the drugs negates what you say. They do that stuff at the border crossings all the time and often don't find anything illegal. :smile::smile:

Sounds fine to me.... if you're going to drink, then you shouldn't be driving.... why this is so complicated for so many idiots out there who continually think they're fine after a couple of drinks is beyond me.

Besides, they have to have a justifiable reason to pull you over to check if you were drinking in the first place, so if you're obeying the laws, not speeding, the car isn't going into other lanes it shouldn't and if you get home perfectly fine without killing anybody..... and you may have only had one beer, maybe two an hour and a half before you drove...... then what's the problem?

Exactly- it ain't rocket science :lol::lol::lol:

 

[TenPenny]

The fact he had the drugs negates what you say. They do that stuff at the border crossings all the time and often don't find anything illegal. :smile::smile:

Border crossings are a completely different story - you are asking for permission to enter a country.

So, the fact that he had something makes it okay? If the police randomly search your house without a warrant, and find something, that would be okay then.

The whole point of the law is to protect you from random, unreasonable searches of your person and property. The police know the rules, and any policeman worth his salt knows how to make a traffic stop that allows him to search a vehicle.

 

[JLM]

Border crossings are a completely different story - you are asking for permission to enter a country.

So, the fact that he had something makes it okay? If the police randomly search your house without a warrant, and find something, that would be okay then.

The whole point of the law is to protect you from random, unreasonable searches of your person and property. The police know the rules, and any policeman worth his salt knows how to make a traffic stop that allows him to search a vehicle.

You're half right, half the vehicles are returning to their country of origin. You are going to have to get up a little earlier in the morning TP, either that or quit trying to out debate me. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Machjo]

Is this acceptable? B.C.'s tough new drunk-driving laws kick in Monday - The Newsroom

Very appropriate. Drinking is a choice.

 

[wulfie68]

I'm a little confused by this because I thought impaired driving was a criminal code offense and thus the responsibility of the Feds, not the provinces. I understand that driving laws, highway traffic acts, etc are responsibilities of the provinces, thus the penalties become up to them, but I am surprised this could be constitutional when it goes beyond the penalties and into the threshold. I'm also with Karrie in that I think this is a discriminatory in that they are changing the definition of alcoholic impairment while not revisiting other substances (be they legal or not).

 

[TenPenny]

You're half right, half the vehicles are returning to their country of origin. You are going to have to get up a little earlier in the morning TP, either that or quit trying to out debate me. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

If you are returning to Canada, you are entering the country. You might also be returning, but upon crossing a border, you are either entering or exiting the country.

Doorways are similar things. You are either entering or exiting. Just because it's your own house doesn't mean you are not entering when you come in.

I know, reading is difficult. Try more scotch, less ice.

 

[JLM]

I'm a little confused by this because I thought impaired driving was a criminal code offense and thus the responsibility of the Feds, not the provinces. I understand that driving laws, highway traffic acts, etc are responsibilities of the provinces, thus the penalties become up to them, but I am surprised this could be constitutional when it goes beyond the penalties and into the threshold. I'm also with Karrie in that I think this is a discriminatory in that they are changing the definition of alcoholic impairment while not revisiting other substances (be they legal or not).

Hi Wulfie - I'm not sure of this but I think what the Feds set are probably the minimum standards and if the provinces wish to increase the standards it's really no skin off the Fed's ass. I don't think what the province has done so far precludes them from doing what Karrie suggests. Rome weren't built in a day. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

If you are returning to Canada, you are entering the country. You might also be returning, but upon crossing a border, you are either entering or exiting the country.

Doorways are similar things. You are either entering or exiting. Just because it's your own house doesn't mean you are not entering when you come in.

I know, reading is difficult. Try more scotch, less ice.

Any half witted moron knows that, I'm surprised you just figured it out now. :smile:

I think before everyone gets their knickers in a knot over this thing, there's a couple of things to remember. This is just a tool the cops have been given to try to reduce carnage and mayhem on the roads. No sensible cop is going to be pulling drivers over just for the hell of it to see if they can "catch" somebody with 0.05. The smart cop will pull drivers over who are weaving, speeding, tailgating or driving a defective vehicle etc. & if that driver looks like he may be into the sauce, then the cop can take a breath sample and proceed from there. This may save your grand child or mine so you shouldn't knock it. There are two other potential benefits from this, it keeps the parasites (defence lawyers) from syphoning funds off it and I'm betting in three or four years you'll see our insurance rates come down. :smile:

 

[#juan]

I can see your points, but what would you say if you knew this new law saved one child's life...................would it be worth it? Better to either hire a cab or take the booze home to drink it.

This new set of laws are unlikely to save anyone. The government still enables drinking in restaurants, pubs, etc. The government is sweeping up the tax money and they want to fine people for using their services. The new drunk driving laws are B.S. brought in to
try to buy votes

 

[Kreskin]

It is underhanded taxation. The government is addicted to booze revenue. With less people drinking and driving they need to get money from somewhere.

 

[JLM]

This new set of laws are unlikely to save anyone. The government still enables drinking in restaurants, pubs, etc. The government is sweeping up the tax money and they want to fine people for using their services. The new drunk driving laws are B.S. brought in to
try to buy votes

#Juan.......................So what you are saying is with fewer impaired drivers on the road, there won't be any less carnage and mayhem? Is that your message? :smile:

It is underhanded taxation. The government is addicted to booze revenue. With less people drinking and driving they need to get money from somewhere.

Sorry but I just can't quite work up any sympathy for law breakers who contribute to the "tax" revenue. :lol:

 

[Kreskin]

#Juan.......................So what you are saying is with fewer impaired drivers on the road, there won't be any less carnage and mayhem? Is that your message? :smile:



Sorry but I just can't quite work up any sympathy for law breakers who contribute to the "tax" revenue. :lol:

They weren't breaking any law until the Province invented a law they could use to extort money.

 

[JLM]

They weren't breaking any law until the Province invented a law they could use to extort money.

I've probably had as much experience with drinking and driving as anyone albeit over 30 years ago and very lucky for me, didn't injure anyone or get charged with any infractions, BUT I am very aware of how even a small amount of booze can affect you. But there is even a bigger issue than that, how would you feel if you had had 2 or 3 drinks and were driving home properly and a little kid rolled out on the road in front of you on his tricycle and was killed? If I hadn't had anything to drink it would be terrible, if I'd had something to drink it would destroy me. That's what I think about so in almost 30 years haven't driven after having even one drink. It's just not worth the risk.............taxies are so cheap.

 

[Cliffy]

This new set of laws are unlikely to save anyone. The government still enables drinking in restaurants, pubs, etc. The government is sweeping up the tax money and they want to fine people for using their services. The new drunk driving laws are B.S. brought in to
try to buy votes

Who's votes? With no one to really oppose the Glibs in the next election, I think we can expect more of the same ol' crap - give away the province to the lowest bidder ala IPPs and foreign owned TFLs. An old Socred trick thanks to the two Bennets and Vanderscam. Time for BC to stop thinking like a third world country with nothing to offer than raw resources.