[uwish]

ahhh another Kenmore jab! heavy steps patsy after what is left of this nation under 75 years of liberal ruling.

[mikewood86]

Regina Regina:

gigs gigs:

Regina Regina:

So do you have a problem with the police walking into your house to take a look around for no reason?

What has this got to do with my house? I don't drive my house down the highway.

Whats the difference between this and a regular check stop? When you go through a checkstop now they randomly decide who they're going to check.

So what.......you own your house and you own your car, it's your property and someone is assuming you are guilty of a crime before you've committed one. If you have no problem with a little random road check, then you shouldn't have a problem with them coming into your home to look around to see what they can find. If you've got nothing to hide then this wouldn't be a big deal for you.

He means his house isn't something that can be used to kill someone while being drunk. A car with a drunk driver behind it can.

Is it being proactive for a known problem to better protect everyone on the road, or is it an invasion of privacy and abuse of rights?

It's hard to argue the fact that it is a proven method at reducing alcohol related fatalities. And I don't see how it could be used to discriminate against a certain group, except maybe teenagers? What do they define as random?

[Regina]

mikewood86 mikewood86:

He means his house isn't something that can be used to kill someone while being drunk. A car with a drunk driver behind it can.

Is it being proactive for a known problem to better protect everyone on the road, or is it an invasion of privacy and abuse of rights?

It's hard to argue the fact that it is a proven method at reducing alcohol related fatalities. And I don't see how it could be used to discriminate against a certain group, except maybe teenagers? What do they define as random?

It's only a crime if someone dies? It's also proactive to go through people's houses looking for drugs which also kill......right?

Random means everyone in line and blow in the balloon.

[Annihilator]

Why the hell would anyone mind taking a little test if he's not drunk? I'm no gonna go crazy about our rights being direspected for something that insignificant, if it can get rid of a few drunk drivers, I don't see anything wrong.

[mikewood86]

Regina Regina:

mikewood86 mikewood86:

He means his house isn't something that can be used to kill someone while being drunk. A car with a drunk driver behind it can.

Is it being proactive for a known problem to better protect everyone on the road, or is it an invasion of privacy and abuse of rights?

It's hard to argue the fact that it is a proven method at reducing alcohol related fatalities. And I don't see how it could be used to discriminate against a certain group, except maybe teenagers? What do they define as random?

It's only a crime if someone dies? It's also proactive to go through people's houses looking for drugs which also kill......right?

Random means everyone in line and blow in the balloon.

I see where you are going with this and to a degree I agree with you.

But you can't make a connection between the dangers of drugs in someones house vs the dangers of getting behind the wheel drunk. For one, it is on their own property. While your car is your own property, the road way is not. It is shared with everyone else in the world. I can choose to not go on your property, but I can't choose for you to not get behind the wheel drunk and put me at risk.

[kenmore]

uwish uwish:

ahhh another Kenmore jab! heavy steps patsy after what is left of this nation under 75 years of liberal ruling.

We are the great nation we are because of the years of Liberal Rule... we are in the shit house and usually are because of the tory days of trouble.

[DrCaleb]

Annihilator Annihilator:

Why the hell would anyone mind taking a little test if he's not drunk? I'm no gonna go crazy about our rights being direspected for something that insignificant, if it can get rid of a few drunk drivers, I don't see anything wrong.

Why would anyone mind taking this little urine test, if they have no drugs in their system?

Why would anyone mind taking this little blood test, if they have never had unprotected sex?

You don't mind a little DNA test, to check for genetic abnormalities that might become health problems in the future, do you?

Why would anyone mind providing their banking information, you aren't laundering money are you?

Where does it end?

[mikewood86]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Annihilator Annihilator:

Why the hell would anyone mind taking a little test if he's not drunk? I'm no gonna go crazy about our rights being direspected for something that insignificant, if it can get rid of a few drunk drivers, I don't see anything wrong.

Why would anyone mind taking this little urine test, if they have no drugs in their system?

Why would anyone mind taking this little blood test, if they have never had unprotected sex?

You don't mind a little DNA test, to check for genetic abnormalities that might become health problems in the future, do you?

Why would anyone mind providing their banking information, you aren't laundering money are you?

Where does it end?

It says in the article that the charter does allow for constraints on rights when they are deemed reasonable.

So I would say it ends at being unreasonable, which clearly those examples are. You're reaching.

**EDIT**
It looks like the NDP are on board.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gEyr6kwLMTxZeB3EuTWxqpTevInA

[Annihilator]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Annihilator Annihilator:

Why the hell would anyone mind taking a little test if he's not drunk? I'm no gonna go crazy about our rights being direspected for something that insignificant, if it can get rid of a few drunk drivers, I don't see anything wrong.

Why would anyone mind taking this little urine test, if they have no drugs in their system?

Why would anyone mind taking this little blood test, if they have never had unprotected sex?

You don't mind a little DNA test, to check for genetic abnormalities that might become health problems in the future, do you?

Why would anyone mind providing their banking information, you aren't laundering money are you?

Where does it end?

It's different. The tests can be convenient or not. It would piss me off to have to do a blood test, but just some breathalyzer test? Nah, who really cares?

Anyway, I would rather see them doing something against crime than seeing them do nothing at all because they are afraid to hurt someone's feeling.

[2Cdo]

kenmore kenmore:

uwish uwish:

ahhh another Kenmore jab! heavy steps patsy after what is left of this nation under 75 years of liberal ruling.

We are the great nation we are because of the years of Liberal Rule... we are in the shit house and usually are because of the tory days of trouble.

And kenny derails another thread with cheap political swipes.

I personally have no problems with random roadside tests. I have been stopped more than once and never felt oppressed or discriminated against.

[leewgrant]

Conceptually I don't like it but driving is a licensed activity that if done under the influence of alcohol can kill people. Repeat offenders are a real problem and the penalties for them have to be increased. Serious prison time. In Norway the penalty for a first offence is three weeks in the bucket.

[stokes]

I say NO F*&^%ing WAY.

Since 9/11 there has been a movement in North America to restrict our rights in the name of security, this is just one more step in losing our way of life.

They should only give you a breathalyzer if you are caught and smell of booze. If they dont use a breathalyzer you face 0 punishment, as it stands now they can give you a roadside suspension based on suspicion alone.

I would never decline giving a sample, in fact it is a criminal offense not to. So with all of the laws these cops should use them properly!!

[stokes]

leewgrant leewgrant:

Conceptually I don't like it but driving is a licensed activity that if done under the influence of alcohol can kill people. Repeat offenders are a real problem and the penalties for them have to be increased. Serious prison time. In Norway the penalty for a first offence is three weeks in the bucket.

In some countries being caught intoxicated behind the wheel is a death sentence, lets not go that far but BC has a law that if convicted 3 times you lose your license for life, I say you get caught once you lose your license for 5 years plus 100's of hours of community service

[stokes]

kenmore kenmore:

uwish uwish:

ahhh another Kenmore jab! heavy steps patsy after what is left of this nation under 75 years of liberal ruling.

We are the great nation we are because of the years of Liberal Rule... we are in the shit house and usually are because of the tory days of trouble.

You are a lot better person than some of the stupid comments you make, not everything in life is the fault of the tories.

Cheers and go have a nice cold beer!!!

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Annihilator Annihilator:

Why the hell would anyone mind taking a little test if he's not drunk? I'm no gonna go crazy about our rights being direspected for something that insignificant, if it can get rid of a few drunk drivers, I don't see anything wrong.

Why would anyone mind taking this little urine test, if they have no drugs in their system?

Why would anyone mind taking this little blood test, if they have never had unprotected sex?

You don't mind a little DNA test, to check for genetic abnormalities that might become health problems in the future, do you?

Why would anyone mind providing their banking information, you aren't laundering money are you?

Where does it end?

Exactly. In and of itself, it's not much, but every one of these little prohibitions or new police powers is just another tiny little shackle on our freedom.

Bascically what this means is that a cop can pull you over any time for no reason. Just for the heck of it. No big whup unless you're under 30, have long hair, drive a muscle car, listen to hip hop or otherwise stray from the norm.