[PostFactum]

Bodah Bodah:

andyt andyt:

You're right, it's good I'm not a judge. The pc brigade would be getting out the torches and pitchforks.

Nah, you'd be a good judge you just need a toque is all.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

That's strange. The same Vancouver Sun told me (not yesterday) that I could probably have 3 drinks and not be over .05.

my bad -- globe and mail:

How much is too much? The Globe tests B.C.'s drunk-driving limit

$1:

Don’t eat the booze-soaked olives.

Waiting my turn to get a baseline reading from a digital breathalyzer sold online, I absentmindedly munch two olives from a three-ounce vodka martini.

I blow a .048.

$1:

At .05, you are impaired to some degree. So I think a 24 hr suspension is warranted. Don't know why they had to up the penalties so much. Much more effective would be upping enforcement. Impound the car and the licence, and a 24 hr suspension would be entirely adequate deterrent.

I don't know either, but they won't be going back now.

[BartSimpson]

$1:

Berner was also banned from driving for five years.

Anyone want to take a wager that she'll get busted for driving with a suspended license within 12 months of leaving prison?

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

$1:

Berner was also banned from driving for five years.

Anyone want to take a wager that she'll get busted for driving with a suspended license within 12 months of leaving prison?

I ain't touching that bet...

[Curtman]

andyt andyt:

He should be in an institution. But he should have a life sentence - means he's watched for the rest of his life.

Punishing the insane won't deter anybody.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

At .05, you are impaired to some degree. So I think a 24 hr suspension is warranted. Don't know why they had to up the penalties so much. Much more effective would be upping enforcement. Impound the car and the licence, and a 24 hr suspension would be entirely adequate deterrent.

You are imparied to some degree. But what I am interested in as why there should be less moral and legal culpability to someone who drops a maximum dosage of antihistamine medication and then gets into an accient, when the science would indicate that the level of impariment from many cold medications would be higher than 0.05 mg/ml EtOH. Interesting from a sociological perspective.

[ShepherdsDog]

A shot of nyquil can really screw you up too.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

At .05, you are impaired to some degree. So I think a 24 hr suspension is warranted. Don't know why they had to up the penalties so much. Much more effective would be upping enforcement. Impound the car and the licence, and a 24 hr suspension would be entirely adequate deterrent.

You are imparied to some degree. But what I am interested in as why there should be less moral and legal culpability to someone who drops a maximum dosage of antihistamine medication and then gets into an accient, when the science would indicate that the level of impariment from many cold medications would be higher than 0.05 mg/ml EtOH. Interesting from a sociological perspective.

I'm not sure there is less culpability. I guess the only diff is that people know that booze impairs them, but something that's "medical" they may not be familiar with or think it can't cause any harm. I mean lets say somebody has an allergic reaction to an anti-biotic - they wouldn't really be culpable would they?

[EyeBrock]

If they showed negligence in using a medication that resulted in impairment during the operation of a motor vehicle or vessel where injury or death was caused to a third party because of that impairment then they have committed an offence.

And rightly so. It’s your personal responsibility to ensure your actions don’t hurt others.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

I'm not sure there is less culpability. I guess the only diff is that people know that booze impairs them, but something that's "medical" they may not be familiar with or think it can't cause any harm. I mean lets say somebody has an allergic reaction to an anti-biotic - they wouldn't really be culpable would they?

People do know that booze impairs them. Impairs you quite a bit, actually, if you'd had more than a few pints. What they don't know, and what many people are being careful not to tell them, is that the level of impairment at 0.05 mg/ml is actually quite low and now puts it in the same order of magnitude as other impairments (such as common medications, being distracted by a conversation, lack of sleep, speeding, aggressive driving).

My point is that the severity of the punishment has moved away from the real risk (presented by drunk drivers) and towards a morality law. The message: "For equal levels of impairment, you are more culpabale if the impairment was caused due to a sin." And (you probably knew I was heading here), morality laws=nanny state.

As for the "allergic reaction" thing--nice try with the red herring.

[EyeBrock]

I'm not sure what BC does but the provinces can exact penalties under relevant provincial legislation for levels of impairment below the 0.08 specified by the Criminal Code.

The difference being that these lower levels are not imposed actual criminal law, but provincial ones only.

I think people get confused. The provinces can fine you, take away your car for a period etc but they can't jail you for breaching their law and the powers that come with these provincial laws are a lot lower.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

As for the "allergic reaction" thing--nice try with the red herring.

Directly addressed your argument that moral and legal culpability should be the same for being impaired by booze and medications. As Brock pointed out, if you know you're going to get impaired by the meds you took, maybe have been warned not to drive, then you're legally just as liable. But if the medication you took has an effect you're not familiar with, or an unexpected reaction, do you still think that person is as culpable? I don't. You can be impaired by lack of sleep, and people have been found guilty of being impaired for that as well.

Just read that .05 puts you somewhere between 7 and 15 times more likely to have an accident. .08 ups that to 150 times. I believe in the same Globe and Mail you got your olive story from. Note that he was tested right after eating the olives, and that after 20 minutes he was fine. That would tell me don't bolt your drink and then head for the car right away.

[herbie]

$1:

At .05, you are impaired to some degree

Prove that scientifically.
That's why the number was set at .08
Perhaps with the last several decades of advancement in measurement capabilities, it could now be proved scientifically.
But they won't do that will they? All they have to do is have some right-wing temperance pseudo-Christian say it over and over and over and over and over and over, and a shitload of people will believe it's a fact won't they?

[andyt]

herbie herbie:

$1:

At .05, you are impaired to some degree

Prove that scientifically.
That's why the number was set at .08
Perhaps with the last several decades of advancement in measurement capabilities, it could now be proved scientifically.
But they won't do that will they? All they have to do is have some right-wing temperance pseudo-Christian say it over and over and over and over and over and over, and a shitload of people will believe it's a fact won't they?

I know - all those rightwing temperance pseudo-Christians that run Europe, where .05 is the norm and results in severe penalties.

Here's a reference about impairment: http://www.ctclearinghouse.org/topics/customer-files/Alcohol-Impairment-Chart-(revised-062304).pdf

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

As for the "allergic reaction" thing--nice try with the red herring.

Directly addressed your argument that moral and legal culpability should be the same for being impaired by booze and medications. As Brock pointed out, if you know you're going to get impaired by the meds you took, maybe have been warned not to drive, then you're legally just as liable. But if the medication you took has an effect you're not familiar with, or an unexpected reaction, do you still think that person is as culpable? I don't. You can be impaired by lack of sleep, and people have been found guilty of being impaired for that as well.

Just read that .05 puts you somewhere between 7 and 15 times more likely to have an accident. .08 ups that to 150 times. I believe in the same Globe and Mail you got your olive story from. Note that he was tested right after eating the olives, and that after 20 minutes he was fine. That would tell me don't bolt your drink and then head for the car right away.

No, I don't think the person is culpable if it was reasonable that he or she couldn't have known about an effect. But that's not the point I'm talking about. I was talking more about your second sentence: "if you know you're going to get impaired by the meds you took, maybe have been warned not to drive, then you're legally just as liable." Except I'd expand that to: "If you reasonably should have known..."

I have trouble with the stats you posted becsue they don't seem to accord with many peer-reviewed studies on the issue. For instance this one equates the relative risk of 0.05 BAC to driving 65 km/hr in a 60 km/hr zone. Most studies put the impairment far below that, most notably the seminal Grand Rapids study. Countries/jurisdictions which have lowered the limit from 0.08 to 0.05 have generally realized a reduction of 0 - 33% with a median around 10% (http://www.icadts.org/T2004/pdfs/O54.pdf).

It;'s pretty clear that for certain people, a singlke drink will put them over 0.05. If they get into an accident--even if they are rear-ended--they face serious life-changing repercussions that other impaired drivers--drowsy drivers, distracted drivers--do not face.

There's no way to know what you're going to blow since restaurants don't have breathalyzers in them, but it looks like even a single drink can put you over the limit. So--score one for the Prohibitionists.