[herbie]

Annihilator Annihilator:

herbie herbie:

Ooh what a handy little law. They'd get guys like me who say Fuck You, I don't drink so I'm not blowing nothing... and they'd be able to jail you and fine you for refusing to take a breathalyzer and take your car away.
No problem with that, eh?

Told you Harper knows dick shit about law, they want to replace it with their brand of "justice".

Are you that good and your time worth so much that you can't fucking blow in a machine for a few seconds in order to make our roads safer?

Wow, you must be an incredible person, above the common mortals for sure.

Goddam rights.
Hell of a lot more incredible than someone who'd piss away their civil rights by swallowing a bullshit line like 'it would make our roads safer'.
Zero tolerance is bullshit pandering, this is fucking another step in the road to Hell.

[Proculation]

Why not do random citizenship checkups ? Anyway, only illegals would have to care and it only takes a few seconds to show your papers !

[Scape]

The argument that if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to fear or that we live in a free and democratic society and such police actions are unjust are both red herrings. People die from this nonsense and there is no excuse for it. A police state is already upon us if you look at how many security cameras are in public being used to watch and track people unaware to say nothing of cell phone GPS and cameras. We have the technology here, it is how we use it that will determine benevolence or malice not the laws themselves and the last time I checked this is Canada not some third world banana republic. I expect the government to act for the public good when there is sufficient cause and a 40% drop to me is such a cause.

[Lemmy]

If you want to get drunk drivers off the road, here's a better plan: impaired driving is no longer a criminal offense. Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm and Impaired Driving Causing Death now come with an automatic life sentence with no parole. Almost NO ONE would drink and drive and the Government doesn't get to outrageously violate the civil rights of a largely law-abiding society. In a free society, we punish the guilty, not the innocent.

[Annihilator]

herbie herbie:

Annihilator Annihilator:

herbie herbie:

Ooh what a handy little law. They'd get guys like me who say Fuck You, I don't drink so I'm not blowing nothing... and they'd be able to jail you and fine you for refusing to take a breathalyzer and take your car away.
No problem with that, eh?

Told you Harper knows dick shit about law, they want to replace it with their brand of "justice".

Are you that good and your time worth so much that you can't fucking blow in a machine for a few seconds in order to make our roads safer?

Wow, you must be an incredible person, above the common mortals for sure.

Goddam rights.
Hell of a lot more incredible than someone who'd piss away their civil rights by swallowing a bullshit line like 'it would make our roads safer'.
Zero tolerance is bullshit pandering, this is fucking another step in the road to Hell.

What rights? My right not to be selected for a random breathalyzer test? OMG, you're right, just let the drunk drivers free, we can't disrespect THAT right. And what about my right not to be asked by the police what I did last night, or if I took part in a murder, I mean, just break the prisons loose, that way we won't disrespect anybody's right.


On a more serious note, what do you do about my right to live and to drive on a safe road?

[Saffron]

I'm a nurse, and I've seen people killed or maimed by drunk drivers. If you think you know where I'm going with this, you'd be mistaken. This proposition is a terrible idea, and is nothing more than a chipping away of our basic freedoms. And no, I don't drink.

[Richard]

stokes 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

Unless your the leader of said province then you can get shitfaced on wine get busted and keep your job.

[Proculation]

$1:

What rights? My right not to be selected for a random breathalyzer test? OMG, you're right, just let the drunk drivers free, we can't disrespect THAT right. And what about my right not to be asked by the police what I did last night, or if I took part in a murder, I mean, just break the prisons loose, that way we won't disrespect anybody's right.


On a more serious note, what do you do about my right to live and to drive on a safe road?

you have the right to not respond. refusing to take a breathalizer is an offense.
i think you lack some basic concepts of law.

[Richard]

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.

I believe right now they have to show reasonable grounds to test ie slurred speech posture sleepy etc.

[DrCaleb]

Scape Scape:

The argument that if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to fear or that we live in a free and democratic society and such police actions are unjust are both red herrings. People die from this nonsense and there is no excuse for it. A police state is already upon us if you look at how many security cameras are in public being used to watch and track people unaware to say nothing of cell phone GPS and cameras. We have the technology here, it is how we use it that will determine benevolence or malice not the laws themselves and the last time I checked this is Canada not some third world banana republic. I expect the government to act for the public good when there is sufficient cause and a 40% drop to me is such a cause.

Then why not incarcerate the people actually convicted of impaired driving, instead of assuming the rest of us are criminals? Brutal, unapologetic enforcement of the law would go a long way towards that 40% you seek. It's not the government here, it's the judiciary.

House arrest for 1 year for a person's 4th or 5th conviction doesn't sound like much of a deterrent. Racking up 17 before killing someone is just sicking.

[mikewood86]

Lemmy Lemmy:

If you want to get drunk drivers off the road, here's a better plan: impaired driving is no longer a criminal offense. Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm and Impaired Driving Causing Death now come with an automatic life sentence with no parole. Almost NO ONE would drink and drive and the Government doesn't get to outrageously violate the civil rights of a largely law-abiding society. In a free society, we punish the guilty, not the innocent.

Extra strain on an already strained prison system, plus massive costs vs minor costs of running a breathalyzer.

Maybe a breathalyzer should be standard equipment on new cars (or even better, people convicted of DUI's) if they could make instantaneous and accurate results. Cars have just about everything else in them nowadays, so is this really that far fetched? Nobody's rights are violated.

Buuuutttt, I don't think drunk driving has gotten to this point really, not even close. Just an idea.

[Lemmy]

mikewood86 mikewood86:

Extra strain on an already strained prison system, plus massive costs vs minor costs of running a breathalyzer.

Maybe, but you'd more than make up the cost on the savings in the courts. More people'd go to prison, but A LOT fewer would go to court.

mikewood86 mikewood86:

Maybe a breathalyzer should be standard equipment on new cars (or even better, people convicted of DUI's) if they could make instantaneous and accurate results. Cars have just about everything else in them nowadays, so is this really that far fetched? Nobody's rights are violated.

Buuuutttt, I don't think drunk driving has gotten to this point really, not even close. Just an idea.

If the testing process were as instantaneous as that, then it'd likely pass the Oakes test in the same way as R.I.D.E. passed. But if my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle. As I said suggested before, random warrantless searches are not an element of a free society.

[Yogi]

Using the 'Don't violate my rights' argument, the same govt proposing random testing is also the same govt which permitted the manufacture and sale of my street vehicle which is capable of doing 260 kmh. (ok. a bit of 'tweaking' was necessary! ) This same govt allows/encourages the same law enforcement agencies to cruise the highways with radar or just to 'lay in wait' for me to go past at a higher than posted speed. Don't 'speed limits' violate my rights as a competent, nay excellent driver? How dare they!!!

Grow up! And God forbid that you should ever be personally affected by the selfish actions of an impaired driver. Those of you who oppose such a positive move to removing/reducing impaired drivers from our roadways are no different in stripe than the greenpeace 'protesters' who are constantly bleating the same mantra about environment, yet offer up no viable alternative or solution!

[martin14]

I dont think anyone is opposed to getting drunk drivers off the road,
and thats not really the issue here.

I have been living in a country where the police have authority to
perform random stops and searches, and the allowed alcohol level is zero

Its not nice to drive around the corner and then get stopped for no reason,
to be subjected to document inspection, and the possibility of vehicle
inspection, and a breathalyzer as well. Not a sign of a free country.

There are still lots of alcohol related deaths and accidents in Slovakia,
the police having the power to treat everyone as a criminal has not solved
the problem. Additionally, the slippery slope argument does hold true here.

If we empower the police to stop you without reason, and subject you
to a 'search' without reason, how much farther are you willing to go
to have the police 'inspect' things ?

Your house ?
Your work place ?
Walking down the street ?
Your bedroom ?

Drinking and driving used to be socially acceptable.
Then it became socially unacceptable, but the punishment is still not
enough to deter people.

I support an alcohol level of zero, it removes the grey area about the amount
of alcohol in someone's system. I support much stronger penalities for drunk drivers,
to the point where doing it will seriously fuck up your life.


But giving police the power to suspect everyone will not be beneficial for the
society... trust me, I live in it and it doesnt work.

[gigs]

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.

No you are confusing the lines. I have nothing to hide . If such legislation ever came into effect it would have to be very specific when written. The road is a public place my house isn't, but hell they're welcome to check my house for booze breath

I have no problem with random road checks as the numbers show it is a deterrent to drunk drivers. Random road checks are no different than random check stops.