[Scape]

DrCaleb 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.

We can't do both? Besides, this might end up with Gordo doing the perp walk again.

[ASLplease]

a person that only knows a little about inventory control will tell you how great 'random cycle counts' are.

an experienced inventory manager will often get very upset and try to explain how wasteful and rediculous a 'random' cycle count is.

[Lemmy]

Yogi Yogi:

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!

I offered a viable solution. Make the penalty for Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm and Impaired Driving Causing Death life in prison. Then we create deterence and the idiots that continue to drink and drive get a life-time ticket to hang with the booty bandits.

[Yogi]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Yogi Yogi:

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!

I offered a viable solution. Make the penalty for Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm and Impaired Driving Causing Death life in prison. Then we create deterence and the idiots that continue to drink and drive get a life-time ticket to hang with the booty bandits.

I'll grant you that what you propose is a step in the right direction, ( I have long proposed this and harsher penalties for those convicted) but certainly not anywhere close to a viable solution. This is why. Random testing, would hopefully, act as a deterrent to many who would otherwise take the chance of driving while impaired, thereby cutting down the tens of millions of dollars required to incarcerate these selfish bastards who would, as with our current laws, only be able to be stopped either under strong suspicion of impairment or our 'check-stop system'. A bit of preventative medicine, if you will

[gigs]

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.

hijack likes it http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1146195.html

It kind of throws a wrench into the Harper- dictator nonsense

[Zipperfish]

Annihilator Annihilator:

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

Right to live? I've got some bad ne3ws for you, fella, you are going to die. It's a given. And the best rights lawyers in the country won't be able to save you.

Now since we've established your time here is limited, let's spend it doing what we want to do and not waiting in lines to blow in things and pee in things for state security officers.

[Lemmy]

Yogi Yogi:

I'll grant you that what you propose is a step in the right direction, ( I have long proposed this and harsher penalties for those convicted) but certainly not anywhere close to a viable solution. This is why. Random testing, would hopefully, act as a deterrent to many who would otherwise take the chance of driving while impaired, thereby cutting down the tens of millions of dollars required to incarcerate these selfish bastards who would, as with our current laws, only be able to be stopped either under strong suspicion of impairment or our 'check-stop system'. A bit of preventative medicine, if you will

.

I don't see it as preventative medicine. I see it more as "cutting off your hand to cure a hang-nail". As Proculation said, this sounds too much like Czechoslovakia circa 1969: "Show us your papers!" Civil Rights are too important to trample on this way. Police powers should be limited whereever possible; the slope towards a police state is just too slippery.

I believe in deterence. Stiffer penalties will deter the behaviour. Then you don't need to violate innocent Canadians' rights.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 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.

I suspected it might turn that direction, with Police being able to basically do as they pleased. I agree, zero alcohol, zero tolerance - but not at the expense of a police state.

Thanks for the information, from someone living the experience.

[herbie]

There already are random stops and checks for seatbelts, vehicle inspections, insurance regs. If there's any reason at all to suspect you (behaviour, smell of alcohol) there already is the right to demand a test.
So step it up. No need to random test for impairment with no evidence at all.

I live where you WILL be stopped if you're seen leaving a bar and entering a vehicle. Ask the bar owners, busines is down so much they're all up for sale. We have no taxi, and there's only half a dozen of us who'll tolerate going out with a bunch of pisstanks and driving them home.
Yet the biggest police stat remains impaired driving, a simple roadcheck will still nab people showing enough signs to warrant hauling them in or handing a 24 hour suspension.

You are never going to get me to allow a law that says with no evidence from the arresting officer and even if I hauled 32 people before a Judge who testify under oath that I haven't had a drink at all, I can be found guilty and punished equally to a drunk driver for refusing to blow into the damn machine.

[gigs]

Business is down because the piss heads can't drive home drunk

What a shame.

[Scape]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

martin14 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.

I suspected it might turn that direction, with Police being able to basically do as they pleased. I agree, zero alcohol, zero tolerance - but not at the expense of a police state.

Thanks for the information, from someone living the experience.

Sorry, don't buy it. They can pull you over 'for no reason' at a checkpoint already and use the excuse to see if you are wearing a seatbelt.

[DrCaleb]

Scape Scape:

Sorry, don't buy it. They can pull you over 'for no reason' at a checkpoint already and use the excuse to see if you are wearing a seatbelt.

Humans don't do 'random'. A police officer on patrol might intend to be completely neutral, but will still have some sort of bias as to the vehicles they pull over - be it driver, colour . .time of day . . and they won't even realize it.

But a Checkstop is completely fair. Everyone is treated equally, no bias other than the location and time. If it's for a 'seatbelt' or 'valid licence and insurance' and 'alcohol' is detected, so be it. The test of "Probable cause" is satisfied.

Pulling a car over and searching the occupant 'randomly' is not fair, it reeks of the same old tired excuses; 'for the children', 'for everyone's safety', 'you have no right to drive'. All fallacies. If they are going to demand a search of my person (violating my charter rights), they better have probable cause.

[Alta_redneck]

Coming from an Funeral service in the near future.

Family, Friends, we are gather here today to celebrate the life of **** ****** who was taken from us so very early in life at age of *, when a drunk driver collided head on with their mother's car as they were driving home from the weekly soccer match.

I ask everyone gathered here, to take comfort in the fact that the drunk driver’s rights were not trampled on, on the dreadful day. And we can only hope that this individual has learned a huge lesson during this tragic time. To not drink and drive drunk again.

[ASLplease]

I cant believe that this is even being discussed.

If you want to catch drunk drivers, the least effective way to go about doing it is......STOPPING PEOPLE AT RANDOM!

[Zipperfish]

ASLplease ASLplease:

I cant believe that this is even being discussed.

If you want to catch drunk drivers, the least effective way to go about doing it is......STOPPING PEOPLE AT RANDOM!

I'm with you. There's been absoutely zero evidence of the effectvieness of this, but apparenetly whether it works or not is completely irrelevant to those of us who just can't wait to hand over rights. They just start screaming "Do you want a drunk driver to kill you?" or "What do you have to hide from the police?" and that's about the extent of their argument.