For as long as I can remember (even before the advent of the breathalyzer) Canada has been after drunks on the road. I can’t count the number of accidents (some of them fatal) I’ve attended over the years where alcohol was involved.
Suffice to say — a lot.
Late Saturday evening three more innocents died because of booze and like all the other fatal accidents I’ve seen and investigated I think to myself this didn’t have to happen. It did because the booze industry is a huge industry in this country just like tobacco and they have a lot of influence over how we respond to this mayhem on our roads as they lobby politicians and create winning conditions for their trade of death.
I have long thought that the current levels of alcohol in the blood permitted by law contribute to the problem and maybe we all need to stop and think about that situation. As things stand, drunks try to evaluate their own physical condition as they walk out of bar and being drunk they don’t make good decisions regarding driving a car. In their tiny and obliterated minds they try to impose a “rule of thumb” — I’ve been in the bar for three hours and I’ve had four drinks so if stopped I should be OK to drive my car.
But being drunk they forget that they didn’t have four drinks — they had eight.
And they get in their cars and they drive — and they kill.
The drunk driving law as we now know and understand it in this country encourages this thought process and Saturday night three more innocents died.
My view — alcohol and drugs in any form should be absolutely banned when behind the wheel. Zero tolerance. If you’ve had a drink you can’t drive. If you get caught you suffer the penalties prescribed by law.
If we adopt such a rule the liquor industry is going to be really upset but what is more important? A human life or a tavern on the seedy side of town turning drunks loose and making a huge profit every night of the week? Who do we care about? The tavern or the potential victims?
Drunk driving is easily corrected. If you drink or smoke “even one” you can’t drive. In that way there will be no decision for a potential drunk to consider and because they can end up in jail they won’t drive and that’s the goal isn’t it?
Saving lives?
Keeping families together and working Canadians out of jail and employed?
Why tolerate this “maybe” situation when we can end it immediately?
Something I’ve thought a lot about over the years. Something that everyone should think about because there is a better way. If I’m wrong you tell me why.
I am sorry, but I don’t agree with you.
I don’t think that a zero tolerance policy would stop someone who had 8 drinks from getting behind the wheel. That person would not care if the law allows 2 drinks or zero drinks. Most of the horrific drinking and driving accidents are caused by persons who are well over the current limit. The don’t care about the limit, whether it’s zero or not. In the recent incident you mention, the guy was speeding towards 200km/h in a 60km/h zone. I think alcoholism is not his main problem. He’s not a drunk, he’s an idiot.
I used to live in a country where there was a zero tolerance policy. Do you think people there were not drinking before getting behind the wheel?
On top of that, there’s another factor at play here in Canada. In Europe, cities are concentrated on smaller surfaces and their transit infrastructure is much more developed compared to Canadian cities. There, you can walk to areas with pubs and restaurants or you can use transit. Here you have to drive to get anywhere. The subway network in TO is ridiculous. If I wanna go to a restaurant, have a nice steak with 2 glasses of wine or 2 beers, I wouldn’t be impaired, what’s the problem? It’s a question of personal responsibility. The idiot who is irresponsible and has 6 glasses of wine/6 shots or 6 beers, he is going to be irresponsible regardless of any law limiting the content of alcohol in the blood of drivers.
Thanks John. We’ll see what others have to say.
Unfortunately our society has deemed killing someone with a car, whether while driving drunk or sober is not a big deal. In fact any kind of killing is treated much less severely than it should be.
I read a statistic that the average impaired driver drives impaired many times before he gets caught. (I can’t remember the exact number but it was high,maybe as high as 50 times). If that is the case then there is only a 2% chance of him getting caught which could mean his driving wasn’t bad enough to get the attention to apprehend him. How many impaired driving incidents result in an accident. If it was calculated out, then I would expect that an accident occurs in such a small number of actual impaired driving incidents that it would be an almost inconsequential percentage value. Having said that, I agree with Jack. The legal limit for blood alcohol while driving should be 0.00mg%.
mid island mike
I also agree with the 0 mgs% but also recognize that such a law would do little and most probably nothing to curb impaired driving. Take a look at how much of a reduction there was regarding gun crime in countries that introduced a total ban on firearms. None, (in fact firearm crimes consistently rose significantly) proving time and time again that zero tolerance on firearms has 0% effect on firearm crime. Here in Canada firearms legislation didn’t make a lick of a difference either. The Americans in the 1980′s introduced zero tolerance for illegal drug importation. I was personally present on more than one occasion when American Customs officers seized (permanently if the driver was also the owner and a lenghty very costly return process for 2nd party ownership) vehicles including tractor trailers because they found a couple of joints on the driver’s person. The financial cost alone to those caught was horrific but that fact had no effect on those who were of the mindset ‘I won’t get caught’. Human nature I guess, more than enough simply thought the other guy would get caught but not them. I think that’s the mindset of most who drink and then choose to get behind the wheel and zero tolerance laws won’t change them.
I will say this with confidence, the frequency of impaired driving has drastically declined since I first went into law enforcement over 3 decades ago. Back then it was quite common and in fact socially acceptable to brag and laugh about not being able to remember driving home from the bar last night. Try doing that today and see what reaction you’ll get from your audience. Hint, it won’t be pretty. Even a total ban on liquor period wouldn’t work (think Prohibition) and a total ban on drinking and driving would fair no better IMO. I think a more realistic approach to this continuing and still serious problem would be to drop the legal limit from 80 to 50 mgs% and keep hammering the message home including our schools.
Instead of rewarding responsible people who stop drinking before they become impaired, liberals would criminalize them.
Funny how liberals are the first to demand zero tolerance. Not suprising when you realize that the recipe for a fascist is to take one liberal and add power.
Zero tolerance means 0% personal responsibility and 100% police state fascism.
Liberals simply cannot recognize personal responsibility because once they do, they logically become conservative.
They endeavor to strip the rights, freedoms and privileges from responsible people to hide the fact that personal responsibility is the primary requirement for the safety of citizens.
Zero tolerance is indiscriminately fascist, short sighted and of course irresponsible.
What would happen if the victims of a drunk driver sued the Federal Gov’t for making it legal to have a blood alcohol level of up to 80mg% and still operate a motor vehicle.
I think there is evidence that some level of impairment occurs after a small amount of alcohol enters the bloodstream. The gov’t is legally allowing a certain level of impairment to occur based on an arbitrary figure. I have seen people with levels in the 200 mg% range that don’t exhibit a lot of symptoms of impairment. I have seen people with a reading less than 80mg% who are right out of it.
I drink occasionally, I am 6ft, 195 pounds. I would not drive after 2 beers over the course of 90 minutes.
mid island mike
So have I Mike. In fact the highest reading I ever witnessed was on a guy I arrested in the parking lot of a liquor store. The only reason he was caught was because he ran into another parked car on the lot while heading to buy more booze. Believe it or not his BAC was 440 mgs% (unbelievable but true) yet his impairment was barely noticable and he was able to carry on a reasonably intelligent conversation. To make matters worse he’d recently cut off the front half of one foot in a grain auger (gee I wonder if booze was involved) and his bandage was soaked in blood. We had him admitted to hospital after the breath test for his own safety but a short while later the hospital called, he’d checked himself out.
There is nothing arbitrary about the federal limit of blood alcohol content. It represents the scientific standard that we have to describe alcohol impairment.
How many accidents have directly resulted from alcohol impairment under 80 mg?
The issue is that people irresponsibly drive when they’ve had too much, not that 80mg is too much.
Address the issue.
If your argument is that anything that impairs must be treated with zero tolerance, then you must support banning while driving all communication, music, coffee, eating, medication, feeling sick , any injuries and all roadside and vehicular advertising as they all impair our focus or abilities while enroute from A to B .
What liberal will run on that platform? I didn’t think so.
At least we’d get the handicapped parking spots back.
The irony of it all then is you are asking people whose ability to think rationally, is or may be impaired, to make a rational judgment about their own level of impairment. Fails more often than not, with tragic consequences.
mid island mike
That is why we have standards based on good science to describe impairment and not fascist policies of zero tolerance.
Tell me then Rob, how is the average bar patron who has been sitting there for a while, who can’t remember how much he has had to drink and is feeling good and confident, how is he to decide if he is legally permitted to drive, when the alcohol swirling around in his body is making it a challenge to think rationally.
mis island mike
Firstly I suspect that if he can’t remember, he’s had too much, but that would be too simple wouldn’t it?
Perhaps the forgetful but responsible bar patron should purchase a personal breathalyzer for about $150.00 and test himself.
Or perhaps the responsible and courteous bar owner could have a breathalyzer available for his patrons use, free or otherwise.
If the patron was irresponsible, zero tolerance wouldn’t prevent his dangerous behaviour.
Rob, you know that & I know that. However the drinker who has had a few is more than likely not able to know that because his thinking is “impaired” and he cannot think rationally. But if he knows before he take that first mouthful of beer that he cannot drive home then he doesn’t have a challenging decision to make, a decision that more often than not will be the wrong one.
mid island mike
PS Jack are you enjoying the debate.
By the way Rob have you ever heard of the saying that the first one to throw out the nazi or fascist word as part of their rationale has lost the debate. I don’t see what is fascist about protecting innocent people from drunk drivers. Your argument seems to forget that it is a privilege to drive not a right. There are many laws governing the operation of motor vehicles, are they fascist as well? Is it fascist to require testing of skills before issuing a drivers licenc? Is it fascist to have people wear seat belts or helmets? Are speed limits fascist? I think you get my drift.
Maybe you should try telling someone their son died because he was drunk and killed himself in a car crash. I personally had to tell a lovely couple that their daughter, a flag person was killed by a drunk driver, a serial drunk driver. It tore my heart out.
I saw the wreckage of an 18 year old who had been riding a motorcycle who was hit head on by a drunk in a 1 ton truck. A serial drunk driver who should have been in jail.
Images of this 18 year old smashed still smoldering body still visit me today. These are just a few of the many accidents I investigated as an RCMP traffic cop. So with all due respect you can put your fascist where it aint sunny.
Jack: my apologies but he hit a nerve there. I’ll try to be more polite in future.
So put the chronically irresponsible in jail and throw away the key. That was your job wasn’t it?
That would have saved the daughter and the rider. Zero tolerance wouldn’t have.
Don’t punish responsible people for someone else’s bad behaviour.
That would be something that only a fascist would do. Nazi’s were fascists too.
Like Jack and Mike, I’ve been to the horrific collision scenes. I’ve watched young people exhale their last breath in a tangle of metal and blood, then I went to notify their parents that little Johnny wasn’t coming home. I, too, am haunted by the memories…
Impaired driving will continue to be a problem as long as drivers are able to get behind the wheel while intoxicated and drive. Technology might help but there’s no guarantee. Making the laws harsher won’t mean squat to the guy who already has a dozen convictions and judges have amply demonstrated how seriously they consider impaired driving.
So if laws don’t help and the criminal courts don’t help, what can we do? Wait patiently. 20 years ago, every second driver on the road at night was under the influence. Nowadays, it’s becoming less common. 20 years from now, only the die-hards will continue. Call it progress or whatever you like, it’s become less acceptable. This change hasn’t happened because of the liberal courts, rather because groups like MADD have been very effective in their PR.
Relax, Rob… You’re not winning libertarianism any fans by blowing Godwin’s Law…
Ask anyone if “Prohibition” (as in the Noble Experiment) worked and everyone will agree… it was an utter and dismal failure which served only to make organized criminals rich… yet those same people nod and smile when government strike up the “BAN” wagon. At the end of the day, all of the laws in the world won’t change squat unless people accept responsibility for their own actions.
I don’t drink and I don’t smoke. I do wear my seatbelt in the car and a helmet on my motorcycle. I make those choices consciously as a responsible adult, not because of any arbitrary and authoritarian laws. I don’t need a nanny state to tell me how to live my life.
Rob we don’t live in a police state. I never did have the authority to lock people up and throw away the key. The driver that killed the motorcyclist was apprehended by me and charged for impaired driving. He was supposed to go to jail for the impaired I charged him with but the Judge saw things different and gave him a substantial fine instead. The Judges words were, “well he’s been to jail twice for impaired and it hasn’t straightened him out, so I don’t see much point in sending him to jail again. $1500 dollar fine” next case clerk! He had 3 or 4 convictions prior to the one I dealt with. He walked out of court and 1 week later killed the motorcyclist. Tell me what I could have done. It seems to me that your comments imply that I didn’t do my job. Maybe you should talk to the judge. Maybe you should study some law as well. You do realize we have a charter of rights that places the right of the accused ahead of anything else.
mid island mike
I wonder how many years you participated in bringing chronic offenders to court only to watch them be released and offend again. Perhaps when you participated with the judge every day for umpteen years, you could have talked to him yourself. Instead your excuse simply, “not my job”.
Now you’re a proponent for punishing responsible honest people for what you know irresponsible people will continue to do. I shudder to think how many suffered while you learned that honest people are better to persecute. Your rhetorical political correctness, while a symptom of totalitarianism, pales in comparison. You have exemplified why a fascist police state is to be avoided at all cost.
The charter of rights has been demonstrated to be wrong and I won’t goose step along with it.
Mac,
What should we do? I’ll tell you, but from past experience I doubt you’ll listen.
We need to value, share and stand up for the truth above existing or proposed laws if we are to effect positive change. This is true justice.
This requires the desire to learn how to discern truth so we will no longer be spoon fed lies by those to stand to gain from them.
Here’s your first lesson, my gift to you. I’ve lead the horse to water, but I can’t make you drink.
The truth can be discerned through honesty, intelligence, logic and science.
I’m not disagreeing with you, Rob. I will reciprocate with my own gift(s) for you…
You’re not leading the horses to water so much as beating the horses with a blunt instrument in an attempt to drive them toward water. This isn’t any more likely to promote thirst than pulling the reins does.
Opinions and positions are more complex than a drink of water and it’s the rare person, indeed, who quickly and publicly acknowledges they’ve change their mind in earnest. Such changes normally take place in deep thought and quiet reflection.
Believe it or not you’re not the first person to tell me this. (Everyone eventually does)
I understand your position but consciously disagree with it.
It is time for people to be offended by the truth in the interest of truth. We have accepted the status quo of doing the wrong things for too long. The world is rampant with corruption.
This stick I wield is the simple truth, in all its glory. You may feel like it oppresses you, but it is guiding you where you need to go. Like a shepherd guides his flock. Your face is now one inch from water and you are dying of thirst.
Who are you to question how the truth brought you here? I hope you do reflect on that.
Rob. I’m sure a Provincial court judge would more than welcome a 7 year traffic cop for a meeting to discuss how he (the judge) could do his job better.
I personally believe that if crime personally affected all the judges of the various court, the crown prosecutors, the defense counsel, senior politicians etc, then we would see a big change in how our laws are enforced.
So if you think libertarian values are so great then the question remains why do we have so many laws. I would suggest that before the drinking driving laws were enacted, the society at large had the liberty to make the choice about drinking and driving, whether it was a car or a horse and buggy. I suggest that it didn’t work that well and that is why the drinking driving laws were enacted. Now even with the laws in place there are still many who “don’t get it.” Unfortunately there are many innocent people who pay the price. In your libertarian world should they have the freedom and liberty to live without fear of being hit by a drunk?
mid island mike
It’s been said that change can only be effected by the unreasonable man.
I am indifferent to whether you agree or disagree with me. Likewise, I am unmoved, let alone oppressed, by your “position” for you are impotent against me for I am a free man who knows and appreciates his freedom.
In your personal reflections, you may want to consider why you feel compelled to guide and question your assumption of authority to guide others. Sheep can be herded but a free man may cause you to regret your presumption.
I believe people should have the freedom to act responsibly. Irresponsible people do not deserve freedom. I doubt libertarians would agree.
Responsible people should have the freedom to live without unreasonable fear of irresponsible people. People that drive while unreasonably impaired are irresponsible and should be locked up.
We have already scientifically defined reasonable impairment at 80mg.
Unless you also plan to have zero tolerance for every activity that impairs regardless of magnitude (ie. all communication, music, coffee, eating, medication, feeling sick , any injuries, handicaps and all roadside and vehicular advertising), I suggest you reconsider your totalitarian approach to alcohol consumption at the risk of exposing your hypocrisy.
Mac,
I’ll never regret driving anyone to the truth. I like my stick. Get used to it.
Survivors will drink from the water of truth, thank the shepherd and forgive his trespasses. As for you, I’m not so sure.
OK Rob, so we allow a small degree of impairment while driving, and we lock up the drivers who exceed that set limit. How long do we lock them up for? Murderers don’t get true life sentences. If as society we accept this behavior, (small degree of impairment while driving). What happens when when things go wrong? (accident with injuries or death). Don’t we as a society have the responsibility to the victims? Our laws give no standing to the victims but legally permits behavior that can create innocent victims, often in very tragic ways.
Something that is getting left out here, but was mentioned before, is that alcohol impairs judgment and actions. So to expect an alcohol user to be able to use impaired judgment to judge if he is impaired or not is ludicrous. A 0% BAC level removes any need for judgment. The only question the person has to ask himself is, Do I want a beer or do I want to drive home? Remember that both drinking alcohol and driving are privileges, not rights.
mid island mike
Mike,
How far down the slippery slope are you prepared to go with the totalitarian nanny/nazi state?
Everything we do requires judgement. This defines responsibility. Speed limits are scientifically determined. It requires judgement to slow down when the roads are bad. Perhaps you also advocate that there should be no vehicular traffic in bad weather or all winter to remove judgement from the equation and save lives.
We are not perfect. Things we do are inherently dangerous. Accidents will happen. We can improve planes, trains, boats and automobiles and there will still be accidents. People will also die as the direct result of the irresponsibility of others. Get over it.
We value our freedoms, priveleges and rights that we earn, yes earn, through responsible behaviour. This requires us to remove those freedoms, privileges and rights from people who act irresponsibly by showing poor judgement.
You would remove them from honest responsible people. Where did you learn your fascist concept of justice?
How long should someone be locked up? With similar consequences as experienced today, those drunks will still drive and kill people even with zero tolerance. An irresponsible person will do what he wants regardless of the consequences, to a point. I suggest that they need to receive harsh enough punishment such that they perceive a responsible life to be a better alternative. If they cannot meet this most basic of requirements, they should not be released into society.
Perhaps parents would start teaching their children to be responsible once again and responsible people could enjoy the freedoms, liberties and rights they have earned without the constant fascist threats of having them removed just so others could delude themselves into believing that they are safe in their irresponsibility.
This is getting silly Rob. Lets just agree to disagree. I’m not going to continue to discuss things with someone who is stuck on nazi.
mid island mike
Lets not.
That sounds like a cowards politically correct rhetorical way out of the responsibility of a debate.
You are misusing Godwins law. It doesn’t pertain to totatalitarian issues where Nazi’s are an acceptable analogy.
Godwin only wanted people to think about the holocaust when they misused the analogy. He hadn’t intended it to become the misused crutch by irresponsible fascists that it has.
A fast thought for what it’s worth. Many years ago (1968 I think) I attended a breath course given by the Sackville Crime Lab at CFB Gagetown (their facilities were under renovation and they were using military resources temporarily).
Rob mentions that I’m facist for suggesting “zero tolerance”. Not at all and I’ll tell you why.
It’s a physical thing and has to do with the pyloric valve, how it reacts to alcohol and conditioned drinkers as compared with new drinkers. As explained to me at the time this valve gets like an old piece of rubber in people used to alcohol and does not react when it comes in contact with booze. In new drinkers it pops open because it doesn’t like the experience and the booze floods the small intestine where it is very rapidly absorbed.
Therefore a teenager can have two beers and can be just as drunk as a conditioned drinker twice the legal limit. The booze goes straight to the youth’s head. And that’s why we see a lot of teenagers getting into serious if not fatal accidents. Society has told them repeatedly that they can have two beers and it’s OK to drive.
NO, it isn’t. It’s very dangerous.
However, I do understand where Rob is coming from because he hasn’t done his homework. More to the point, I doubt he has ever witnessed a mind bending fatal accident such as the one I linked to. He’s far from alone but since he’s into facts and figures and probably can confirm what I have just written with a doctor he may know I’ll leave the situation at that and let him go to work.
All I will say in rebuttal is that if you want to save your kids stop sending them false messages.
“Zero tolerance” is the only answer I have been able to come up with to stop the carnage.
Rob, let me get this straight. I’m a coward, I was a poor policeman because I didn’t lock people up and throw away the key, I was negligent in not telling Judges the errors of their ways, I’m shunning my responsibility to debate. Pardon me because I can’t type anymore because I’m laughing so hard. Have a nice day, that is if we can agree that it is a nice day.
cheers.
mid island mike
“Zero tolerance” is the only answer I have been able to come up with to stop the carnage.
I understand what you’re aiming for, Jack, but I’m suggesting that anyone who is a responsible driver will impose that regardless whether the law changes or not. Those who are not responsible will ignore the law whether it changes or not. Prohibition doesn’t work; never had, never will.
I’m far from certain you do understand what I aiming for, Mac. I KNOW that idiots cannot be stopped. What we can do is stop selling enabling and destructive messages to our youth and the motoring public.
Had our laws been “zero tolerance” three people might still be alive today. They are dead because we are a permissive society and we make excuses. That is all I’m reading here in this argument and I don’t support the theory. If something is wrong it needs to be debated and eventually dealt with.
Otherwise we will continue to grieve while the alcohol industry reaps huge profits — just like tobacco. Are you with me here?
I will add that I am trying to use my head (and my experience) for something besides a hat rack.
I’m with you Jack.
Mid island mike
I do understand, Jack, but zero tolerance wouldn’t work. The judges and weasel defense lawyers would find a way around it or, failing that, the judges would make sentencing so minimal as to be meaningless. My faith in the “justice” system is justified.
Folks have been suing the tobacco companies for years. Anything change? So you want to try suing the alcohol companies for selling a legal product to tacitly responsible adults?
Take a look at any of the non-permissive societies who have zero tolerance. They’re usually either theocracies or dictatorships… and they still have substance abuse problems…
First of all, let me say that I sincerely respect the job and comittment of all law enforcement officers. Your job is generally thankless and you probably experience more risk, tragedy and suffering than anyone else will ever comprehend. Thank you for your service.
I can understand why when exposed to daily tragedy for many years, there could be an equally emotional effort once retired to minimize it.
I can also understand why you have so little faith in the justice system as it currently operates.
But we are not all in our waning years and the prospect of shutting ourselves in, wrapping ourselves in bubble wrap and eating stewed prunes and spinach to prolong our existence is not so appealing.
The rest of us also have a quality of life to consider.
We enjoy drinking a coffee on the way to work.
We invite the distraction of talking to our passengers or listening to music.
We need to work while injured and sick.
Some of us in our old age or with handicaps value the freedom to drive ourselves to the market.
Our teenagers often don’t need to drive but enjoy the freedom to do so.
When as adults we go out to dinner we enjoy a glass of wine or two.
We can knowingly enjoy these rights, privileges and freedoms safely when we act responsibly.
Zero tolerance would not have made any drunk act responsibly. He wasn’t stopped and released for being under .08 BAC before the crash. He left home that night sober and knowing full well he was willing to irresponsibly become impaired and drive.
Only harsher penalties for irresponsibility will change their behaviour making us all safer in the process.
I believe statistics would show that the use and misuse of automobiles in our society cause much injury, death and suffering. The use and misuse of alcohol the same, and their combined use much more.
It is a sad reflection of our society that this toll of death and misery is so common place that we as a society just shrug it off and accept it. However we go shrill and light our hair on fire over firearm deaths whether intentional or accidental to the point where there is nearly zero tolerance for firearms. We spend billions of dollars on a nearly useless firearms registry, which criminalizes behavior which does not immediately put lives at risk. (ie: fail to register firearm). The firearm act provides unprecedented powers to the police to enter your home and seize property. Why aren’t the libertarians crying out about this.
Statistics for Canada
2006: Firearms: 1200 killed, 1000 injured
2006: Automobiles: 2800 killed, 211,000 injured
So where is the problem here, is it firearms or automobiles. Why is death by one shrugged off and death by another brings forth cries for complete abolition.
Here’s a tip also for our libertarian friends. Totalitarian governments usually try to
disarm the public first. They car not a whit about cars.
So we are willing as a society to accept the fact that 6 teens in died in a car crash, but don’t take away my right to have a couple beer and drive. We”re not willing to sacrifice a small amount of pleasure to make things safer for everyone. What a selfish attitude.
mid island mike
Cars, guns or alcohol, accidents are caused by irresponsible personal behaviour combined with a dysfunctional justice system. Address the issue.
I act responsibly and safely.
Get your hands off my freedoms, rights and privileges.
Rob. I’m sure if everyone in our nation was as safe and responsible as you are, then everything would be just fine. Adam & Eve had only one rule to abide by, “Don’t eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil” Their existence in the garden was as libertarian as it could possible be, but they couldn’t abide by that one rule. Do you think we as a society are going to function well without rules, and consequences for breaking the rules?
cheers mid island mike
Re: #38 — “Get your hands off my freedoms, rights and privileges.”
You’re far to late, Rob. Trudeau beat you to it with his Charter.
That’s why for years I’ve been screaming for the government to suspend and review it.
It’s “all f**ked up” and if you don’t know that you need to hit the books. Every cop in the country knows it.
And we also know who’s profiting — lawyers. Our Charter was designed that way and that’s why they make so much money on the backs of the taxpayer.
Younger people may not realize this but Trudeau gave average Canadians no say in the patriation of the Charter. None at all. What he did was co-opt “progressive conservatives” (liberals in drag) and pass this sorry excuse for our Charter as “approved by all”.
Bullshit…I was there and never had a say. Neither did anyone else who cared.
It was a “done deal” and the US should pick up because Obama is trying to pull the same stuff on the south side of the “49th” and the time to fight him is now while it is happening.
“Later” will be far to late.
Mike,
Loosen the bubble wrap on your head.
I said we need to punish irresponsible behaviour.
Jack,
In your waning years you may be too late to effect positive change, but I’m not ready to accept a futile totalitarian response to a liberal screw up. I’m not liberal.
Let me be clearer.
You keep your hands off my responsible freedoms, rights and privileges.
I think I just answered you and while I’m at it you keep your sorry hands off my country. You’re far to young to know.
Until next time then.
Unless some fascist totalitarian removes our freedom of speech internet privileges.
Rob. I’m not sure what the “bubble wrap on your head” means.
I’ve noticed in the 14 posts that you have made on this thread that you have used the terms, Fascist, Nazi & Totalitarian 13 times. Have you been personally affected by Nazi’s, fascists, or totalitarian regimes? I can’t think of any other reason you would throw these terms out so freely.
We actually live in a pretty free country. Our charter does not allow interference in our lives except where it can be justified in a free and democratic society. If you wanted to lead the charge against totalitarian fascist things maybe you could start with the Human Rights Tribunal industry. It is far more threatening to our freedom of speech and overall freedoms than not being able to have a beer or two and drive immediately after.
Finally lets remain gentlemen here and lay off the bubble wrapped head stuff.
mid island mike
Jack,
tsk, tsk, tsk
Editing past posts (#40) is like rewriting history books.
How very fascist of you.
Mike,
I understand, I’ll try to be more responsible with my humor.
Stealing freedoms, rights and privileges from responsible safe people is wrong. Doing so is one of the few justifiable reasons for war.
It is very appropriate to liken doing so to totalitarianism, fascism and Nazis.
The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. I’m sure Hitler would concur in hindsight.
Rob.
So then is not the freedom eroding Human Rights Commission a much greater danger to our society than any other issue. Which hill would you choose to fight and die on, the Beer hill or the Freedom of Speech hill. Personally I would celebrate the defeat of the Freedom of Speech encroachment with a cold beer, not the other way around.
I wouldn’t equate the vileness of a Kristlenacht, with a law against a beer before I drive. Not in the same league at all.
Or would you rewrite the “first they came for to”: First they banned whiskey, but I didn’t drink whiskey so I never did anything. Then they came for red wine, but I didn’t like red wine so I did nothing. Then they came for kahlua, but I didn’t like kahlua so I kept quiet…..
I’ll leave it at that, because as silly as that seems, you seem to be making a moral equivalence here and it can’t be made.
mid island mike
Mike grabs my point and Rob has completely missed it. If you want to save lives you do not agree on letting drunks continue to drive. You fire them and the best way to do that is remove their licences and jail them. In the case where they kill someone — it’s “life” with no parole.
Harsh but true.
Laws should also be created where bar owners also suffer the penalty if it can be proved that they were piling the booze to customers without regard to the consequences.
In no way is anyone here pointing a finger at people who drink. They can do that if they wish — what I am pointing at is people who approve that drinking drivers have rights and as a result traffic deaths continue and I think they are wrong.
Rob is in that crowd and it’s a huge one. Our Charter assured that.
Rob. The problem with crying “nazi, fascist, totalitarian” on everything is that people will soon quit listening. Remember the child’s tale: “The boy who cried wolf”.
Are you trying to raise awareness or are you trying to desensitize?
mid island mike
Jack: BC has a statute that makes it an offense for a bar to continue serving a patron who is drunk. Bars and owners have been charged and convicted. They have also been successfully sued civilly.
mid island mike
Same in Ontario but we lack Liquor Inspectors. They’ve all been let go. Nobody knows what bars are doing.
You’re the guys who started this conflict with your zero tolerance attempt to steal my responsible and safe freedoms, rights and privileges.
Now that you’re looking at the responsibilities of bar owners and patrons as I suggested in my third comment (#13), you won’t find much resistance from me.
So Rob, you’re okay with a private business man bar owner playing a role of authority in saying to a patron you can’t have anymore to drink. But it’s fascist for the gov’t to say you can’t have a drink and then drive immediately after. I don’t think the best radial tires of flexible reasoning are gonna keep you from going into the ditch with this sharp change of direction.
mid island mike
If you want to hold the bar owner responsible for what the patron does, then he needs to have the authority to control what the patron does. I doubt that this works in reality.
I suggested that the bar owner make a breathalyzer available to the responsible patron. When faced with the result, the patron must still recognize that driving is against the law.
Don’t tell me that the average drinker is too impaired to understand english.
Maybe people who drink and drive should be required by law to own a personal breathalyzer, so they can confirm that they are not impaired beyond the legal limit.
If they find they are, then a taxi or some coffee and a walk until they were OK would be in order.
Maybe I should start selling breathalyzers.
Mike, I’m sure that you’d like to see my logic fail but I suggest that you don’t hold your breath.
Rob: You never answered the question about which is a greater threat to our freedom. The Human Rights Commission or not being able to drive immediately after having an alcoholic drink. I didn’t throw that out there to fill space, I would really like to know.
BTW, I don’t have to wish that your logic fails, it has. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t. I can’t hold my breath while laughing, can you.
mid island mike
OK laughing bubble boy, now demonstrate how my logic has failed.
If you can’t, then man up and admit it. I’m nearly done with you.
Both CHRC and zero tolerance are threats and I address them both separately.
This topic is about drinking not free speech.
Rob: If you haven’t caught on yet, there is nothing more I can say to convince you.
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
Cheers.
mid island mike
Rob: BTW regarding the greater threat to our freedoms. Maybe you should have a chat with Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant and the legal team from McLeans magazine. I’m sure they could help you out.
mid island mike
Rob: so now you’re dictating what this thread can be about. Both issues go to fundamental freedom and that’s what I thought was the core issue. Are you now trying to politically correctly extricate yourself.
mid island mike
In case readers are not aware this entry is still getting hits. Almost everyday people are reading and watching (including today, which reminded me). The argument is between police officers (who know) and an inexperienced “public defender” who took part here (I applaud him but continue to think he is wrong).
I have not changed my view on “zero tolerance” and will not but “that’s me”. Suffice to say this debate was a dandy and thank you all.