Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars, at home

[-DLC-]

42 minutes ago, Toews said:

Can you please elaborate on this 'methodical approach'? Without political power you have little influence in this country. I just think it's a massive stretch to take a bunch of PC babies crying about their sensitivities and connecting it to Marxism. 

Whenever someone refers to the others involved in a debate as cry babies and being sensitive, it's a sign of weakness in their argument for me.  Namecalling never garners much respect.

 

Look, some of us understand that power doesn't come without huge responsibility and that some abuse that.  Happens ALL the time.  So we're growing more and more concerned with how much power others are granted.  Because they are individuals, infallible, and some have little in relation to moral compasses and a sense of right and wrong.  Power can make people drunk with it.   So knocking on someone's door or showing up to confront them in front of possible peers, coworkers, etc. can go terribly wrong.

 

Think about the impact it could have if a cop waltzes into a pub where people are networking over lunch and demands a breathalyzer from someone.  The ripple effect in that could be huge.  There are ramifications from having personal matters handled in this way.  If someone is suspected of something, there's got to be a better way.  Real time, as it happens...not pursuing them as they go about their daily lives.  

 

What a time consuming effort this will be!  Cops are crying for being understaffed and underfunded...so this just makes no sense (at all) to me.

[JM_]

13 hours ago, Butters Stoch said:

Calm down people, I highly doubt we'll actually be seeing cops resort to doing this. Sounds like this was to cover that messed up loop hole where you could immediately leave the scene after an accident and go home to claim that you just started drinking at home to avoid DUI charges. 

that really is it. There are some narrow applications meant to deal with that, and reasonableness measures put in the law. Even with that the 2 hour measure might not stand up to a SCoC challenge so I think people are over-reacting about it. Part of it is I think the Liberals did a very poor job explaining the need for it, probably because people get their blood up quickly when they think the laws are overstepping which this can be spun into very easily. 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Whenever someone refers to the others involved in a debate as cry babies and beubg sensitive, it's a sign of weakness in their argument for me.  Namecalling never garners much respect.

 

Look, some of us understand that power doesn't come without huge responsibility and that some abuse that.  Happens ALL the time.  So we're growing more and more concerned with how much power others are granted.  Because they are individuals, infallible, and some have little in relation to moral compasses and a sense of right and wrong.  Power can make people drunk with it.   So knocking on someone's door or showing up to confront them in front of possible peers, coworkers, etc. can go terribly wrong.

 

Think about the impact it could have if a cop waltzes into a pub where people are networking over lunch and demands a breathalyzer from someone.  The ripple effect in that could be huge.  There are ramifications from having personal matters handled in this way.  If someone is suspected of something, there's got to be a better way.  Real time, as it happens...not pursuing them as they go about their daily lives.  

 

What a time consuming effort this will be!  Cops are crying for being understaffed and underfunded...so this just makes no sense (at all) to me.

I think you've hit on an important point there. There's no way the cops have the manpower to make this a problem for most people. They want the power to go after people that drink and drive from bar to bar. E.g., lets say they get a call that a guy drove away from one bar drunk, and they've able to track down the car at a pub down the road, I for one wold like to see that person tested and arrested. In this case, the guy has no "reasonable" expectation of not being tested. 

 

Now if you're out for a simple business lunch, and aren't over the legal limit, you have every reason to expect not to be tested. In your case, you are exempt under this law. 

 

 

 

[Toews]

35 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Whenever someone refers to the others involved in a debate as cry babies and being sensitive, it's a sign of weakness in their argument for me.  Namecalling never garners much respect.

 

Look, some of us understand that power doesn't come without huge responsibility and that some abuse that.  Happens ALL the time.  So we're growing more and more concerned with how much power others are granted.  Because they are individuals, infallible, and some have little in relation to moral compasses and a sense of right and wrong.  Power can make people drunk with it.   So knocking on someone's door or showing up to confront them in front of possible peers, coworkers, etc. can go terribly wrong.

 

Think about the impact it could have if a cop waltzes into a pub where people are networking over lunch and demands a breathalyzer from someone.  The ripple effect in that could be huge.  There are ramifications from having personal matters handled in this way.  If someone is suspected of something, there's got to be a better way.  Real time, as it happens...not pursuing them as they go about their daily lives.  

 

What a time consuming effort this will be!  Cops are crying for being understaffed and underfunded...so this just makes no sense (at all) to me.

I can understand your concerns Deb. I even share many of them. I wasn't referring to the posters with concerns about this law as "PC babies". This off-topic debate over Marxism should probably shift to another thread to avoid confusion.

[JM_]

Just and FYI for the political nerds out there - here's how the vote broke down on this which is interesting:

 

All but 10 Libs, 8 Bloc, Elisabeth May and 5 NDP voted for the law, most NDP and Conservative against (with 5 not voting on it). 

 

https://openparliament.ca/votes/42-1/383/

 

 

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Look, some of us understand that power doesn't come without huge responsibility and that some abuse that.  Happens ALL the time.  So we're growing more and more concerned with how much power others are granted.  Because they are individuals, infallible, and some have little in relation to moral compasses and a sense of right and wrong.  Power can make people drunk with it. 

Scarier than that, ALL OF US have the capacity for good and evil and abusing said power. Hence it's not a question of if, but when. 

 

Precisely why you do not unnecessarily hand over power/freedoms to the state. The rights and freedoms of the individual are the bedrock of a free society. We're playing FAR too fast and loose with them.

 

8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

through wars, poverty, and populism.  

...and a slow (at first) erosion of rights to an eventual totalitarian state. For something like this to get a foothold, it requires a certain apathy and blind eye of the silent majority.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Scarier than that, ALL OF US have the capacity for good and evil and abusing said power. Hence it's not a question of if, but when. 

 

Precisely why you do not unnecessarily hand over power/freedoms to the state. The rights and freedoms of the individual are the bedrock of a free society. We're playing FAR too fast and loose with them.

 

...and a slow (at first) erosion of rights to an eventual totalitarian state. For something like this to get a foothold, it requires a certain apathy and blind eye of the silent majority.

I think we need a new thread on this topic. 

[Toews]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

I think we need a new thread on this topic. 

But my right to bolus drinking has been completely eroded. 

[Where'd Luongo?]

34 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I suppose if we were living in a fascist dictatorship you'd have a solid point.

 

It might help to look at the actual exceptions in the law:

 

Exception — alcohol

 

(5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)‍(b) if

(a) they consumed alcohol after ceasing to operate the conveyance;

(b) after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood; and

(c) their alcohol consumption is consistent with their blood alcohol concentration as determined in accordance with subsection 320.‍31(1) or (2) and with their having had, at the time when they were operating the conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that was less than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

 

Exception — drugs

 

(6) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)‍(c) or subsection (4) if

(a) they consumed the drug after ceasing to operate the conveyance; and

(b) after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of a bodily substance.

 

Exception — combination of alcohol and drug

 

(7) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)‍(d) if

(a) they consumed the drug or the alcohol or both after ceasing to operate the conveyance;

(b) after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of a bodily substance; and

(c) their alcohol consumption is consistent with their blood alcohol concentration as determined in accordance with subsection 320.‍31(1) or (2) and with their having had, at the time when they were operating the conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration less than the blood alcohol concentration established under paragraph 320.‍38(c).

 

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-46/royal-assent

 

I understand your point, what I am saying is that it all starts somewhere and rarely does it benefit the masses to give up more rights.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

I understand your point, what I am saying is that it all starts somewhere and rarely does it benefit the masses to give up more rights.

I guess I'd need someone to draw me a direct line between this law and that kind of scenario. *IF* its used as intended I don't think it will be the slippery slope people are worried about. If not, thats what the supreme court is for. 

[aGENT]

35 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I guess I'd need someone to draw me a direct line between this law and that kind of scenario. *IF* its used as intended I don't think it will be the slippery slope people are worried about. If not, thats what the supreme court is for. 

One - It's not about how this single, specific law leads in a straight path to a totalitarianism. Nobody's claiming this specific law is the final step to totalitarian rule and if we allow it to pass today, tomorrow it's Gulag's.

 

Two - If it was so easy as to simply connect steps 1-20 on how to get from 'here' to 'there', there'd never be totalitarian rulers as people would easily see it coming and do something about stopping it.

 

So while I can't draw you a pretty diagram or describe how a drunk driving law directly leads to Communist Russia or Nazi Germany in Canada in 2019 (i can't see the future for one), I can guarantee you though, that one of the steps towards totalitarian rule is the erosion of rights and freedoms by an apathetic and silent majority, to the state, at the alter of 'security', safety etc. 

 

IMO, we should be doing things to stop that brand of thinking and law making so as to not let such ideas and slippery slopes gain foot holds. They're persistent little buggers that don't let go once they do, and to murderous consequence.

[-DLC-]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I guess I'd need someone to draw me a direct line between this law and that kind of scenario. *IF* its used as intended I don't think it will be the slippery slope people are worried about. If not, thats what the supreme court is for. 

Point being that innocent people should not have to engage in that process.

 

Look, I'm not overly worried about this as a pretty much non drinker who never drinks and drives.  

 

However, if I'm randomly targeted for some reason (perhaps I cut someone off and they're pissed so report me swerving or something), it's not really fair that I may be forced through a series of events to retain a lawyer and/or going to the measures suggested.  To prove I've done nothing wrong.  In a process that should have never been started.  Remember - the innocent UNTIL part counts for something.  So people who don't break the law don't have to answer to that.

 

If I go home afterward, do have a glass of wine because someone gave me a bottle for Christmas and there's a knock on the door, this could be the beginning of a huge fiasco if handled improperly.  And I have NO confidence that things won't be.  I live in Richmond...the capital of botched everything.  Just look at the casino, money laundering, etc. to see that the police and system in place may be seriously lacking in credibility.  So I'd prefer they don't have the green light to pursue innocent people in a wild goose chase.  

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Point being that innocent people should not have to engage in that process.

 

Look, I'm not overly worried about this as a pretty much non drinker who never drinks and drives.  

 

However, if I'm randomly targeted for some reason (perhaps I cut someone off and they're pissed so report me swerving or something), it's not really fair that I may be forced through a series of events to retain a lawyer and/or going to the measures suggested.  To prove I've done nothing.  In a process that should have never been started.  Remember - the innocent UNTIL part counts for something.  So people who don't break the law don't have to answer to that.

 

If I go home afterward, do have a glass of wine because someone gave me a bottle for Christmas and there's a knock on the door, this could be the beginning of a huge fiasco if handled improperly.  And I have NO confidence that things won't be.  I live in Richmond...the capital of botched everything.  Just look at the casino, money laundering, etc. to see that the police and system in place may be seriously lacking in credibility.

Well said, deb. This is a huge mistake by the Liberal government and, especially, Jody Wilson-Raybould. Instead of tackling the cause of drinking and driving, they just lazily determined that this Draconian measure will effectively tackle the problem. What an abject failure.

 

Once again, Canada chooses to make things more difficult for the innocent and less arduous on the guilty. They could have suggested a five year driving suspension/prohibition for being caught under the influence behind the wheel, but they didn't. If people knew that being convicted of a DUI resulted in such a punishment, I'd wager to say that there would be a significant reduction in incidents. Same goes for a second offense, which should be a prison sentence (1-2 years).

 

 

[JM_]

38 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Point being that innocent people should not have to engage in that process.

 

Look, I'm not overly worried about this as a pretty much non drinker who never drinks and drives.  

 

However, if I'm randomly targeted for some reason (perhaps I cut someone off and they're pissed so report me swerving or something), it's not really fair that I may be forced through a series of events to retain a lawyer and/or going to the measures suggested.  To prove I've done nothing wrong.  In a process that should have never been started.  Remember - the innocent UNTIL part counts for something.  So people who don't break the law don't have to answer to that.

 

If I go home afterward, do have a glass of wine because someone gave me a bottle for Christmas and there's a knock on the door, this could be the beginning of a huge fiasco if handled improperly.  And I have NO confidence that things won't be.  I live in Richmond...the capital of botched everything.  Just look at the casino, money laundering, etc. to see that the police and system in place may be seriously lacking in credibility.  So I'd prefer they don't have the green light to pursue innocent people in a wild goose chase.  

the random targeting isn't supposed to be part of this.... but I do understand the concerns over some police that take things too far. I can't see the law surviving for long if what you're worried about begins to happen. 

 

 

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the random targeting isn't supposed to be part of this.... but I do understand the concerns over some police that take things too far. I can't see the law surviving for long if what you're worried about begins to happen. 

 

 

Supposed to be? I was supposed to be a doctor, but that didn't work out. 

If only poor people are targeted by this law then it will stand as litigation is mostly expensive.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

Supposed to be? I was supposed to be a doctor, but that didn't work out. 

If only poor people are targeted by this law then it will stand as litigation is mostly expensive.

I think we're forgetting where we live. This isn't getting chipped into stone tablets. It can and will be an election issue, people will challenge it if it goes too far. 

 

Or, its applied properly and some deserving people get charged. 

[drdeath]

On 1/10/2019 at 7:25 AM, RUPERTKBD said:

The person answers the door

Well there's his first mistake. 

[-DLC-]

52 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think we're forgetting where we live. This isn't getting chipped into stone tablets. It can and will be an election issue, people will challenge it if it goes too far. 

 

Or, its applied properly and some deserving people get charged. 

The thing is...."if it goes too far" will mean some people have been subjected to that.  Caught up as part of it.

 

I am a hard working individual who could never afford a costly legal battle.  So my concern is that this "could" go wrong and in order for people to defend themselves...it costs a whole lot of $$.  It could really have a terrible impact on someone's life...someone who may be totally innocent but caught up in a net that's to catch people who are breaking the law.  

 

Breathalyzers have flaws.  So if I'm randomly selected to perform one and the system is broken, I then have to prove my innocence.  Even though I'm innocent and there was no justification in making me perform the test.  

 

It seems destined to fail.  And the people used to prove that point...for election issues or other...can have their lives severely disrupted.  Law abiding citizens would surely have a whole lot of anxiety if their test proved they'd been drinking even if they had not been.   They'd be facing an uphill battle...for nothing.

[406in604]

Real easy, get caught drinking and driving and lose your license for life. It will clean up real fast. 

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

people will challenge it if it goes too far. 

It should never have gotten to the point that it could, that's the problem!