Castanet

i agree if u drunk thats a problem as far as im concerned u ought to be able to sip a beer and drive but if u r drunk that is wrong .. thats just my take on it .. who decides what counts as drunk .. i dont know how to answer that

keith1612 wrote:
4 beer will put you over the limit no questions asked at .08
and you call me ignorant
do some research
yes maybe its 1 1/2 or 2 beer but its still a joke.
we have seen sober rcmp officers fail the test so you want to risk it after 1-2 beer?
.05 is not impaired any normal person knows this so why the big cash grab?

You are ignorant...to the fact that if you are going to drive you cannot be impaired. Having more than 3 beer and driving a car is stupid...period. Educate yourself on this because frankly you need some.

Will someone please explain to me why it is so necessary/important to have a drink and drive. Wait till you get home or take a taxi. Drinking and driving is not a right. Not here, not anywhere.

I kinda like sex. It is my right to have sex with my wife. Do we do it on the street when driving. Of course not we wait till a proper place and it doesn't even endanger anyone else. Why can't people do that with drinking. Just wait till you are in the proper place under the proper circumstances. Use common sense.

Trunk-Monkey wrote:

keith1612 wrote:
4 beer will put you over the limit no questions asked at .08
and you call me ignorant
do some research
yes maybe its 1 1/2 or 2 beer but its still a joke.
we have seen sober rcmp officers fail the test so you want to risk it after 1-2 beer?
.05 is not impaired any normal person knows this so why the big cash grab?

You are ignorant...to the fact that if you are going to drive you cannot be impaired. Having more than 3 beer and driving a car is stupid...period. Educate yourself on this because frankly you need some.

no sorry i am not, i know the legal limit is .08.
as long as i am under that limit the police should leave me friggin alone and not waste valuable time they could be catching real criminals.
i guess the fines and quota's are whats important.

http://www.alcoholhelpcenter.net/Progra ... alone.aspx

so a 190 lb man having 3 beers over 2.5 hrs comes out at .025g/100ml
i would think thats below the .08
maybe you should be less ignorant and educate your self.

Smurf wrote:Will someone please explain to me why it is so necessary/important to have a drink and drive. Wait till you get home or take a taxi. Drinking and driving is not a right. Not here, not anywhere.

I kinda like sex. It is my right to have sex with my wife. Do we do it on the street when driving. Of course not we wait till a proper place and it doesn't even endanger anyone else. Why can't people do that with drinking. Just wait till you are in the proper place under the proper circumstances. Use common sense.

there is no reason a common sensed person should not be able to have a couple drinks with dinner and drive home.
as long as you are not impaired there should be no issue.

Smurf wrote:Will someone please explain to me why it is so necessary/important to have a drink and drive. Wait till you get home or take a taxi. Drinking and driving is not a right. Not here, not anywhere.

I agree with you Smurf....but for some of us...it isn't the drinking and driving, it is the legal process IF a driver hasn't been, or has a valid dispute against a violation/charge.....

I kinda like sex.

Glad you hear you are kinda normal!

It is my right to have sex with my wife.

Well, no...it isn't!!! If your wife says no....you ain't getting it......there is no "right" involved!

Do we do it on the street when driving. Of course not we wait till a proper place and it doesn't even endanger anyone else.

I'm gonna leave THAT statement alone.......

Why can't people do that with drinking. Just wait till you are in the proper place under the proper circumstances. Use common sense.

I agree..but some of us are arguing...errrrr..discussing because they are involved in cases where there was NO drinking and driving involved....yet a violation/charge was laid, the OSMV denied appeals, driver was made to serve penalty and still await a court date.

There is a real reason. The legal limit is .05 for a 90 day roadside ban from driving. Over .08 is the legal limit for a criminal charge, much more serious. But either one are legal limits, they just have different consequences.

.05 is for impaired not drunk driving.
Check out the chart here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

Note the line 0.030 to 0.059 loss of concentration

0.060 to 0.090 reasoning, depth perception, peripheral vision, glare recovery

Around 0.050 you are not drunk and no one is saying you are. They are saying you are impaired and not as safe to be driving as you normally are.

So yes there are real reasons.

Smurf wrote:There is a real reason. The legal limit is .05 for a 90 day roadside ban from driving. Over .08 is the legal limit for a criminal charge, much more serious. But either one are legal limits, they just have different consequences.

Not quite right Smurf. Between .05 and .08 BAC qualifies you for a 24 hour prohibition (if you are not within the GLP) and your vehicle impounded. That's all....it's within the WARN range.

Over .08 qualifies you for, according to the Criminal Code of Canada......a criminal charge of impaired driving. Here in BC it qualifies you for administrative sanctions of 90 day suspensions, courses to take, interlock device etc. Technically, an officer can give a driver here in BC BOTH the criminal charge and the administrative sanctions......

why is that a bad thing tho .. i can only think of one other way to do it .. if one is found to be drunk driving a car toss that person in jail for a week or so .. the loss of earnings and freedoms would surely smarten ppl up .. also they would still have a vehicle to get around in and the law would be happy because ppl would still be afraid

theyeti wrote:why is that a bad thing tho .. i can only think of one other way to do it .. if one is found to be drunk driving a car toss that person in jail for a week or so .. the loss of earnings and freedoms would surely smarten ppl up .. also they would still have a vehicle to get around in and the law would be happy because ppl would still be afraid

Do you know the "red tape" involved the minute an officer detains you? Do you know the increased chances of something being done wrong during this extended process....technicalities etc? This is exactly the reason the government has gone to the administrative sanctions...to eliminate all that.

ive been arrested a few times never seen much red tape it was mostly red blood

i have a good friend who drunkenly mowed down 2 ppl and got away with it due to police error . even tho its my good buddy he made 2 vegetables and walked i cant hardly look him in the eye when i think of that .. drunk driving is not a victemless crime by any stretch of the imagination .. but again i do not trust the breatalyzer so i dont know how they ought to decide who be drunk and who be drivin

theyeti wrote: .. drunk driving is not a victemless crime by any stretch of the imagination .. but again i do not trust the breatalyzer so i dont know how they ought to decide who be drunk and who be drivin

The ONLY way to eliminate that question is to allow NO alcohol within your system while driving. That is a more sure way than trying to detect varying levels of BAC , where different penalties are given.

agreed

I also agree