Castanet

I too agree....But the logistics of that would probably land us with just as contentious of a debate.

So if the powers that be made it illegal to have any BAC while driving how do you propose that the enforcement of that law be administered? Right now there is a scaled system approach. There are 12hr, 24hr, 3/7/30-day, 90-day and Criminal Code Impaired/over 80mg sanctions for people starting at 004mg% (for class 7 drivers) and up. But if the government went and made the law 0 how would that look? Would the person driving around at, say 25mg%, deserve the same punishment/sanctions as someone at 180-mg%? I personally don't think so. So if they instituted a 0mg% law it would have to be a scaled approach and really, the only change to the system we have now would be some form of more minor sanction for those in the range under 50mg%. We'd still be arguing on here about how the police/OSMV/Government in general were going about administering the enforcement/punishment of the law.

keith1612 wrote:
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.

Thanks for proving my point. You said you couldnt have a beer and drive...and you were wrong. You can have approx 2 or three...based on your research. You are incorrect tho in saying .05 is nothing. If you drive with a BAC of .05 mg% and are caught you are going to get busted. That could be a 215 or an IRP 3 day or 7 day...depending.
Trust me I am very educated in this subject but some how I think you could careless about that. Take the time to learn what you can consume before driving and you will not have a problem.
Oh and for the record..yes 025g/100ml is below .08 mg% as you stated "I would think..."

yes and thats the problem police will always have .. no one wants to get charged or go to jail . no one wants to mow down two innocent ppl either . and no one wanted to see my buddy get away with it .

i think the 0 booze law would be hated but understood . u could hand out cheap breathalyzers at bars and beer shops get way more cabs and busses on the road , improve walking trails . and friggen hammer the dummies who still dont get it .
i for the most part am at loggerheads with the ideas of police but if ppl so stupid to get all *bleep* up and drive around busy city streets its no good

theyeti wrote:yes and thats the problem police will always have .. no one wants to get charged or go to jail . no one wants to mow down two innocent ppl either . and no one wanted to see my buddy get away with it .

i think the 0 booze law would be hated but understood . u could hand out cheap breathalyzers at bars and beer shops get way more cabs and busses on the road , improve walking trails . and friggen hammer the dummies who still dont get it .
i for the most part am at loggerheads with the ideas of police but if ppl so stupid to get all *bleep* up and drive around busy city streets its no good

You make some valid points.

Although, how many people who still drink and drive yet they know of or know someone who was in a accident while impaired? Must one kill another before they come to the conclusion that alcohol impaires your ability to drive?

Do you have any knowledge on how much one has to consume to put their BAC at .05? Will the old "two" beers put you at .05 mg?

If you drive, park on a popular bar parking lot some evening and count how many people stagger to a vehicle, take three to four stabs at the key lock in a effort to get in and then drive away *bleep*.

Then report back on your observations here.

Trunk-Monkey wrote: Take the time to learn what you can consume before driving and you will not have a problem.

Sorry Trunk, I'm calling BS on that one. If you're under the limit and have residual mouth-alcohol an officer doesn't allow to dissipate and he makes you blow several times consecutively, there will be a problem.

KL3-Something wrote:I too agree....But the logistics of that would probably land us with just as contentious of a debate.

So if the powers that be made it illegal to have any BAC while driving how do you propose that the enforcement of that law be administered? Right now there is a scaled system approach. There are 12hr, 24hr, 3/7/30-day, 90-day and Criminal Code Impaired/over 80mg sanctions for people starting at 004mg% (for class 7 drivers) and up. But if the government went and made the law 0 how would that look? Would the person driving around at, say 25mg%, deserve the same punishment/sanctions as someone at 180-mg%? I personally don't think so. So if they instituted a 0mg% law it would have to be a scaled approach and really, the only change to the system we have now would be some form of more minor sanction for those in the range under 50mg%. We'd still be arguing on here about how the police/OSMV/Government in general were going about administering the enforcement/punishment of the law.

How bout with a device that is meant to give acurate readings that are reliable enough to stand up in a court of law! Not the Screening devices currently in use. The Port Moody debacle is just the start of the fall of IRP's. How could they have untrained bafoons incorrectley calibrating devices, then using them to deliver harsh punishment on the people of BC? Why are all IRP's handed out by that police department not being automatically lifted and remedies being delivered? The appeal for the Sivia remedy decision is on its way and so is justice finally! Liberals are on the way out along with the *bleep* justice minister who doesn't understand the fundamentals of law or justice in any way!

There ought to be a law against posting on forums while impaired.

KL3-Something wrote:There ought to be a law against posting on forums while impaired.

That will probably be next for our police state!!

zzontar wrote:

Trunk-Monkey wrote: Take the time to learn what you can consume before driving and you will not have a problem.

Sorry Trunk, I'm calling BS on that one. If you're under the limit and have residual mouth-alcohol an officer doesn't allow to dissipate and he makes you blow several times consecutively, there will be a problem.

Hense the reason you are asked when was the last time you consumed alcohol. If it was in the last 15 mins then you wait the 15 mins for the possible mouth alcohol to dissipate. Pretty simple.

KL3-Something wrote:

zzontar wrote:
What do you consider to be a right and not a privilege?

Perhaps the better question would be "where does it state that driving a motor vehicle is a right?".

Okay then, you can lose the "privilege" of driving by doing something illegal. There are also many "rights" you can lose by doing something illegal, so it still seems pretty grey to me.

zzontar wrote:

Trunk-Monkey wrote: Take the time to learn what you can consume before driving and you will not have a problem.

Sorry Trunk, I'm calling BS on that one. If you're under the limit and have residual mouth-alcohol an officer doesn't allow to dissipate and he makes you blow several times consecutively, there will be a problem.

Mouth alcohol lasts 10 minutes from the time you drink.

Any officer trained in the use of any alcohol testing device will wait that time.

Do you think they have nothing else to do but spend it with some one who is under, no they are looking for impaired drivers!

quote]zzontar wrote:


Okay then, you can lose the "privilege" of driving by doing something illegal. There are also many "rights" you can lose by doing something illegal, so it still seems pretty grey to me.[/quote]


Please explain why you shouldn't loose rights when you do something illegal.

B.C. Solicitor General Shirley Bond has ordered a review of why the RCMP tried 15 times to give a sober 82-year-old Cranbrook woman a breath test for drinking before citing her for failing to blow, suspending her licence and towing her car.

After the two-hour ordeal in a midnight chill, Margaret MacDonald went to the local hospital and had her blood tested for alcohol. There was none.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/12 ... th-sample/

see what happens when you take court out of the equation.

I see the adjudicator being a huge part of this problem.

The problem is the system is extremely flawed ,Starting with using a handheld roadside screening device As a civil tool of prosecution And hiding behind it as a way To get around the courts , lawyers and most certainly judges.

I want drunk drivers off the road as much as the next guy

But everything in life is not black-and-white . And this case shows Just shows how manipulative RCMP officers can be to try to get a prosecution.