Random breathalyzer tests considered for Canada

[Mutha]

And in general, I would say that Canada is becoming a more dangerous place, partly because the powers of the police and the courts are being steadily eroded. Sentences are a joke, criminals get free on technicalities, or the courts don't bother to prosecute because of stupid little loopholes. I'm not afraid of police at all. I'm afraid of the judges, people in the BC Civil Liberties Association, and the law makers who have made Canada a wonderful place for criminals to do business.

Man I gotta be honest, you just don't understand the basic principles of our justice system do you. Clearly civil rights either.

Actually, you might be surprised.

[westsidebud]

Count me out of a society where we investigate our law abiding citizens "just in case". I lost my father at 6 years old to a drunk driver too, it was him. I do not accept drunk driving but I also do not accept removing freedoms and liberties from innocent people because of it. This is simply not an acceptable solution.

well said.once we go down that road we headed for a police state

[Urbane]

Will one of you “My Rights, My Freedoms” Please tell me where the rights and freedoms were for my biological father as he was violently murdered by a stupid drunk hitting him head on with heat so intense that both vehicles were welded together.

Tell me please where the rights and freedoms were of my cousin’s best friend as he was murdered by my cousin’s alcohol-induced ineptitude behind the wheel. Where were the rights and freedoms of the victim’s family? Where were the rights and freedoms of my cousin’s wife and kids whose lives have been permanently altered?

I’ll tell you where they were: My biological father’s rights and freedoms were held in the hands of the drunk at the wheel who murdered him. My murderous cousin had the rights and freedoms of his victim and all the people he hurt in his hands as he drove that night.

I am with Lady tehMah here. Rights and freedoms have become a me-me-mine-mine endeavor, and that’s just backwards. Rights and freedoms are what we as individuals ought to grant each other, not seize and take for ourselves at every opportunity.

We suck at granting rights and freedoms to each other, and government legislation is the price for it. I place the blame squarely upon the ‘Me Me Mine Mine’ group.

Very well said kc. I understand the "Libertarian" perspective and the desire for freedom but we have to look at the injuries and deaths that occur at the hands of drunk drivers. If drunk drivers were only hurting themselves then I'd be with the Libertarians.

[kgcayenne]

I do understand the threat people are feeling towards their personal privacy and liberties. A couple of things stand out for me though. Driving a car is a privilege for which one has to be tested and approved. People need not be tested and approved for residing in their own home because right to shelter and sustenance is an unquestionable thing, and privacy in that home is a reasonable expectation. However, the second we step out of our home (or even reach beyond our home electronically over voice or web), we are accountable to everyone around us, and everyone we impact with our actions/statements.

Any business owner/manager can refuse us entry/service for disruptive behaviour.
When out in public, we have a very limited expectation of privacy.
When we exercise our privilege to get behind the wheel of a car, our actions have the capacity to injure, maim, and kill. I understand the reasoning behind this new legislation. If it is indeed the beginnings of a slippery slope to invading one’s personal home (non-portable, non-public), then it’s a sad day for everyone. Doubly sad is the fact that the human race has reached a point where people simply can’t get it together to look out for anyone other than themselves, and that a group of government-empowered people has to force such practices on the general public to root out a minority who are disruptive and dangerous to the majority.

Again, if people were better at assigning honour and dignity to one another and granting each other the rights and freedoms due (rather than demanding or simply taking liberties), there would be no need for the type of security measures being legislated.

[westsidebud]

still kc we should expect to be innocent till proven guilty

[zzontar]

I saw nothing wrong with the old way where if the cops see someone driving erratically or smell booze on someone's breath or have a reasonable suspicion, then they give that person a breathalizer test. I think it would be pretty humiliating to be pulled over on the side of a road and then given a breathalyzer while being rubbernecked by all the passersby... for NOTHING. This would also most definitely make it easier to pass a law allowing them to just enter your home for no reason. A very big can of worms this would open up... what the hell, I'm talking like Frodo now...

[Bsuds]

still kc we should expect to be innocent till proven guilty

And if I'm innocent I wouldn't object to testing!

Maybe anyone stopped for a traffic violation should have to submit to a test for alcohol and drugs.

[Urbane]

still kc we should expect to be innocent till proven guilty

Would you be happy if there were no security checks at airports? By the way, I thought cv23 made a good point:

I would however have no issue with breathalyzer ignition locks becoming mandatory on all vehicles at all. Let's stop the offenders before they get on our roads.

How many who are opposed to the random breathalyzer tests would be okay with the breathalyzer ignition locks?

[dieseluphammerdown]

I'm not sure how this could be an invasion of privacy when it in fact is happening on "PUBLIC" roads.

If they were entering your home for no specific reason than i could see the upset but on a "PUBLIC" road i don't get it.

[fred 2]

Everyone should be tested,for drugs because you have a hard time to tell.

[Lady tehMa]

Lady tehMa, with all due respect, this thread is not about alternate solutions. This thread is about random breathalyzer tests, which some people have commented on. One does not have to have a better solution to a problem to disagree with one proposed solution.

Thank you for your courtesy Nebula, I do appreciate it.

I agree that this solution is not the perfect one, but I believe my question is relevant: "If not this, then what to manage the problem?" If random breathalyzer tests are not it, what can we do? I am of the mind that something would be better than nothing at all . . .

[Nebula]

still kc we should expect to be innocent till proven guilty

Would you be happy if there were no security checks at airports?

That's a good point.

[Mutha]

Actually, that is a very good point. I don't hear anyone crying about being checked over before they get on a plane.

[Nebula]

Actually, that is a very good point. I don't hear anyone crying about being checked over before they get on a plane.

Except for Costco, where else can you get a free frisk?

[Veovis]

So with regards argument of "In your home is one thing and public is anouther". I feel that is the argument that allows this to go forward, and yet opens the door to my home in the future.

Nevermind the fact, that people already want laws for what you can do in your home, who your sexual partner can be, whether you can smoke, etc. And though some special interest groups may create a valid sounding argument for these things, it does not change the fact that you are being bit by bit regulated into doing what you are told at all times.

Just because there are irrisponsible people, does not mean that the bulk of the population should receive treatment as if they are a criminal first, and a citizen second.

As for the breathalizer ignition locks. Not a bad idea, but easily bypassed I am sure. (canned air for cleaning computers perhaps) The reason I see that as not the same invasion is simply because that is between you and your car, not you and everyone on that road, even though you have had 0 to drink.

Now what about if you blow 0.01? Jail, continue on your way?, .02? .03? All well under legal. Some would argue at 0.000001 is impaired and you should go to jail.

At which level do you draw a line. My opinion? Yours? The crazy guy down the street?

Currently if a police officer pulls you over for an infraction, they must have pulled you over for a reason. This helps reduce the abuse of power that can occur by officers targeting people for no reason.