Random breathalyzer tests considered for Canada

[steven lloyd]

Great summary Steven. I know I don't feel comfortable being in favour of the random testing but I feel less comfortable being opposed. Tough call though.

It is a tough call. Some posters here have made the point though that measures like these (random breathalysers, airport security, etc.) have become necessary because of the self-serving and destructive actions of people who have no sense of accountability to the collective (society and its innocent members). It really is a slippery slope as stated though and I appreciate that.

[Big ned]

Good example of this is in the "positive police story" thread. One guy suggested it was a positive that his police buddy let him go when he had been drinking one night and got stopped by the police. To me that is the antithesis of a positive police story.

There are far too many deaths due to drunk driving and innocent lives are worth far more than a persons right to drink and get in your car and drive. I think police should station themselves outside of a bars at closing time and the minute someone gets in their car and starts driving, you pull them over and give them a test... to heck with random testing, let's start profiling these idiots.

[Woodenhead]

I'm against this. Slippery slope, presumed guilt, etc. (many good points have already been made - both sides) We're trying to legislate ourselves into little protective bubbles with the guvment holding our hands & watching us every step of the way. Turning our minds & freedoms over to them, so to speak. Just keep slapping bandaids on the deeper problems; keep on treating the symptoms & ignoring the disease.

Then again, maybe it's OK as long as they don't do these random checks in the HOV lane. Keep that green traffic flowing!

[steven lloyd]

I'm against this. Slippery slope, presumed guilt, etc. (many good points have already been made - both sides)

I’m inclined to agree (that random testing is a slippery slope) and do agree that many good points have been made for both sides of the argument. I’m wondering what people think of ned’s idea:

I think police should station themselves outside of a bars at closing time and the minute someone gets in their car and starts driving, you pull them over and give them a test... to heck with random testing, let's start profiling these idiots.

[WhatThe]

At least there would be reasonable suscpicion then. But since road blocks are for the most part on holidays (xmas, newyears etc. Home to home, party to party) not sure how effective it would be overall
I even have problems with the questions they ask. Where are you going? How long? Those types. Since we are guaranteed freedom of movement I feel the provincial and federal govt have no business asking. There are differentless invasive questions to determine slurred speach, smell of alcohol.

[Veovis]

You may "own" you home, but I "own" my car, if one property is allowed why to you somehow think the other won't be? Breathalizer will graduate to car searches, personal searches then finally to unwarrented home serches if allowed to progress, and yes, all in the name of safety.

After all your house is residing in the municipality/Province/Country and as so will be governed by whatever they feel like.

It's not that the random breathalizer is such a horrid idea, but it opens the door wide for many many worse things, plus I don't wish to be treated as a criminal when I am not.

Where to start.?

Lets start here your "CAR" is operated on a "PUBLIC" road.
My home is on "PRIVATE" property.

What are these "MANY" "MANY" worse things you speak of.?

Last I checked if you don't have the mineral rights (which very few do anymore) you only anctually own the top bit of your property, so it would easily be argued that your property is on someone elses.

Why would you care about your "private property" it would all be in the name of a new degree of safety wouldn't it?


Overall though as the last few posters have summarized nicely, is it is a complicated issue, certainly there are merits for this, but also merits against it, this is the problem with some propositions, it all comes down to, is what can MAYBE be gained, worth what is garaunteed to be lost?

[dieseluphammerdown]

You may "own" you home, but I "own" my car, if one property is allowed why to you somehow think the other won't be? Breathalizer will graduate to car searches, personal searches then finally to unwarrented home serches if allowed to progress, and yes, all in the name of safety.

After all your house is residing in the municipality/Province/Country and as so will be governed by whatever they feel like.

It's not that the random breathalizer is such a horrid idea, but it opens the door wide for many many worse things, plus I don't wish to be treated as a criminal when I am not.

Where to start.?

Lets start here your "CAR" is operated on a "PUBLIC" road.
My home is on "PRIVATE" property.

What are these "MANY" "MANY" worse things you speak of.?

Last I checked if you don't have the mineral rights (which very few do anymore) you only anctually own the top bit of your property, so it would easily be argued that your property is on someone elses.

Why would you care about your "private property" it would all be in the name of a new degree of safety wouldn't it?


Overall though as the last few posters have summarized nicely, is it is a complicated issue, certainly there are merits for this, but also merits against it, this is the problem with some propositions, it all comes down to, is what can MAYBE be gained, worth what is garaunteed to be lost?

How do you know i didn't go purchase and now own the mineral rights under my house.? Kamloops isn't that far of drive to go do this.

My point however is a public road is just that and if the police every once in a blue moon inconvenience me for a couple of minutes so be it.
That is a minor compared to the damage a drunk driver will do.

Nothing to hide nothing to worry about.

[Advocate]

I'm against this. Slippery slope, presumed guilt, etc. (many good points have already been made - both sides)

I’m inclined to agree (that random testing is a slippery slope) and do agree that many good points have been made for both sides of the argument. I’m wondering what people think of ned’s idea:

I think police should station themselves outside of a bars at closing time and the minute someone gets in their car and starts driving, you pull them over and give them a test... to heck with random testing, let's start profiling these idiots.

I think it's an oxymoron. Today, when police attend a complaint about a house party in a neighbourhood, they give the 100 or so kids five minutes to clear the building (and find another place to party, perhaps in the park or the bush, or another neighbhourhood home) and watch, as they all get in their cars and drive away. This is how we are training our partying youth to respect the laws. Police will also attend a bush party and stay and watch the kids drinking alcohol for a bit, then tell them to be careful and leave the scene. They might set up road blocks down the road. What do we expect they will do as adults when we 'train' them this way? Things are the way they are because we set them up this way.?[*]

[Veovis]

Don't think you can actually purchase mineral rights anymore, don't think it's been available for quite some time. (could be wrong though)


Well, your desire to let them bother you is your choice, I would rather not be treated as a criminal when I am not. By pulling you over they are simply saying, we already beleive you have commited this crime, now prove you didn't. It's rather against the foundation of our judicial system, flawed as that system may be.

So in my opinion, i simply see this as a gateway to then take people as guilty of other crimes and have them prove they didn't do those either. You and I may both be innocent of any wrongdoing, I just want to be treated as such.

It's simply a cost vs gain scenario and I doubt the gain will be worth allowing police to treat people like that.

[dieseluphammerdown]

Don't think you can actually purchase mineral rights anymore, don't think it's been available for quite some time. (could be wrong though)


Well, your desire to let them bother you is your choice, I would rather not be treated as a criminal when I am not. By pulling you over they are simply saying, we already beleive you have commited this crime, now prove you didn't. It's rather against the foundation of our judicial system, flawed as that system may be.

So in my opinion, i simply see this as a gateway to then take people as guilty of other crimes and have them prove they didn't do those either. You and I may both be innocent of any wrongdoing, I just want to be treated as such.

It's simply a cost vs gain scenario and I doubt the gain will be worth allowing police to treat people like that.

Yes you still can phone the store front in Kamloops and take a drive it's that easy.


I don't see it as being treated like a criminal i see it as my tax dollar at work keeping our streets safer for all to enjoy and have a little more piece of mind.

There is zero implication of guilt simply by being stopped , like i said it is a random stop that is no inconvenience or worry to a law abiding citizen.

If i have done nothing wrong i have nothing to fear and i don't believe for a moment that if you were to be stopped and showed respect and were courtesy that you would receive nothing less in return.

[Veovis]

Well you seem to be ok with this level but not a home search, why? You've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear, and a home search would only be a mild annoyance for the sake of safety wouldn't it?


Why not toss the breathalizer in favor of a small device like that which is used for testing diabeties blood sugar levels, but this tells you if they have had alcohol, cocain, meth, pot, or any other drug. Would a random blood test be ok as well to you?

Some people may be ok with a breathalizer, but not the blood, my line on what is acceptable for "safety" or the isllusion of safety is simply different than yours.

[dieseluphammerdown]

Well you seem to be ok with this level but not a home search, why? You've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear, and a home search would only be a mild annoyance for the sake of safety wouldn't it?


Why not toss the breathalizer in favor of a small device like that which is used for testing diabeties blood sugar levels, but this tells you if they have had alcohol, cocain, meth, pot, or any other drug. Would a random blood test be ok as well to you?

Some people may be ok with a breathalizer, but not the blood, my line on what is acceptable for "safety" or the isllusion of safety is simply different than yours.

Again it's my private property. Roads are public.


I think on this one your stretching things a bit to suit your argument. A blood test is a whole other matter.

[Veovis]

It's not for my argument. In all seriousness wouldn't that be far more useful of a tool than a breathalizer. Why test for 1 drug, when you could test for many in the same situation. Those diabeties tests take a tiny punch to a finger and get results quickly. What if that technology was available? I still wouldn't much like it, but if you never do drugs, you have nothing to worry about right? That is your main argument I have seen, if you are innocent you shouldn't care how you are treated because you have nothing to fear. (of course the many innocent people that received the death penalty through history may wish to disagree with you there)

Your argument seems to me to be that they can search your car and search your person, but stay out of your home? I personally don't see a difference, and the "public" road vs "private home" is to me a pretty weak defense. If it's all for the safety of society how can you draw lines as to what is allowable invasion into peoples lives with no justifiable cause.

If we could look to our police and security forces out there and see an unbiased group that is always fair, and doesn't profile people, always have an even temperment and don't screw up on a daily basis, I may not be so concerned about allowing them the power to treat people as guilty until proven innocent. Overall thats just not the case and I don't trust them with that power. (and no I don't hate the police, I have high respect for them to be honest)

I know I'm not going to change your mind flyersfan, nor you mine as to whether this concept is a good idea. I simply see some downsides to opening this type of treatment that I don't like.

WHat if someone just cleaned up to go out on a date and used mouthwash to be minty fresh for his girlfriend leaves the house hits the random stop. Likely he'll blow over, now he has a 24 hour and likely a court appearence. He wasn't drinking or intoxicated, but in the same trouble? Now what?

Certainly that isn't likely to be a main occurance but an innocent individual will then be in trouble, or at least massive inconvienience does he deserve it?

[dieseluphammerdown]

It's not for my argument. In all seriousness wouldn't that be far more useful of a tool than a breathalizer. Why test for 1 drug, when you could test for many in the same situation. Those diabeties tests take a tiny punch to a finger and get results quickly. What if that technology was available? I still wouldn't much like it, but if you never do drugs, you have nothing to worry about right? That is your main argument I have seen, if you are innocent you shouldn't care how you are treated because you have nothing to fear. (of course the many innocent people that received the death penalty through history may wish to disagree with you there)

Your argument seems to me to be that they can search your car and search your person, but stay out of your home? I personally don't see a difference, and the "public" road vs "private home" is to me a pretty weak defense. If it's all for the safety of society how can you draw lines as to what is allowable invasion into peoples lives with no justifiable cause.

If we could look to our police and security forces out there and see an unbiased group that is always fair, and doesn't profile people, always have an even temperment and don't screw up on a daily basis, I may not be so concerned about allowing them the power to treat people as guilty until proven innocent. Overall thats just not the case and I don't trust them with that power. (and no I don't hate the police, I have high respect for them to be honest)

I know I'm not going to change your mind flyersfan, nor you mine as to whether this concept is a good idea. I simply see some downsides to opening this type of treatment that I don't like.

WHat if someone just cleaned up to go out on a date and used mouthwash to be minty fresh for his girlfriend leaves the house hits the random stop. Likely he'll blow over, now he has a 24 hour and likely a court appearence. He wasn't drinking or intoxicated, but in the same trouble? Now what?

Certainly that isn't likely to be a main occurance but an innocent individual will then be in trouble, or at least massive inconvienience does he deserve it?

Oddly enough i watched this on tv on myth busters , turns out mouth wash couldn't be used as a defense as they blew into breathalyzers after using mouth wash and it didn't register.

[Veovis]

Good to know, I knew alcohol content in the mouthwash but I guess not. I only saw the episode where they tried to beat the breathalizer. Some people have weird ideas, I think sucking on pennies and licking batteries were 2 of the top ways. Yeah, they didn't work.


Edit

Looks like mythbusters used it from this summary as a potential way to beat the beathalizer not cause a false positive. The de fact o site seems to say that false positive would occur from mouthwash due to the high alcohol content. Some tests apparently went from .00 to .43 (though I can't say how good that websit is)

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode6

http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=138

Edit again:

at the 8:30 mark he uses mouthwash. It racks the machine right up. With crazy readings though, i beleive the officer is supposed to waith like 15 minutes and test again. Either way, that guys date thinks she got stood up by the time he ever gets there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RIbanu0I4k