Random breathalyzer tests considered for Canada

[WhatThe]

Don't drive while impaired, and you have nothing to worry about. I'm all for it. BTW, I really hope my tax dollars don't pay the salaries of the coneheads in the BC Civil Liberties Association.

Case in point of someone who doesn't recognize what freedom means. They are funded by the donations and the law society if BC.
Where do you think we'd be without them and those that support them? How sad some just don't get it.
Read history and see how many have struggled and died for a chance at freedom and here in Canada we just give it away.
Will you be saying the same thing when they want a blood sample?

[Mutha]

Don't drive while impaired, and you have nothing to worry about. I'm all for it. BTW, I really hope my tax dollars don't pay the salaries of the coneheads in the BC Civil Liberties Association.

Case in point of someone who doesn't recognize what freedom means. They are funded by the donations and the law society if BC.
Where do you think we'd be without them and those that support them? How sad some just don't get it.
Read history and see how many have struggled and died for a chance at freedom and here in Canada we just give it away.
Will you be saying the same thing when they want a blood sample?

Where would we be without the BC Civil Liberties Association? You mean the guys who protect the privacy of convicted sex offenders and pedophiles? I think we would be a lot better off without them quite frankly.

BTW, if they police ever want to take a blood sample from me, I would quite happily comply.

[cv23]

Where would we be without the BC Civil Liberties Association? You mean the guys who protect the privacy of convicted sex offenders and pedophiles? I think we would be a lot better off without them quite frankly.

So you would have no issue with the a masked SWAT team kicking in your front door and forcing you and your family to the floor with guns to your heads simply on "suspicion" because they had a an anonymous tip you were a drug dealer? This is also the type of thing Civil Liberties Assoc protect us citizens against so don't be so eager to see them gone. The police should need some real evidence to taken action rather than just "suspicion" or speculation. Remember how far the police were allowed to go on mere "suspicion" in South Africa and in Nazi Germany. We can not let things like this be repeated and without watchdogs like Civil Liberties Associations we start down a very slippery slope.

As far as random breathalyzer tests go while I see them as possibly a useful tool in slowing the carnage on our roads caused by drinking and driving I also see them as the start of possible further infringements on personal rights and feel there needs to be more than just "suspicion" on the officers part before they should be administered. Mere "suspicion" should not be grounds as this is making protection of our rights extremely subjective.
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.

[WhatThe]

Perhaps you should go to their website and see what they do for you/us. I take it your not into history much huh?

[Mutha]

Perhaps you should go to their website and see what they do for you/us. I take it your not into history much huh?

Sorry, nothing you or anyone else says will ever convince me that the BC Civil Liberties Assoc. is anything more than a complete waste of money. I don't need to be protected from the police. I need to be protected from the scumbags that might be living down the street from me, that I don't know about, because some bleeding hearted idiot from the BC Civil Liberties Assoc is protecting them.

[Veovis]

Random house searches - never know where a grow op or other crime may be

Full child service review - you may not abuse your children, but then again maybe you DO?....

Random full cavity search while you walk around town - never know who may have drugs on them.

WOuld these be acceptable as well? No? Well, it's the slope you walk and the power you give when non warrented checks become allowed.

Remember how people were offended of the Canada Day searches of anyone and everyone? Wasn't that rules a violation of rights at the time, yet here people are supporting the same type of treatment.

Hmmm, officer pulls you over, decides he doesn't like you because he remembers you beat him in air hockey in high school. Next day, your bank accounts are frozen, house is destroyed in a search and you family is scrutinized unwarented, and embarrased in front of all your neighbors.

Why?

You might have been a drug dealer and assasin, but don't worry folks, you're all safe now because of this fine office with a grudge.

What is being suggested is police action without cause and it's not good. Can I see a benefit to simple random breathalizers, yeah, I can see it, but it opens a very very dangerous door.

As an example (not condoning anything)

Two drivers are heading home, one drives perfectly, oveys all laws and speed limits, signals at every turn, and effectivly drives perfect.

Second driver is weaving all over the road, crossing lines, narrowly missing oncomming traffic and pedestrians.

Now upon review the fist driver is at .10 blood alcohol and the second .04 Turn out the one has a high alcohol tollerence, and the other has a mild allergy that makes it effect him far worse.

Who do you want off the road, typically both, but if you had to choose one, I pick the guy thats looking to hurt or kill someone.

Sure thats a make beleive scenario, but not impossible, I want officers to make our roads a safer place, not simply go on random witch hunts. You have reason to think they been drinking, take em down, otherwise, you don't have reason to do anything.

[WhatThe]

Perhaps you should go to their website and see what they do for you/us. I take it your not into history much huh?

Sorry, nothing you or anyone else says will ever convince me that the BC Civil Liberties Assoc. is anything more than a complete waste of money. I don't need to be protected from the police. I need to be protected from the scumbags that might be living down the street from me, that I don't know about, because some bleeding hearted idiot from the BC Civil Liberties Assoc is protecting them.

Continue then living with your eyes closed. Even if you are ungrateful there are people willing to protect your rights, even though you don't deserve them.

Obviously theconcept that no ones freedoms are safe unless everyones freedoms are safe is too clear for you to comprehend.

[Mutha]

Random house searches - never know where a grow op or other crime may be

Full child service review - you may not abuse your children, but then again maybe you DO?....

Random full cavity search while you walk around town - never know who may have drugs on them.

WOuld these be acceptable as well? No? Well, it's the slope you walk and the power you give when non warrented checks become allowed.

Remember how people were offended of the Canada Day searches of anyone and everyone? Wasn't that rules a violation of rights at the time, yet here people are supporting the same type of treatment.

Hmmm, officer pulls you over, decides he doesn't like you because he remembers you beat him in air hockey in high school. Next day, your bank accounts are frozen, house is destroyed in a search and you family is scrutinized unwarented, and embarrased in front of all your neighbors.

Why?

You might have been a drug dealer and assasin, but don't worry folks, you're all safe now because of this fine office with a grudge.

What is being suggested is police action without cause and it's not good. Can I see a benefit to simple random breathalizers, yeah, I can see it, but it opens a very very dangerous door.

As an example (not condoning anything)

Two drivers are heading home, one drives perfectly, oveys all laws and speed limits, signals at every turn, and effectivly drives perfect.

Second driver is weaving all over the road, crossing lines, narrowly missing oncomming traffic and pedestrians.

Now upon review the fist driver is at .10 blood alcohol and the second .04 Turn out the one has a high alcohol tollerence, and the other has a mild allergy that makes it effect him far worse.

Who do you want off the road, typically both, but if you had to choose one, I pick the guy thats looking to hurt or kill someone.

Sure thats a make beleive scenario, but not impossible, I want officers to make our roads a safer place, not simply go on random witch hunts. You have reason to think they been drinking, take em down, otherwise, you don't have reason to do anything.

Wow, sounds like someone's a bit paranoid.

[Mutha]

"Two drivers are heading home, one drives perfectly, oveys all laws and speed limits, signals at every turn, and effectivly drives perfect.

Second driver is weaving all over the road, crossing lines, narrowly missing oncomming traffic and pedestrians.

Now upon review the fist driver is at .10 blood alcohol and the second .04 Turn out the one has a high alcohol tollerence, and the other has a mild allergy that makes it effect him far worse.

Who do you want off the road, typically both, but if you had to choose one, I pick the guy thats looking to hurt or kill someone. "

Actually, your argument just supports the need for random checks. Just because a person doesn't exhibit signs of impairment while driving, doesn't mean that their reactions and judgement aren't impaired. The guy with a blood alcohol level of 1.0 could do something stupid 2 blocks down the road, and kill a carload of people. Impaired is impaired. If random checks will take more impaired drivers off the road, good. If I go to the pub, have a few beers and get pulled over and I blow over .08, that's my own damn fault.

[westsidebud]

Perhaps you should go to their website and see what they do for you/us. I take it your not into history much huh?

Sorry, nothing you or anyone else says will ever convince me that the BC Civil Liberties Assoc. is anything more than a complete waste of money. I don't need to be protected from the police. I need to be protected from the scumbags that might be living down the street from me, that I don't know about, because some bleeding hearted idiot from the BC Civil Liberties Assoc is protecting them.

move to the states, no freedoms there and they will more than happily throw you in jail for nothing at all

[Mutha]

I would actually love to live in the states. At least criminals don't have more rights than their victims down there.

[cv23]

I would actually love to live in the states. At least criminals don't have more rights than their victims down there.

Yet in the US roadblocks to catch drunk drivers, random searches of vehicles and the taking of random breathalyzer samples are all illegal in most states and all thanks to the civil liberty's associations which you hate so vehemently.

[Veovis]

MRpeepee, not even the slightest bit paranoid to be honest, but one has to look at the authority being granted. Once a line is crosse dit can be used as an argument as precidence in similar cases.

If someone without cause randomly searched your house, would you be ok with that?

My point is simply that with no reason why should people be treated as a criminal? Why should the system switch from "innocent until proven guilty", to "guilty until proven innocent", or simply, "guilty because we feel like it and will ty to get eveidence later"


As for my scenario, I don't see how a random stop would help, simply the most dangerous driver in that scenario would be legally allowed to leave as they are even under the .05 level. Random stop won't help the people he runs over a block later, but an officer watching and using judgement would. A toll booth type of situation will get the mental attention from an officer as does sitting in a toll booth reading your homework. Minimal.

It's a poor solution, and a slippery slope. As I said, I'm not paranoid, simply seeing minimal gain, for what could be monumental losses.

[Lady tehMa]

Personal freedom is the battlestandard of the "me" generation. As in "I should be allowed to do what I want when I want and you should not interfere."

I believe in personal freedom, it is what the people who settled Canada came looking for. The difference here is that they had personal responsibility. The reason these personal "freedoms" are being eroded is that society is collectively becoming about the individual, and not the greater good. The person who wants to drink, does so. The person who wants to drive while drunk, does so. And does not think about the devastation they could cause. "I'm good" is the refrain of impaired judgment.

I would rather that everyone was responsible, but they aren't. Less and less people are choosing to be responsible. That is why these things (which should be simple common sense) are being legislated, or considered for legislation.

[westsidebud]

Personal freedom is the battlestandard of the "me" generation. As in "I should be allowed to do what I want when I want and you should not interfere."

I believe in personal freedom, it is what the people who settled Canada came looking for. The difference here is that they had personal responsibility. The reason these personal "freedoms" are being eroded is that society is collectively becoming about the individual, and not the greater good. The person who wants to drink, does so. The person who wants to drive while drunk, does so. And does not think about the devastation they could cause. "I'm good" is the refrain of impaired judgment.

I would rather that everyone was responsible, but they aren't. Less and less people are choosing to be responsible. That is why these things (which should be simple common sense) are being legislated, or considered for legislation.

agreed