Discussions

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/proposed-changes-to-impaired-driving-laws-raises-red-flags-lawyer-1.3599246  
 
 
hmmmmmmmmm. Thoughts?

Excellent! We need to keep people safe and we need to do more about this problem. Nobody should be allowed to refuse a test when requested by law enforcement. If you are not doing anything wrong why refuse.  
 
 
The more rules the better as far as I am concerned.

I see nothing wrong. I do see where some issue could come up. At least for me it wouldn't be hard to prove I didn't drink and drive. If they gave me a breathalyzer 24 hours after I was at a bar it would show I had a drink or a few, they wouldn't have any evidence of my taking my car their (yes I saw that YOU would have to prove it). If they came to my house a hour or 2 or so after I got home they could easily tell the car hasn't moved or been running recently.  
 
For some people they may have more concerns, as I rarely ever drink...I have no worries.

I understand that new lawsvare needed, especially with the legalization of marijuana on our doorstep. However, I do find the propsed measures heavy-handed and I agree with the analysis that it could violate a basic tenant of our criminal juistice system - that we are innocent until proven guilty.

I do not condone drinking and driving. And expect anyone who does drive impaired, to be charged and pay the price. To me, that is very minor in this whole thing.  
 
This is big government taking away rights and enforcing excessive power over citizens. If past, police would need no grounds to make you provide a sample of your body. Whether it be blood or breathe or urine or hair or anything.  
 
One step closer to a Police State.  
 
It is not about drinking and driving, it is taking away rights and freedoms. You cannot come to my house and demand I give you a sample of anything from my body. Get a warrant based on evidence that I had fled the scene of an accident, was driving recklessly, or had left a bar behind the wheel.

My beef is many times I am the DD. I can be at the bar all night. So what happens when I get home and now have a chance to pound a few back and get a buzz on. Couple beers, couple few shots, knock on the door.....I was at the bar all night came home they want a me to blow....I blow over. I can maybe understand asking to blow if you were in an accident or something like that.

pinkflamingos said "Seems pretty ridiculous to put you in the position of having to prove you drove somewhere and then began drinking, rather than drinking first and then driving. Don't get me wrong, people who drive impaired are scum, but this seems like an innocent person could easily be arrested. Ideally, I guess this would be reserved for cases where you were driving recklessly beforehand and the police had reason to question your sobriety.     I still think the bigger problem is our courts are way too lenient with convicted drunk drivers. A slap on the wrist is not going to deter them.     Regardless, I'm more interested to see what's going to be done when marijuana is legalized. I don't think we have any breathalyzer equivalent for that. "

When marijuana is legal the police will be doing more Field Sobriety Tests like they do in the US to determine if a person is under the influence of drugs. Police forces have already been training officers to do these test including here in Brandon and more will be trained when marijuana is legal.  
 
For anyone who dosent know what a field sobriety test is:  
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/understanding-drug-field-sobriety-evaluations

pinkflamingos said "Seems pretty ridiculous to put you in the position of having to prove you drove somewhere and then began drinking, rather than drinking first and then driving. Don't get me wrong, people who drive impaired are scum, but this seems like an innocent person could easily be arrested. Ideally, I guess this would be reserved for cases where you were driving recklessly beforehand and the police had reason to question your sobriety.     I still think the bigger problem is our courts are way too lenient with convicted drunk drivers. A slap on the wrist is not going to deter them.     Regardless, I'm more interested to see what's going to be done when marijuana is legalized. I don't think we have any breathalyzer equivalent for that. "

The current deterrents are maybe not enough. That's the issue that needs to be addressed instead of instituting new draconian measures that are going to infringe on the rights of people.

so many people are not getting it - Do not drink and drive. Take as many steps as you can, to get these people off the road.  
 
I would like to see more steps taken for texting and driving, but I really don't know what that would entail.

I didn't know that there is currently the 3 hour rule after you have been driving. As Fishin Guy said, you are sober and drive. You get home and have several drinks, which would now put you over the limit (I've done this many times). You can be charged. STOOOOOOPID! Who were the idiots that came up with this? And now they want to extend that time to 24 hours, or longer? Complete lunacy! This is as STOOOOOOPID as the care and control of a vehicle law where you can be charged without even driving.  
 
I do agree that drinking and driving is still a problem and needs to be addressed. This is not the answer. This is like the STOOOPID gun control law where it made criminals out of law abiding citizens, and did nothing to stop criminals using guns.  
 
Penalties and education of the penalties are the way to do it. The penalties are currently pretty high already, but people probably don't realize how much it actually costs when all is said and done (I've heard people say around $10,000). Penalties should also be graduated like speeding. Someone that is speeding 20 km/h over the speed limit isn't as much of a risk as someone 50 km/h over the speed limit and their fine is lower. Same with drinking. Someone at .09 isn't as much of a risk as someone at .25. 20 km/h over the speed limit can be a mistake, 50 km/h over isn't a mistake. One drink too many can be a mistake, 6 drinks too many isn't a mistake.  
 
Manitoba, at least, is already a place where you have to prove your innocence. I was falsely accused of a crime and I had to prove my innocence.

I understand the want and need to get drinking and driving under control, but this is a recipe for both much wasted time and potential abuse.  
 
Up to 2 hours AFTER exiting a vehicle . . . that is WAY too late for an uncompromised reading. As most any officer that cares about fair enforcement of the law should know.  
However, if they lack such ethical restraints and for whatever reason have a grudge with someone, then this law just gave them a perfect excuse to "get even" with the full backing of the legal system.  
 
This is, of course, assuming that I haven't missed something important. If not, however, this should bother you.  
 
Note that I am not anti-authority, persay. I just do not trust most people, period. Human instancts and traits almost always superseed whatever label or title society gives us. And not all of them are positive.

Reading this right, the way it seems to me is if you own a car or any vehicle it is effectivly banning you from driving and drinking alcohol. If they can detect anything in your system in this 24 hour time frame. It sounds like you are getting nailed and banned from driving for maybe one or 2 beers the day before, if it''''s in your system at any level and they stop you. Or knock on the door and any vehicle is parked in your drive or a tractor or somethings in your farm yard and you had a beer..  
 
Yes the current drunks on the road are a problem but if you are coming after me for 1 or 2 beer and a vehicle parked in my yard, I'm gonna have a problem with this and getting banned from driving for 18 months fines and a criminal record.  
 
If you want to turn the country into a communist dictatorship totally ban drugs you are going to tax and legalize with even stiffer penaltys than now. Then ban/ have prohibition on the alcohol thats legal and you tax and just level the playing field and be done with it just start fining or throwing guys in jail for owning any of it.  
 
Edited by Farmboy74, 2017-09-21 22:43:11

If I heard him correctly, they now want to be able to charge you with impaired driving because you had some drinks after you drove to your destination, even though you haven't driven at all after drinking? If so, that is completely insane.

I certainly don't like drunk drivers but if anybody is required to provide a breath or any sample hours or days after, as citizens we should ask the same of the officer. To be fair.

This is another attempt to bubble wrap the individual, I am all in favour of having our roads free of impaired drivers, but on two aspects this is totally wrong.  
Have you ever seen a person who is totally bubble wrapped, they may be safer in a way, but the cost is the compete lack of freedom.

I know I have been in the situation where I have been DD and get back to home base (or close enough to taxi) and have drinks then. If not myself , then others, possibly overnight guests at your house as an example after being out for supper and drinks (except DD).  
I really feel we have laws in place to look after the drunk driver situation, stop checks and stiff penalties. I feel what we have already is an infringement on people's rights but I can accept it as doing overall good. I believe it has made almost everybody more responsible in that regard. The small minority of drunk drivers that are still out there, no matter what degree of laws you bring in probably aren't going to get it.  
I really don't want any more resources spent on this when crime and break-ins are almost at epidemic proportions I have been hearing and police have been warning people to lock their doors all the time. Break-ins in the country are rampant as well. Talking to one rural farmer, he has been broken into and pretty much all his neighbors have been hit as well.  
I wish they would try to solve or limit some of these more relevant problems rather than trying to make some political brownie points by beating a drunk driving issue to death that already has the very stiff penalties in place.  
Honestly, I'm not that worried that I will be hit by a drunk driver but walking in the evening or night and being jumped or having home broken into is a lot bigger concern right now.

This rule is crazy. I go out, and don't drink, but get stopped coming home from a friends at 10 PM. Next day at 7 PM, they show up at my house, where I am having a diner party. With diner, wine was served. I am home, not going out, and have no need to go out, so I have had a few glasses. Or, I had a few friends over to watch some sports, and we have a few cold ones. All of a sudden, I am being arrested for drinking and driving?  
 
While I am all for stronger rules against drinking and driving, this is nuts.

The only circumstance where this should be allowed is if someone refuses a breathalizer and flees. Then I think it reasonable to do a breathalizer within a reasonable amount of time if the person is caught. But if the penalty for refusing a breathalizer is the same as for being over the legal limit, then being able to do a breathalizer later isn't necessary.

FishinAddict said "http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/proposed-changes-to-impaired-driving-laws-raises-red-flags-lawyer-1.3599246       hmmmmmmmmm. Thoughts? "

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/proposed-changes-to-impaired-driving-laws-raises-red-flags-lawyer-1.3599246  
 
It seems that the intent of these changes to the impaired driving laws are more keyed to getting convictions (regardless of whether or not the driver drove impaired) rather than actually preventing people from driving impaired.  
 
I'm not sure how a rational group of people could pass this law as written, unless the intent is to find a way to convict people of a crime they didn't commit. As written, these changes don't make a lot of sense.

fargobob said "    FishinAddict said "http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/proposed-changes-to-impaired-driving-laws-raises-red-flags-lawyer-1.3599246       hmmmmmmmmm. Thoughts? " http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/proposed-changes-to-impaired-driving-laws-raises-red-flags-lawyer-1.3599246     It seems that the intent of these changes to the impaired driving laws are more keyed to getting convictions (regardless of whether or not the driver drove impaired) rather than actually preventing people from driving impaired.     I'm not sure how a rational group of people could pass this law as written, unless the intent is to find a way to convict people of a crime they didn't commit. As written, these changes don't make a lot of sense. "

thank justin and his buddies on the left and remember to vote for good government next time

The Government should try a different approach. what is in place now in nothing but a stream of revenue. Is it working-NO. People still drink and drive and they always will. Alcohol affects different people different ways. There are thousands of people who drink and drive and never have an incident. A couple of drinks after work or dinner out with a couple of drinks doesn't mean you are impaired but could be under the new proposals.What would happen if the laws where that if you drink and drive and kill someone-you are charged with murder. Any accidents, while impaired, that cause damage comes out of your own pocket, in other words your insurance in nullified. That would be more of deterrent than what is in place or proposed.

SensibleFarmer said "The Government should try a different approach. what is in place now in nothing but a stream of revenue. Is it working-NO. People still drink and drive and they always will. Alcohol affects different people different ways. There are thousands of people who drink and drive and never have an incident. A couple of drinks after work or dinner out with a couple of drinks doesn't mean you are impaired but could be under the new proposals.What would happen if the laws where that if you drink and drive and kill someone-you are charged with murder. Any accidents, while impaired, that cause damage comes out of your own pocket, in other words your insurance in nullified. That would be more of deterrent than what is in place or proposed. "

People would still drink and drive, because they don't think it will ever happen to them. They also pay big fines now.  
 
I don't know what the answer is to get it through peoples head.

fargobob said "    FishinAddict said "http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/proposed-changes-to-impaired-driving-laws-raises-red-flags-lawyer-1.3599246       hmmmmmmmmm. Thoughts? " http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/proposed-changes-to-impaired-driving-laws-raises-red-flags-lawyer-1.3599246     It seems that the intent of these changes to the impaired driving laws are more keyed to getting convictions (regardless of whether or not the driver drove impaired) rather than actually preventing people from driving impaired.     I'm not sure how a rational group of people could pass this law as written, unless the intent is to find a way to convict people of a crime they didn't commit. As written, these changes don't make a lot of sense. "

how the cell phone law was enforced when it came out, but this is more serious as it carrys huge fines and driving bans. How many people got nailed that genuinely weren''t using the phone or texting. You had to prove innocents to!.  
 
If we are heading down this slope fast, heres an idea ! For anybody that applies for a gun licence before the government bans them and takes them away from law abiding citizens.  
 
When you apply and it's granted automatic 5 years in jail just because there is a possibility you could shoot somebody with said licenced gun. Like this driving thing they would be assuming this could happen. not that it actually did and nailing you.  
 
Edited by Farmboy74, 2017-09-22 18:30:40

Brenda said "    SensibleFarmer said "The Government should try a different approach. what is in place now in nothing but a stream of revenue. Is it working-NO. People still drink and drive and they always will. Alcohol affects different people different ways. There are thousands of people who drink and drive and never have an incident. A couple of drinks after work or dinner out with a couple of drinks doesn't mean you are impaired but could be under the new proposals.What would happen if the laws where that if you drink and drive and kill someone-you are charged with murder. Any accidents, while impaired, that cause damage comes out of your own pocket, in other words your insurance in nullified. That would be more of deterrent than what is in place or proposed. " People would still drink and drive, because they don't think it will ever happen to them. They also pay big fines now.     I don't know what the answer is to get it through peoples head. "

I doubt that they will ever get through to everybody. There will always be some who continue to do it, but to pass a law that sees innocent people arrested, charged and convicted. What does that accomplish?  
 
This law must not be passed.

Coming from someone who has been dealing (not personally, but my husband) with a DUI, I can attest that it's not enough. Especially when you're able to lawyer up, and say you're going for treatment and get a reduced sentence. People with an alcohol problem (such as my husband) get away basically scot free- sure you lose your license for a couple extra years, but don't have a record.  
 
I think regardless of what you blow over, if you blow over it should be jail time. Maybe having stricter sentences would show people that it's not ok to put other people's lives at risk.

Although there is that flaw of chasing random people hours later and charging them for DUI. The odds of that seems exceptionally low for the mass majority. Like, you first somehow have to be confronted by a cop after you've had a drink, then somehow find the need to give them a reason or proof you've been recently driving. That's being more stupid than the proposed law. Who would let that happen to themselves? ...Unless you were deliberately trying to p!$$-off the cop. That would be on you for being an idiot.  
 
What I see with this law could be handy to convict those crafty drunks who disappear for hours after committing an driving offense. We've all heard of the stories of the drunken fool who crashes into something/someone then runs off for a few hours. Sure, they are placed at the scene, but since too much time has taken place they can't be charged for DUI. Thus, saving themselves their drivers licence and only face the charge of leaving the accident (if it could even be proven that person was driving). I've been the victim of a drunk crashing into my parked car. She took off and witnesses identified & placed her as the driver. She was found returning to her home in the morning by the cops with blood and marks resulting from the crash. She was only fined for leaving an accident. But with this proposed law, that would end that kind of crap. Alcohol in their system hours after the fact, even if it's not 0.05... Still getting charged for drunk driving. Great! Another loser not driving anymore. That works for me.  
 
What I love to see is other types of offences get "piggy backed" on this idea. Pot and driving comes to mind. Get into a auto mishap and get tested positive hours/day later... DUI. Doesn't sound that bad. It'll be up to the accused to prove otherwise.  
 
Too many times those clever drunk drivers evading the police long enough to start sobering up shouldn't get away with this. It's time to stretch the long arm of the law a little longer.  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

This is how society changes from innocent until proven guilty to guilty unless proven innocent. It will never stand up in a court room and is 100% total BS.

Zoomer said "Excellent! We need to keep people safe and we need to do more about this problem. Nobody should be allowed to refuse a test when requested by law enforcement. If you are not doing anything wrong why refuse.       The more rules the better as far as I am concerned. "

It amazes me how people are so ready to give away their civil rights to government agencies, obviously not understanding or appreciating what it means to live a life without some institution feeling they need to infringe on every aspect of your life. I do not think that this person truly understands what it means to not be told how to live every aspect of your life. Ridiculous statements like "Nobody should be allowed to refuse a test when requested by law enforcement. If you are not doing anything wrong why refuse" is the type of mentality that society should be afraid of. Do you not value the Constitutional protections Canadians are supposed to have? Do you not understand the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Do these things not matter to you, or are you just blind to what those protections mean in your ability to live your life? It's hard to take this comment seriously when it is so blatantly obvious that they don't know what they are talking about, or when they don't understand the "values" that (in the past) was supposed to make this country what it is. The way the laws are written, no law enforcement person has any right to infringe on my rights to privacy and security WITHOUT JUST CAUSE. Thinking that I or anybody else going about their daily life should be FORCED to take a random test for impairment WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, is clueless and leads to a society where people are controlled in every aspect of their lives. Try reading George Orwell's 1984 to try to understand what type of thought process is required to destroy your life as you know it. I'm sorry but there is no problem with the way the laws are currently written, and the last thing that Canadians need are more laws that convert people with real lives, into slave puppets controlled by their masters. Policed state? I don't think so. It amazes me how many people lack critical judgement, who seem to react primarily out of fear, than rationality.

Another law to make innocent people pay for the actions committed by irresponsible people. Way to go, governments!!! Way to take a problem you obviously have no idea how to solve, and to step on the rights of innocent people carrying out responsible lives. Seems like all the lobby groups pushing these violations of my Charter freedoms, think their individual fears are more important than our collective rights.

stupid. if i want to drink right after i get home...i can get a ticket? who comes up with these proposed laws? someone needs to give their head a good shake