CANADA'S TOUGHEST IMPAIRED DRIVING PENALTIES START SEPT. 20

[jessef]

Does our society really need more security? Are we not Canadians: True, North, Strong & Free?

No more security. We are Canadians and really as a whole society should be more responsible than what you see on the road today, drunk or not.

The legal alcohol level is currently .08, that is not tipsy let alone drunk.

It is for people like my lady. And there's a lot of them out there that are not responsible enough to not drive.

You keep inferring that we want to drive whilst we're pissed ~ this is not true.

Unfortunately, it is true amongst our youngsters. It always has been and continues the tradition.

What we need is a firm education for all drivers, new/young/current/old that serves as a learning lesson and constant reminder that we are driving large bullets that can kill people.

Many people just can't comprehend the extent of damage that a moving vehicle can do until they are in an accident themselves.

Pictures, movies, stories don't really sink in these days. There is so much gore in media that showing an accident victim with the intestines spilled out like sausages on the road and their brain like 2 year old pumpkin mash really has no effect. Just a "oh that's gross". But no 'real' effect.

The only way to really reach people, and this is unfortunately the only true way, is for them to be either involved in a psychologically shaking accident or to have someone close hurt or killed in an accident.

1st hand experience in this case will stay with most people their entire lives.

I've had and seen my share of accidents on the road that put me in a state of mind or complete awareness/responsibility everytime I get behind the wheel.

It's too bad I can't imprint my experience onto every ignorant or naive driver out there.

Then there would be zero accidents, trust me.

Oh. and the title of this thread is false advertising.

This isn't Canada 'toughest' 'penalties'

This is simple a change in the monitoring levels with the breathalizer.

Canada's 'tough impaired driving penalties' are more like a kiss on the cheek when compared with the rest of the world.

If you are drunk and kill someone, they send you to the Chilliwack minimum security 'prison'. Although prison is not really the best term. It should be more like minimum security 'spa and resort', nestled within a beautiful forest, overlooking Chilliwack upper river with world-class river fishing and plentiful outdoor activities.

Our drinking and driving law/penalties are a joke. They should be like other countries. Lop off a hand or take away the license permanently.

[FalcoColumbarius]

Son.... I have just realised something. You are not old enough to remember the way the world was and are therefore summarising from statistical data, which of course can be manipulated when displayed in a different light.

Have you ever read a book (not watched the film), from cover to shinning cover ~ called: 1984? Written by a fellow by the name of Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his nom de plume ~ George Orwell. The reason I bring this to your attentions is because in the book, Orwell graphically outlines something that he describes as "Newspeak".

• "Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking—"thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest edition of Newspeak—impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.""*

Upon reading your replies it has dawned on my that you are using Newspeak. Jessie you even claim that the title of this thread is false advertising, this is what my generation would refer to as "spin". In fact it is accurate insofar as they are "Canada's Toughest Impaired Driving Penalties", no more no less, and if you actually read the article that the link leads to you will find that it is titled "Canada's Toughest Impaired Driving Penalties Start Sept. 20". The title is not claiming to be tougher then, say, El Salvador's penalties.

As I read your post you don't actually address the thread of the argument. Both you and Rich are arguing in favour of stopping impaired drivers. In fact, from what I understand, everyone else in this thread feels the same way.

ShaneA first reported the article then issued a statement that he felt:

• "There should be no concern for any responsible driver, but it's good to see some stricter laws being enacted especially for repeat offenders. I'd be happy with a zero tolerance policy."

Manic29 then countered with his view that he felt it was a cash grab rather than being a functional law, and so the discussion started: Does this law make sense or is it a way of generating more public funds at the cost of our constitution? Suddenly you guys start up a campaign of taking statistics out of context and "Either you don't care at all or you do" and "My advice is to stop complaining about inevitable change and evolve" and "Lop off a hand"..........Lop off a hand???? Jesus, guys? You want our country to operate under Sharia law? What's next? Burkas For Bikes? No flying kites after drinking beer?

I was coming home today. I shot out of the tunnel and began setting up to change lanes on the south anchor of the Second Narrows Bridge. I checked my wing mirror and I saw a vehicle accelerating and thought that I might have to wait for them to pass. As this was happening I noticed that the car was drifting onto the shoulder and... oh my god.... it's heading straight for the bridge monument! Just then the car changed attitude and accelerated radically ~ it was a really near miss! I decided to let this one go past me. As she passed I was glad I let her go first: A/ She was texting. B/ It was the bird who tailgated me sometime ago on the lower levels road, the one whom I could see their bumper in my tailgate mirror while I was doing 60 KPH?

So tell me: With this sort of attitude on the road ~ do you really think that by lowering "not drunk" to "really not drunk" is going to do anything other than collect fines ranging from $600 to $3,750 per shot? Do you think that the guy that got done for having a glass of wine with dinner and a tiramisu for dessert is going to see error of his ways? I think this is a gross misuse of authority.


Falco.

P.S.: 1984 used to be standard in schools so to warn our "most valuable resource in our society (young people, the ones with the most human capital to invest in our future)". I understand it is not read in school so much now ~ why is that?
P.P.S.: Point of observation: Since the advent of helmet laws (take your pick)... has our health care improved or become cheaper?

*Newspeak

[konadog]

You're brilliant Falco!

"lop off a hand"? Yeah, that's the ticket - let's bring back stoning and and the rack too...

[manic29]

You're brilliant Falco!

"lop off a hand"? Yeah, that's the ticket - let's bring back stoning and and the rack too...

It wasn't Falco who suggested that, it was jfarsang.

[manic29]

I believe in personal responsibility. The lowest common denominator should not dictate the law.

I'm not sure if I follow you?

Are you saying if someone is dumb enough to ride a motorcycle without an helmet and crash with severe head injury I should be partly responsible for his health care cost? I'd say tuff shit! Let his family care for him (if they do care)... Our weak governement already allowed some "religious groups" to ride motorcycle without an helmet since it doesn't suit their needs. Oh, don't get me started!

I think everyone should be able to do what they want as long as they are not hurting others. If someone doesn't not want to wear a helmet on a bike (motor or peddle), it should not be illegal. I suppose there could be a clause in the medical coverage to the effect of "If it can be proven that the injury was a result of not wearing a helmet, the patient will be responsible for the portion of their health care cost directly attributable to lack of helmet."

Driving drunk is obviously different as you are not only putting yourself at risk. I say keep the .08 limit but provide tougher penalties if you do hurt someone while above .08. Like jfarsang said, the prison system is quite easy on drunks who kill someone. Not cutting off a hand but a long prison sentence of hard labour.

I will believe that the lowering of the limit to .05 is not just a cash grab if they change all the penalties to non-monetary like drivers license suspensions and jail time.

[manic29]

Hey you two above and anyone else who thinks a nice glass of wine over dinner and then driving home is fine.

My girlfriend is tanked after one glass of wine. Enough that she cannot drive.

It's only one glass.

Would you guys feel comfortable putting your loved ones in the passenger seat of my girlfriend's car after she's had a glass of wine ?

So does she know that she should not drive after one glass of wine? It sounds like she does. That's the personal responsibility I was talking about. And how does changing the limit to .05 going to affect her. Like you said, she would probably blow under .05 after a glass, so suddenly it's ok for her to drive after a glass?

You are trying to make it sound like everyone has to have a glass of wine before driving. I'm just saying leave the legal limit where it is and use personal responsibility to lower it for yourself if you need to. Do not make the law for that lowest common denominator (eg. my two year old after having a sip of my beer).

[RichD]

Editing out my own ad hominem remark in response Falco's post.

[konadog]

You're brilliant Falco!

"lop off a hand"? Yeah, that's the ticket - let's bring back stoning and and the rack too...

It wasn't Falco who suggested that, it was jfarsang.

I know!! I meant I liked Falco's post and was making comment on Jfarsang's afterwards - sorry for the confusion, but I've been drinking! :P

[kb&2dogs]

I think there are lots of folks here who are of the opinion that a person can make completely rational decisions while under the influence.

Not necessarily so!

I'm sure we've all seen folks get behind the wheel because "they've only had a few", and the suggestion that their judgement is too impaired to react is ignored. If it was a matter of taking personal responsibility, there wouldn't be the continued news bites about accidents caused by drunk drivers and people getting killed by them. Sure, there are other forms of impairment, not saying otherwise, but it is something that is enforceable and that needs to be managed better.

About the comments abut it being a cash-grab, maybe so....perhaps there should be penalties like losing your vehicle, or having a blood alcohol monitor connected to your ignition, so you can't start the car if you are over _%, or something. But in the meantime, people need to be hit over the head with the notion that this is serious s*!t, and maybe through their wallet is the way to impress that drinking and driving is a really bad idea.

[jessef]

Sarcasm !

Don't tell me you guys thought I was serious. Loping off a hand ? come on !

I've seen 1984 Falco.

When I was in highschool, twice a year we had an assembly in the gym and were showed a section of 1984 and a collage of accidents, after effects and a stern line against drinking and driving. MADD was huge back then and advertising/education was everywhere.

I made myself clear aside from the sarcastic remarks which some of you guys are somehow taking seriously.

These were my points :

You can't stop people from drinking and driving forcefully.

Lowering or raising the alcohol limit does nothing but put more money in the governments pockets.

There is not enough education/moral upbringing in today's society to allow each individual to assess themselves whether they are suitable to drive after some booze.

Last but not least, the punishment should fit the crime which in this case it most surely does not.

If someone killed another people/people while drinking and driving, they really should be tried in court as murderer's and sent to prison.

Taking a life is wrong. Being intoxicated is no excuse to be let off with a slap on the wrist.

There are countries (others have pointed out) that do not tolerate drinking and driving by making the punishment severe enough so that people simply won't think twice about drinking and driving.

It's a catch-22.

If you want to live in a safe society where no one or few drink and drive, the punishment will have to be harsh enough so that people won't want to drink and drive.

If you want to live in a society where anyone can drink and drive without any repercussions, then people who drink and drive won't be affected by the punishment and simply don't care if they get caught.

Each person makes the choice where they live and how they live.

Thank goodness we have many liberties in Canada when compared with the rest of the world.

Lowering the alcohol limit doesn't phase me at all and I'm sure many many people won't blink an eye. If you get caught, it's just a light slap on the wrist. Big deal. Our punishment laws are too soft, hence why our fatality rate regarding drinking and driving and ALL other driving accidents continue on as they do.

I'm in the side of the camp that is a firm believer in driving and driving only when behind the wheel. No matter what the distraction while driving, anything can happen within a split second that can change yours and other peoples' lives instantaneously.

[glenn]

I was going to stay out of this as it heated up, but, but . . . I can't.

Alcohol alters our reality, like any recreational drug - this is why we drink it. I generally don't start getting "tipsy" until I've had 3 beers or more. I don't start slurring etc, until more like 6 beers. However, after one beer I feel a pleasant buzz. This is why most people have one drink with a meal.

With one drink, most people experience a subtle shift in three key areas of perception - an increase in their sense of well being, a slight loss of peripheral perception, and change in the perception of motion. These three effects are very well studied and documented - and combined with driving it causes us to feel safe driving a little faster and with slightly less perceptual acuity. In normal driving, this doesn't matter much. But let's say someone runs a red light, a kid steps into your path, someone slams on the brakes in front of you, etc, etc - don't you want to be at your best to react? Or let's say you change the music, answer your phone, adjust your mirror, etc - your mind may wonder from driving for just a instant longer than usual. Even when a person is showing no signs of intoxication, the effects of alcohol are very present. It is also exactly why any person cannot judge for himself how fit he is to drive (esp the sense of well-being)

And Falco, what's with all this imagery of death squads, corporal punishments, etc? While your generation was on watch, the north american middle class has consistently declined - so please drop the patriarchal tone. The gap between the rich and poor is ever increasing. It is now the exception that one parent can afford to stay home to look after children because good middle class jobs are disappearing over seas in the name of profit. A strong middle class means a strong democracy - and we are loosing this. Big corporations are controlling Gov't at an unprecedented rate, and in the process are destroying the environment, abusing foreign workers, and hoarding wealth (and spilling oil, running huge trade deficits, nearly running the world economy into the ground). And to top it all off, we are all complicit in this in our consumer behavior. You may think I'm an alarmist, but the information is all around you, just start connecting the dots.

Stop being so single minded about "personal freedom" because while you soapbox about big government and big brother, our way of life is dissapearing right before your eyes. Sure, our current government leans to the right, but, It's not death squads, and harsh marshal laws that I fear, it's the collapse of the economy, the environment, and the loss of the great quality of life we enjoy in the western world.

P.S. it's ridiculous to think of this as a cash grab. Provincially sanctioned casino's and lotteries are a cash grab - impaired driving fines are a drop in the bucket.

No hard feelings I hope, it's just a debate.

[delicat]

This is getting very good, I'm taking the popcorn out!

I love Falco's poetry but glenn came back very strong, I can't agree more!

[jessef]

I went through two tubs of Jiffy last night. At this rate, I'll be fat by the end of the week

[thelazygreenfox]

Guys
Normally I have to pay for entertainment like this.
TLGF

[Mr. Flibble]

Have you ever read a book (not watched the film), from cover to shinning cover ~ called: 1984? Written by a fellow by the name of Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his nom de plume ~ George Orwell.

I can't read!