CANADA'S TOUGHEST IMPAIRED DRIVING PENALTIES START SEPT. 20

[FalcoColumbarius]

You should be able to find it in the library or a book store, here's your book list:

• 1984 (George Orwell)
  Brave New World (Aldous Huxley)

And while we're at it ~ Films to watch:

• Men Who Stare At Goats
  Zeitgeist (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com)

Falco.

[konadog]

Well, consider this, I'm 25 & haven't read 1984, SO THERE!

You should...

[DelicaDJ]

I will check it out at my local library, if they have it as an audio book, as I don't much read paperbacks
Maybe I can find it as an e-book for my iPod Touch!

[ealanm]

With respect to the current, get-tough-on-crime mentality toward drinking and driving, the main concern I have is with police being given the power, effectively, to try, convict, and sentence someone on the spot. As is so often the case, it's a question of balance, and I certainly don't object to the police preventing someone from driving when they are clearly incapacitated. But 0.05 is simply not clearly incapacitated, and nowhere near serious enough an offense to start throwing habeas corpus out the window.

The sad fact is that, even if you take the statistics quoted by government agencies at face value, the overwhelming majority of all accidents of all kinds are not caused by drinking, nor are they caused by exceeding the speed limit. For as long as I can remember, perusing these two bogeymen of the highway has been the near-exclusive obsession of the police, the insurance industry, and a host of well-intentioned (but ultimately misguided) do-gooders, and I seriously doubt any of it has accomplished much of anything, except make people's lives less enjoyable.

For those of you who are inclined toward ad hominem arguments, I have the ICBC maximum discount, have never had an accident in 36 years of driving, and am very conscientious about planning ahead to be able to enjoy the odd glass of wine or fine Scotch without driving (such as agreeing with my wife, before-hand, who will drink and who will drive). In other words, I, personally, have nothing to gain from the position I'm advocating, other than living in the kind of society I want to live in vice the kind we are headed toward.

[FalcoColumbarius]

It appears that the VPD are having concerns with this as well. I read this in The Province, late September/October, unfortunately I can find no reference to it on the web in general or the The Province in particular. I'm somewhat concerned at how this is all unfolding ~ argumentum ad hominem, indeed. The thing is (at risk of sounding an old fart [of which I am]), I can remember the world as a different place. Tell that to youngsters these days and they won't have a word of it. I think the powers that be are depending on that.

Falco.

[ealanm]

Tell that to youngsters these days and they won't have a word of it. I think the powers that be are depending on that.

Falco.

They always have.

What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the law is not simply what's written down in statutes. The true law of the land, in Canada, is what's written down in statues filtered through the courts, based on challenges the people make to it. So, a powerful determinant of the law is what the people accept. In the long run, it won't matter a damn if we have due process and habeas corpus protection in our constitution if the majority of Canadians no longer care whether those things are respected. Canadians who think the erosion of their democratic rights is going to end with road checks are living in a dream world. Once we accept what is effectively summary conviction powers for our police, in one area, they are gradually going to gain it in other areas, too.

[konadog]

Scary stuff....
Check out Canadian poet Robert Priest's performance about what rights we have left, right, left, right left....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkao_eDWCu8

[FalcoColumbarius]

It's based on the concept of responsible actions. It used to be to the church and country, that is to say ~ have you done your duty to the church and patriotism; such as tithing, fighting for the glory of god and king, &c.. Today I sense that it's more about doing one's duty for environmental and social libertarian security issues, which I find intriguing. If I say that there is no noticeable difference between .05 & .08 many times the immediate response is: "So you think it is all right to have irresponsible inebriated persons driving recklessly around the streets and running over poor defenceless mothers and their babies, thereby undermining the security of society? I'll bet you like RHD vehicles, too." This is often followed by: "You can't trust {place name here}, he's a reckless drunk who believes in anarchism."

A "Nanny State" is probably the best system for manipulative purposes. During the events that followed the eleventh of September, '01, when many people had noticed the discrepancies of the official story and started arguing facts; when the response wasn't just a glazing over and staring off into the distance, it was often "Are you a specialist? How could you possibly know, if your not a specialist? To which my initial response is usually "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". Unfortunately, what I have noticed is that there will only be a certain group of people who will actually pay attention to such ideas and one inevitably finds themselves compartmentalised and "preaching to the choir".

Falco.

[konadog]

Nicely put Falco.

We shouldn't need locks and keys for our houses and cars, nor should we need speed bumps or road checks for hunting down drunk drivers. Sadly there are lots of selfish, irresponsible people out there and we do need cops enforcing the rules which make life livable for all of us. It gets scary though, when the police become the feared thugs as they are in too many places - and sadly, even here, more and more.

It is a tough, often thankless job being a cop - but if one chooses that path I say, suck it up - No knocking people's teeth out with truncheons, or locking them up without charge for voicing their legitimate protests, or killing confused Poles in the airport...

Thankfully driving drunk isn't a right - There are a number of countries that have .02 ie: Zero B.A. as the limit, including Japan. I have no problem with road blocks - though I haven't run across one for about 15 years...

[FalcoColumbarius]

Another thing: What I have found interesting is the posting of the speed at 50 KPH in local neighbourhoods and then followed by the installation of speed bumps where if you exceed 20 KPH you start damaging your suspension. Why not just change the speed limit (if that's really a concern) to twenty? I think that the argument is going to be "because, unfortunately, the general public can't be trusted", therefore the punishment is put in place with the motive being assumed... after all ~ are we not all guilty as assumed?

Falco.

[nxski]

What I have found interesting is the posting of the speed at 50 KPH in local neighbourhoods and then followed by the installation of speed bumps where if you exceed 20 KPH you start damaging your suspension. Why not just change the speed limit (if that's really a concern) to twenty?

Definitely a good point there! When I was taking the road test to get my 'N' license I was told that I should have been failed for going too slowly in a residential area. Since when is being cautious punishable!? His reasoning was that it no speed limit is posted we must assume that the limit is 50km/h. I was driving along an extremely narrow road with cars parked on either side and children playing on the sidewalks. I find it ironic that we are asked during the test to point out potential dangers and then completely disregard them by driving at a speed where if a child were to jump on the road or someone was to open their door I would have no chance of stopping in time.
Just my 2 cents...I hope everyone is having a merry and safe Christmas.

As for impaired driving, I'm against it but as I see it 0.5 and 0.8 are both quite low amount of alcohol. As Falco pointed out, how can 0.8 be safe one day and not the next!? In any event I will reserve judgement (however I get the feeling statistics will be massaged to make us believe that we are all safer with the new laws in place).

"Know your limit, play within it" (a quote related to gambling, but it does the trick for drinking as well)