[Freakinoldguy]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Hope this clears it up.

We have enough crooked douchebags in Ontario that it's hard to keep the fuckwits straight without a program. I'm sure I haven't the storage space in my gourd to possibly comprehend your set of miscreants. But I can't see how Ontario could be possibly be worse off if we swapped you McGuinty, Harris, Eaves, Hudak or Rae for Campbell. Wanna deal?

Nope, if you're serious about this deal you've gotta take Falcon, Hansen, Coleman along with Chairman Gordo.

At least with McGuinty all you get is ubridled arrogance. With Campbell you get unbridled arrogance intertwined with a freakin liar. So, no matter how bad it seems it's like your mother always said, "remember, there's always someone worse off than you".

[Freakinoldguy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

IMO he's a good choice to help the party get off the ground but still, he may have to much baggage for some people out here, especially in the lower mainland.

I agree on both. National level political experience, but a history of saying and doing dobey things when he was with Reform. That being said, there is worse out there. I see Rita Johnson has resurrected herself and has joined. I'm waiting for Vanderzalm to make his move. After his leadership during the HST revolt, he's got to be riding a wave of popularity. I smell possible leadership canidate...

Rita Johnston, you're shitting me? I thought she went back to the trailer park so that she could get Mr. Lahey to run Ricky, Julien and Bubbles off the property?

I can't see Billy Wooden shoes running for leader again, I think once he's sunk Campbell he'll be quite happy to step off center stage and become a king maker behind the scenes.

If people thing that White has baggage can you imagine what they'll think about Billy and Rita when they see the size of their steamer trunks.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Because it's the same request as "Show us zee papers". It's not got a damn thing to do with ego. I'd gladly be the precedent guineau-pig in taking random and arbitrary police searches to the Supreme Court.

B.C.'s chiefs want the freedom to pull over anyone, anywhere, at any time of day and ask them to take random breathalyzer tests.



Which would fall into line with the rights Euro police have.

No fun to be minding your own business and get yanked over, questioned
and searched just because you were driving on this road today.


Puts the fear into you.


Police state ?.. you bet, and you can see these things coming to Canada..
and then the U.S.A

[ASLplease]

I just have a problem with the word random. it bugs me.

you know where I've heard this word before? I hear it all the time when people talk about inventory tracking....."Lets randomly cycle count 1% of our inventory".....ARGH!!!!!!

There is nothing more stupid and retarded than randomly cycle counting things. If you are going to do a 1% audit then you ought to do it on inventory that is worth cycle counts...ie you ought to have a reasonable justification that it needs to be audited.

IMO, the same goes for breathalysers, there is nothing more objectional than the idea that our limited police resources are going to be wasted on "Random" checks.


Personal, I think they used the word "Random" in error, I think they meant that they would like to relax the definition of what is reasonable grounds to suspect someone needs to be tested. Hell, I HOPE thats what they meant.

/rant......er sorry, now you know never to mention the word 'random' around me LOL

[martin14]

to relax the definition of reasonable grounds..........


yeah, to reduce it to zero.


Anyone, anywhere, anytime.

[Dayseed]

There are problems that the BC Chiefs haven't thought about, according to what I read in that story.

Two immediate ones leap to mind. First, there's always going to be the S. 9 Charter argument against arbitrary detention and the "random virtue testing". I doubt that the police would bother pulling people over truly at random to enforce drunk driving laws.

Which brings me to the second point: Abuse of the law and problems flowing from it.

What if you pull a person over, completely at random, and he's driving a stolen car? I bet the initial reaction is: So what? Don't steal cars and don't drive stolen cars. Fuck you, my insurance rates are high because of asshats like you.

If you want the above guy convicted at court, you're going to need to abridge the Charter not once, with the arbitrary detention, but a second time with S. 24(2). How much protection can we depend on if the Charter becomes routinely discarded? Precedent will be set.

Which comes to handing the police legal authority to randomly pull over a car based on nothing, you're handing the police a dandy authority to also conduct surreptitious searches they wouldn't otherwise be able to do. If police suspect that Johnny X is driving around with stolen PS3s in his car, or is dealing crack, how simple it becomes to pull him over at will. The preventative law becomes a tool. While most people don't have a problem with crooks getting arrested, the ends don't always justify the means of how that happened.

The purpose of the Charter is protection. There are other methods to reduce drunk driving incidents that don't rely so heavily on the enforcement side of it that we have to suspend the Charter to do so. Preventative measures, such as education, engagement, social awareness and a huuuge social campaign to demonize drunk drivers can work alongside enforcement efforts.

[EyeBrock]

herbie herbie:

So now you can in BC, but they're not mentioning the random. You get stopped in a roadblock and if the $25 Dollar Store device says fail you lose your car, your licence and about $5000 right there. Along with your right to due process.
Refusing to blow right then and there, same penalty.
And there's already stories out there about the guy who blew 0.33 after only one drink. They're using that to show even one drink is bad and you're a moron to believe it. Fucking Mini-Me wouldn't read 0.33 after one drink using a bloodtest. It shows the roadside devices are more Chinese crap.

The roadside screening devices are actually made in Germany, cost about $8000 and are calibrated weekly. They are very accurate and have withstood any challenge to their accuracy at court.

[Gunnair]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

IMO he's a good choice to help the party get off the ground but still, he may have to much baggage for some people out here, especially in the lower mainland.

I agree on both. National level political experience, but a history of saying and doing dobey things when he was with Reform. That being said, there is worse out there. I see Rita Johnson has resurrected herself and has joined. I'm waiting for Vanderzalm to make his move. After his leadership during the HST revolt, he's got to be riding a wave of popularity. I smell possible leadership canidate...

Rita Johnston, you're shitting me? I thought she went back to the trailer park so that she could get Mr. Lahey to run Ricky, Julien and Bubbles off the property?

I can't see Billy Wooden shoes running for leader again, I think once he's sunk Campbell he'll be quite happy to step off center stage and become a king maker behind the scenes.

If people thing that White has baggage can you imagine what they'll think about Billy and Rita when they see the size of their steamer trunks.

Voters have short term memories and all that happened many years ago. If he gets the HST repealed, I think people will gladly look beyond the Fantasy Gardens nonsense.

[Gunnair]

Dayseed Dayseed:

There are problems that the BC Chiefs haven't thought about, according to what I read in that story.

Two immediate ones leap to mind. First, there's always going to be the S. 9 Charter argument against arbitrary detention and the "random virtue testing". I doubt that the police would bother pulling people over truly at random to enforce drunk driving laws.

Which brings me to the second point: Abuse of the law and problems flowing from it.

What if you pull a person over, completely at random, and he's driving a stolen car? I bet the initial reaction is: So what? Don't steal cars and don't drive stolen cars. Fuck you, my insurance rates are high because of asshats like you.

If you want the above guy convicted at court, you're going to need to abridge the Charter not once, with the arbitrary detention, but a second time with S. 24(2). How much protection can we depend on if the Charter becomes routinely discarded? Precedent will be set.

Which comes to handing the police legal authority to randomly pull over a car based on nothing, you're handing the police a dandy authority to also conduct surreptitious searches they wouldn't otherwise be able to do. If police suspect that Johnny X is driving around with stolen PS3s in his car, or is dealing crack, how simple it becomes to pull him over at will. The preventative law becomes a tool. While most people don't have a problem with crooks getting arrested, the ends don't always justify the means of how that happened.

The purpose of the Charter is protection. There are other methods to reduce drunk driving incidents that don't rely so heavily on the enforcement side of it that we have to suspend the Charter to do so. Preventative measures, such as education, engagement, social awareness and a huuuge social campaign to demonize drunk drivers can work alongside enforcement efforts.

Good points. I'm not quite there in supporting this because frankly, I'd like to see the emphasis on punishment as a deterrence before they go the route of random enforcement. I'd like to see longer driving bans, forfeit of vehicles, bigger fines, and longer jail time if warranted. Drive blotto-ed? Take away the license and car for a month. Do it again? Lose it for six. Again? Lose them permanently and buy a bus pass. Jail time sucks, but take away their vehicles and rights before we drop them in jail.

[EyeBrock]

I think the police have enough powers. In Ontario they can stop any vehicle on the road at anytime for document check, as in see if the driver has a licence. If during that stop they suspect the driver has consumed alcohol, they can demand (on power arrest) a sample of breath.

I think that's adequate.

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I think the police have enough powers. In Ontario they can stop any vehicle on the road at anytime for document check, as in see if the driver has a licence. If during that stop they suspect the driver has consumed alcohol, they can demand (on power arrest) a sample of breath.

I think that's adequate.

Yep. Let's see some big punishments before any increase in police powers.

That's a bigger deterrance, I think.

[EyeBrock]

Gunnair Gunnair:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I think the police have enough powers. In Ontario they can stop any vehicle on the road at anytime for document check, as in see if the driver has a licence. If during that stop they suspect the driver has consumed alcohol, they can demand (on power arrest) a sample of breath.

I think that's adequate.

Yep. Let's see some big punishments before any increase in police powers.

That's a bigger deterrance, I think.

Not really. What we need is courts and judges willing to convict. As it stands the courts will toss any case out for the slightest thing.

Domestic violence gets dealt with in a more equitable way as society sees it as an evil. Until the courts see drunk driving the same way the guilty will continue to walk free.

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Gunnair Gunnair:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I think the police have enough powers. In Ontario they can stop any vehicle on the road at anytime for document check, as in see if the driver has a license. If during that stop they suspect the driver has consumed alcohol, they can demand (on power arrest) a sample of breath.

I think that's adequate.

Yep. Let's see some big punishments before any increase in police powers.

That's a bigger deterrence, I think.

Not really. What we need is courts and judges willing to convict. As it stands the courts will toss any case out for the slightest thing.

Domestic violence gets dealt with in a more equitable way as society sees it as an evil. Until the courts see drunk driving the same way the guilty will continue to walk free.

Well yeah, I of course agree. But along with those convictions I would like to see the big punishments. Driving is a privilege, not a right. We have forgotten that as a society...

[Dayseed]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Not really. What we need is courts and judges willing to convict. As it stands the courts will toss any case out for the slightest thing.

Domestic violence gets dealt with in a more equitable way as society sees it as an evil. Until the courts see drunk driving the same way the guilty will continue to walk free.

Unfortunately, I think Judges get less of a say in drunk driving cases than you might expect. Between drunk driving and marijuana grow-ops about 2/3 of all case-law is written. What this massive amount of precedence has lead to is a dangerous game of snakes and ladders come trial for a drunk driver.

Wheee, the cop wrote down the serial number for the roadside screener, move ahead two squares. Awwwwww, go back four squares because he let the accused sit in the call room talking to his lawyer so too much stomach alcohol got absorbed in between the readings. Yeah, go ahead ten squares because the cop made good notes about his roadside observations including to ask if the accused is a diabetic such as to account for any breath odours, new shoes or levelness of road to account for clumsy walking and checked for any inner ear infections prior to administering sobriety tests! Awwwww, case chucked because Crown didn't disclose last 4 weeks of maintenance logs. Oh well.

[Proculation]

personally I would decriminalized it and only give a big fine. The drunk driving cases are clogging the justice courts while there are much more relevant cases to be judged.