Drunk driving to be largely decriminalized in Alberta in 2018

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It can't really be stressed enough that that was a different law. It was also held to be partially unconstitutional. The BC Government takes the view that the newer version of its legislation fixes those problems, and they may even be right, but that hasn't actually been tested. Neither the current law in BC nor any of Alberta's legislation has been evaluated by the Supreme Court of Canada. Honestly, the fact that the government in Alberta didn't bother to appeal the ABCA ruling earlier this year suggests they knew they were likely to lose if they'd done so. So far, it's the Province that has been offside the Supreme Court's ruling, which is why they were given a year to fix the law.

The most you can say is that per the Supreme Court, some immediate roadside prohibitions are acceptable, provided the legislation takes appropriate steps to ensure that peoples' rights are not violated.

Agreed but arguing that this law that Alberta is proposing meets the SCC conditions is not a contrarian position and describing it as such is just trying to truncate debate.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

Agreed but arguing that this law that Alberta is proposing meets the SCC conditions is not a contrarian position and describing it as such is just trying to truncate debate.

It also doesnt mean that people in Alberta can't disagree with it and not want it implemented.

Regardless of the SCC ruling, it doesn't seem like it is legislation many in this province would back.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

Agreed but arguing that this law that Alberta is proposing meets the SCC conditions is not a contrarian position and describing it as such is just trying to truncate debate.

You've mischaracterized his position as well as what people are objecting to. He's been arguing that regardless of what the SCC or ABCA or anyone else says is or isn't okay, he's fine with these sorts of measures, including the one described in the OP (which, obviously, the SCC hasn't said anything about). His rationale for this support is that the legislation is likely to be effective at reducing drunk driving, and the potential for abuse of peoples' rights is an acceptable risk in his view because of the benefits he sees. In this case, the ends justify the means. Which is pretty clearly not the intuitive position most people hold, for reasons discussed at length in this thread.

Though I don't know that he's saying what he's saying because he's a contrarian - if he says that's what he believes then I think he should be taken at his word.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I honestly don’t really worry about the very minor occurrence of police corruption, vendetta policing, or general bad-practice that has a few people wringing hands over slippery slopes. This law primarily punishes those who choose to drink and drive (by an incredibly sound margin) and costs the taxpayer less to deal with those idiots. Good riddance.

Are you perhaps choosing to be wilfully blind? Just because you have not personally encountered something does not make it accurate for you to declare it to be a 'very minor occurrence' or suggest that it can only be found at the end of a theoretical, but not real, slippery slope:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theg...rticle1114160/

[MBates]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law only applies when there are "true penal consequence". That's why health inspectors are allowed to close restaurants if they find mice, or when the TSB grounds an airline after a crash, or when the Alberta Securities Commission bans a person from trading securities, or when the NEB sets aside Burnaby bylaws for Transmountain. These are regulatory action that intended to be corrective rather than punishment.

This post needs specific attention from those debating here. When an activity like driving is licensed and not itself included as a constitutionally protected right, governments can avoid much of the otherwise necessary due process by not alleging offences with penal consequences and instead engaging a regulatory process that attaches to the license.

That is not an endorsement of the current proposal and certainly Alberta can choose to implement a more fair process than minimally required, but strictly speaking, arguments that apply in the context of criminal and quasi-criminal offences often are not compelling in a regulatory context that employs administrative measures.

Impaired driving is a crime, but it is also something you are prohibited from doing as a condition of your Operators License. The evidence and procedural fairness required to take your license away as a punishment for committing a crime is far more than what is required to regulate your conduct through the licensing process.

The BC and Alberta models to date are examples of government trying to find a balance between those two worlds. One would expect eventually they will get something that both complies with the Constitution and is in line with what their voting citizens want. Until then it is important for the debate to continue but understanding there are two different regimes in play.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You've mischaracterized his position as well as what people are objecting to. He's been arguing that regardless of what the SCC or ABCA or anyone else says is or isn't okay, he's fine with these sorts of measures, including the one described in the OP (which, obviously, the SCC hasn't said anything about). His rationale for this support is that the legislation is likely to be effective at reducing drunk driving, and the potential for abuse of peoples' rights is an acceptable risk in his view because of the benefits he sees. In this case, the ends justify the means. Which is pretty clearly not the intuitive position most people hold, for reasons discussed at length in this thread.

Though I don't know that he's saying what he's saying because he's a contrarian - if he says that's what he believes then I think he should be taken at his word.

But we already accept that innocent people are punished under the current justice system. His statement that we already accept that innocent people get punished is factually true and we do it on more circumstantial evidence than a road side breathalyzer with an opportunity for a second machine to test you.

So if you issue is never sentence an innocent person to any harm our whole system fails. If you are saying this is an erosion of rights you would need to show that in this specific type of enforcement that the rate of misapplication of justice is greater than the current average.

We also accept that a 24 HR immediate punishment (whcih could cause job loss) is prudent for public safety. This just extends that immediate window longer because the Drunk Drivers in the vast majority of cases drive drunk regularly. So again if your issue is due process why are you comfortable with a 24jr suspension and impoundment without due process.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I believe PepsiFree is pretty contrarian by nature, so this may just be an example of that, but yeah that some pretty rough stuff. Like CliffFletcher and Corsi mentioned this always happens in democratic nations as they age. The younger generations lose site of why due process and constitutional rights are so vital in society because they've only experienced a world with them.

This post is so rooted in stereotype that it’s difficult to take very seriously. Funny how little some people(including some posters in this thread) cared about Omar khadrs charter rights when he received a settlement for then being violated. The opposite argument could be made that the “older generation” turns a blind eye when it comes to other rights such as freedom of religion or LGBTQ issues. I will agree that many young people may be unaware of why certain rights are important, however to try and insinuate that the older generation have a better understanding of why these laws are important or that they themselves haven’t become complacent is a little bit much. It’s the same in any democracy, there are people who are informed and some who are not, regardless of age. I mean it’s not as if young people were overwhelmingly applauding bush when he implemented the patriot act, some were but the majority were not.

Also what does anyone’s perception of Pepsifree as “contrarian” have to do with what he/she was posting? It’s as if some posters feel the need to attack the poster if they can’t get them to agree with them. Labelling pepsifree as contrarian doesn’t discredit anything pepsifree posted, all it really does is tell Pepsifree and everyone else you’d rather talk about Pepsifree than debate with Pepsifree, which again doesn’t discredit a thing he/she is saying.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

My big issue is this:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3909249/c...nothing-wrong/

Brody Johnston did nothing wrong, was sober, passed the breathalyzer and field sobriety tests and was still suspended. His license was suspended, his car towed, and what do you think is going to happen to his insurance?

In a trial he can demonstrate that his pupils don't dilate. It's a condition my mother-in-law suffers.

His condition was dismissed and he was suspended with no evidence.

What recourse does he have if there's no opportunity to defend himself in the justice system?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MBates

Are you perhaps choosing to be wilfully blind? Just because you have not personally encountered something does not make it accurate for you to declare it to be a 'very minor occurrence' or suggest that it can only be found at the end of a theoretical, but not real, slippery slope:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theg...rticle1114160/

No, and again, this does not show police corruption as statistically significant enough to cater laws around. I’m not suggesting it doesn’t happen, I’m suggesting that the concern about it in theory vastly outweighs the occurrence of it in reality, and thus, it is not something worth a significant amount of energy.

The best (but still probably awkward) comparison I can use is child abductions. There is a sense of it being a dangerous place for children, one in which parents have to be vigilant in guarding their safety. But this is due to media reporting and the fact that these negative things come to light much more easily now. Statistically, kids have never been safer.

It’s not like I’m unwilling to change my mind here. I just see the laws in BC working, and haven’t really seen anything that suggests a lot of the concerns about them have actually occurred in any significant way. Just a lot of people calling me blind, contrarian, pathetic, ignorant, etc. There’s literally an example of it working (for the last 8 years) 3 hours west of us. That’s a lot more compelling to me than insults (though they’re keeping me engaged at least).

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

My big issue is this:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3909249/c...nothing-wrong/

Brody Johnston did nothing wrong, was sober, passed the breathalyzer and field sobriety tests and was still suspended. His license was suspended, his car towed, and what do you think is going to happen to his insurance?

In a trial he can demonstrate that his pupils don't dilate. It's a condition my mother-in-law suffers.

His condition was dismissed and he was suspended with no evidence.

What recourse does he have if there's no opportunity to defend himself in the justice system?

In BC you can immediately dispute it under the following grounds:

Immediate Roadside Prohibitions (IRP) – 3-day, 7-day, 30-day, 90-day

You have seven days from the date you received the Notice of Driving Prohibition to request RoadSafetyBC to review the prohibition. The adjudicator can only consider these grounds during the review:

- You were not the driver or in care or control of a motor vehicle
- You were not advised of your right to a second test on an approved screening device (ASD)
- You requested a second test, but the officer did not perform the test
- Your second test was not performed on a different ASD
- The prohibition was not served on the basis of the lower ASD test result
- The result of the ASD test was not reliable
- The ASD, which formed the basis for the prohibition, did not register a WARN reading
- The ASD registered a WARN, but your blood alcohol content was less than 0.05 (50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood)
- The ASD, which formed the basis for the prohibition, did not register a FAIL reading
- The ASD registered a FAIL, but your blood alcohol content was less than 0.08 (80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood)
- You did not refuse or fail to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample, or you had a reasonable excuse for refusing or failing to comply with a demand; OR
- You did not have the required number of previous WARN range prohibitions for a 7 or 30 day prohibition (in which case the Superintendent may reduce the length of the prohibition and related monetary penalties)

I bolded the one that would probably apply. Now, hard to say what the laws will look like here, but it’s not like the model they’re basing it off of provides no opportunity for dispute or review. There are still a number of checks and balances that stop police from not performing their duty properly.

Does it stop police from issuing these punishments in the first place? No, but neither do our current laws. And as I said earlier, they’re currently allowed to suspend your license until after your trial date. In a process that could take away your ability to drive and maintain a livelihood for anywhere from months to a year, where are the people up in arms about that? Or current system certainly isn’t better than the proposed for the innocent.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This post is so rooted in stereotype that it’s difficult to take very seriously. Funny how little some people(including some posters in this thread) cared about Omar khadrs charter rights when he received a settlement for then being violated. The opposite argument could be made that the “older generation” turns a blind eye when it comes to other rights such as freedom of religion or LGBTQ issues. I will agree that many young people may be unaware of why certain rights are important, however to try and insinuate that the older generation have a better understanding of why these laws are important or that they themselves haven’t become complacent is a little bit much. It’s the same in any democracy, there are people who are informed and some who are not, regardless of age. I mean it’s not as if young people were overwhelmingly applauding bush when he implemented the patriot act, some were but the majority were not.

I'm a huge supporter of LGBTQ rights and I also fully supported Omar Khadr's release and payout due to what our government did to him.

I'm very consistent in matters pertaining to due process and defending people's rights in Canada, so you are incorrect in your assumptions. Basically I'm the opposite of how PepsiFree sees it. To me it's the old "I'd rather see a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man jailed".

I do respect his opinion though, he's entitled to it and there's merit on both sides. I do see that he appears to almost always have the contrarian opinion in CP discussions but perhaps I overstepped in stating that observation. Apologies if it distracted from the discussion.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I'm a huge supporter of LGBTQ rights and I also fully supported Omar Khadr's release and payout due to what our government did to him.

I'm very consistent in matters pertaining to due process and defending people's rights in Canada, so you are incorrect in your assumptions.

My intent was not to be critical of your views on these issues, as you said your position on matters pertaining to charter rights has been very consistent so my apologies if my comment came off as insinuating that you personally were being hypocritical. I was responding to the ageism comment. If you go back and review who opposes things like LGBTQ rights and the Omar Khadr settlement, or any other civil rights issue for that matter, there is a mix of ages on both sides of any debate.(on this board or anywhere else) with certain issues usually getting more support from one age demographics while another age demographic opposes. I just think painting younger generations as less aware or informed about charter rights issues is inaccurate and unnecessarily divisive, and I say that having no clue how young or old you or Pepsifree are.

[jayswin]

That's fair. I did insinuate that it was younger people and perhaps that's wrong, I don't know the demographic splits on these issues.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I do respect his opinion though, he's entitled to it and there's merit on both sides. I do see that he appears to almost always have the contrarian opinion in CP discussions but perhaps I overstepped in stating that observation. Apologies if it distracted from the discussion.

I didn’t take offence, though it does just blend in to the dog pile of insults and watching the same crew thank each other’s posts when one of them insults me.

I can honestly say that my opinion is genuine (as are any that I post, there’s no contrarian ulterior motive here). Even though there’s a distinct group of vocal posters that bully those with opinions their group don’t like (same ones who do it to iggy all the time), I can honestly say I never would’ve guessed my opinion on this bill would’ve been a target. It seems to have accomplished it’s goal in BC without notable negatives, so I thought it seemed like a solid step forward.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

But we already accept that innocent people are punished under the current justice system. His statement that we already accept that innocent people get punished is factually true and we do it on more circumstantial evidence than a road side breathalyzer with an opportunity for a second machine to test you.

Surely you can appreciate the difference between striving to create a system that minimizes, to the greatest degree possible, the punishment of innocent people, and deliberately creating laws that are aimed at the opposite result? This measure is easily analogized to changing the burden of proof in criminal cases from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "on a balance of probabilities" in order to increase efficiency and deter perpetrators, because you're more likely to end up in jail.

That would, for most people who have a ingrained sense of justice, be an affront to our entire legal system. The fact that this proposal has some unavoidable similarities is what's raising peoples' hackles in this thread and elsewhere.

So if you issue is never sentence an innocent person to any harm our whole system fails. If you are saying this is an erosion of rights you would need to show that in this specific type of enforcement that the rate of misapplication of justice is greater than the current average.

Several things wrong here. First, no, I'm not saying that if there's any chance of an innocent person being punished the system must be thrown out. What I'm saying is that we've set out certain constitutional rights that are meant to prevent gross injustice, and we should avoid eroding them at nearly any cost because they are fundamentally what makes our society a good one to live in. That is, incidentally, also what the constitution requires pursuant to section 1, and the Oakes test. We can argue whether the Court has correctly applied the Oakes test in any particular case, obviously, but that's a question of constitutional law.

Second, no, you would not "need to show" what you've suggested. Rights are separate from consequentialist goals. That's their entire point. We don't suspend the right to a fair trial where doing so would fail to produce injustice, it's there in and of itself, because providing people the right to a fair trial is, in the agreement of those who subscribe to societies like ours, a basic tenet of those societies. This is precisely the argument against torture; even if it worked, it should still be illegal.

I'm obviously not going to get into how we should weigh rights-based ethics against consequentialist ethics or obligation ethics or any other theory, or the merits of any one of them. But you really need to start by understanding the different sorts of moral value that underlie the principles that we've agreed are important as Canadians. Without that foundation, it's impossible to fully navigate these issues.

We also accept that a 24 HR immediate punishment (whcih could cause job loss) is prudent for public safety. This just extends that immediate window longer because the Drunk Drivers in the vast majority of cases drive drunk regularly. So again if your issue is due process why are you comfortable with a 24jr suspension and impoundment without due process.

Correct, and this goes to... well, several things, but first to what Mbates posted. Regulating your ability to operate a motor vehicle is one type of law. Punishment of behaviour that we as a society (rightly, in this case, I think) deem improper is another type of law - a criminal law. These carry different types of stigmas and different types of punishments, with the result that how we mete them out is necessarily different. Trying to blur the lines spells bad precedent that allows too much authority for government, on its own volition or spurred by the public whims of the moment, to make further inroads into areas where we need the protection of the justice system. Such compromises should not be made lightly, and those pushing for them need to recognize that there are always pressures, always urgent matters that seem to override our need for long-standing democratic norms in a given case. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the road to terrible results for society is paved with "those constitutional principles are all well and good in theory, but what we're dealing with now is really important!" That's why those principles are enshrined in a constitution that's really, really hard to change - because of short-sighted people caught up in well meaning, righteous zeal.

The second thing it goes to is minimal impairment. If a law is going to impinge on rights to achieve some pressing objective, it needs to do so to the minimum extent possible and legislators need to bend over backwards to ensure that this is accomplished. The ABCA decided, and it's not surprising given the law in question, that not only was that not done in the earlier version of the legislation, peoples' constitutional rights were looked at as a nuisance standing in the way of the law's purpose. That is a dangerous way to make law. I don't think the government has realized its error there, which is very concerning to me.

[pylon]

For anyone complaining about this just use the surefirw approach and never drive after ever drinking any quantity of alchohol, and you'll never have to worry about anything. It's really really easy to not drink and drive. In fact it's perhaps the easiest thing to never do. If you are finding you struggle with not having a drink, and getting behind the wheel, perhaps you need to talk to an addiction specialist.

Not drinking is never supposed to be a challenge. If you can't restrain yourself. You have a problem.

[4X4]

Seriously Pylon? Scroll up 8 posts from yours.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Seriously Pylon? Scroll up 8 posts from yours.

Well, to be honest nothing in this thread has been about trying to get away with drinking and driving. I don’t know what the comments are based on.

As an aside, I think this first decriminalization is an easy sell since BAC is quantifiable by measurement. What about other impairments that aren’t so easily verified? Right now is just decriminalizing drinking and driving, but I am sure it won’t stop there.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You can always request another breathalyzer.

You don't even need to blow over on the first breathalyzer to have your licence suspended.

(2) subject to subsection (2.1), where a peace officer has
reasonable grounds to believe any of the following, the peace
officer shall, on behalf of the registrar, take the actions set out
in subsection (2.2):
(a) that a person operated a motor vehicle or had care or
control of a motor vehicle while the person’s ability to
operate the motor vehicle was impaired to any degree by
alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a
drug;
(b) by reason of an analysis of the breath or blood of a
person, that a person operated a motor vehicle or had
care or control of a motor vehicle having consumed
alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration
of alcohol in the person’s blood exceeded 80 milligrams of
alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood at any time within 3
hours after operating or having care or control of the
motor vehicle;
(c) by reason of an analysis of the bodily substance of a
person, that a person has within 2 hours after ceasing to
operate a motor vehicle or ceasing to have care or
control of a motor vehicle a blood drug concentration
that is equal to or exceeds any blood drug concentration
for the drug that is prescribed by regulation under
section 253.1 of the criminal code (canada);
(d) by reason of an analysis of the breath, blood or bodily
substance of a person, or any combination of them, that a
person has within 2 hours after ceasing to operate a
motor vehicle or ceasing to have care or control of a
motor vehicle a blood alcohol concentration and a blood
drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood
alcohol concentration and the blood drug concentration
for the drug that are prescribed by regulation under the
criminal code (canada) for instances where alcohol and
that drug are combined;
(e) that a person failed or refused, without a reasonable
excuse, to comply with a demand made on the person to
supply a sample of his or her breath, blood or bodily
substance under section 254 of the criminal code
(canada) in respect of the operation or care or control of
a motor vehicle.
(2.1) the peace officer shall not take the actions set out in
subsection (2.2) where
(a) the person consumed the drug or alcohol or both after
ceasing to operate the motor vehicle or ceasing to have
care and control of the motor vehicle, and
(b) the person, after ceasing to operate the motor vehicle or
ceasing to have care and control of the motor vehicle,
had no reasonable expectation that the person would be
required to provide a sample of breath or blood.
(2.2) the peace officer shall, on behalf of the registrar,
(a) in the case of a person who holds an operator’s licence,
(i) require that person to surrender to the peace officer
that person’s operator’s licence, and
(ii) serve on that person a notice of suspension of that
person’s operator’s licence;
(b) in the case of a person who holds a licence or permit
issued in another jurisdiction that permits the person to
operate a motor vehicle, serve on that person a notice of
disqualification
(i) disqualifying that person from operating a motor
vehicle in alberta, and
(ii) disqualifying that person from applying for or
holding an operator’s licence;
(c) in the case of a person who does not hold an operator’s
licence, serve on that person a notice of disqualification
disqualifying that person from applying for or holding an
operator’s licence.

You can lose your licence three ways. Blowing over 0.08 (2B), refusing to blow (2E) or if the officer believes you are impaired (2A).

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'm out ofnthe house at the moment so replying on my phone.

I have a more in-depth post formulated in my head but I do want to comment on one thing.

2A I think is a necessity. Alcohol affects us all diffedently. I likely could drive safely with a BAC of .08. I wouldn't but I may be able to.

That said there are others who wouldn't be able to drive safely with a BAC of .04. Especially if combined with another drug.

Officers need discretion to be able to get those people off the roads.

That said, those people should still have due process. Part of which would be documented certified breath tests or an accused's refusal to provide them.