Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[White Out 403]

awesome. going 1 Km over the limit? "surrender yourself to a breathalyzer, criminal scum"

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I guess this is becoming Canada's 2nd amendment debate.

Personally, the benefits and minor inconvenience are worth the demonstrated reward.
I understand the "protect our rights" argument, but we always give up certain rights for what we deem the greater good or safety of society. It's really just a matter of where you draw that line.

By default I'm against this enactment. However, if it would significantly decrease impaired driving then I'd be open to having my mind changed.

Basically, I need to see that this measure works and that there aren't other more reasonable less intrusive alternatives.

For me, I need to see it work before contemplating its justification.

[zamler]

I think the court system is too wimpy to over turn this, get used to it and more please think of the children laws.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

awesome. going 1 Km over the limit? "surrender yourself to a breathalyzer, criminal scum"

Swerve to avoid a pothole...

Out of the car MAGGOT...face down on the ground...NOW !!!

Or...in Reality...This happened...

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

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

awesome. going 1 Km over the limit? "surrender yourself to a breathalyzer, criminal scum"

You really should spend an extended period of time in an actual military state if you think this is somehow a slippery slope to Orwell's nightmare.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by wwkayaker

The government doesn’t need to infringe on the rights of all people. If the government wants to end drinking and driving, make the penalty a lifetime driving ban.

Or why not just phase in auto manufacturers to have to adopt breathalyzers installed in every vehicle to start the ignition?

Problem solved, the end.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

awesome. going 1 Km over the limit? "surrender yourself to a breathalyzer, criminal scum"

Who hurt you?

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Who hurt you?

The police...obviously

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

awesome. going 1 Km over the limit? "surrender yourself to a breathalyzer, criminal scum"

Your point would be easier to take seriously if you ever felt like discussing it based on reality.

I'll pose the same question to you as I did to Weitz. Which countries who have had this law for 5, 10, 20 etc years worry you? Which ones do you think are uniquely Orwellian? Police-states? Which ones are terrible examples of a liberal democracy where your freedoms are at risk?

I understand that it's cathartic to talk about neighborhood raids and cops suddenly looking to pull over anyone for driving too close to the center line, but if you can show me one example where this has happened, or any reason why you genuinely find it likely to happen here, I'm more than happy to hear it.

This law isn't a new thing to a first world, liberal democracy. It's not unique in its structure or its goal. So if you're proposing a unique outcome, you need to put some amount of effort into the reasoning.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

I don’t understand how people can be opposed to a procedure that has empirical evidence demonstrating that it contributes to saving lives.

Can you link a study detailing the effectiveness of mandatory screening versus the existing procedure? I can’t seem to find anything of substance on the topic.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your point would be easier to take seriously if you ever felt like discussing it based on reality.

I'll pose the same question to you as I did to Weitz. Which countries who have had this law for 5, 10, 20 etc years worry you? Which ones do you think are uniquely Orwellian? Police-states? Which ones are terrible examples of a liberal democracy where your freedoms are at risk?

I understand that it's cathartic to talk about neighborhood raids and cops suddenly looking to pull over anyone for driving too close to the center line, but if you can show me one example where this has happened, or any reason why you genuinely find it likely to happen here, I'm more than happy to hear it.

This law isn't a new thing to a first world, liberal democracy. It's not unique in its structure or its goal. So if you're proposing a unique outcome, you need to put some amount of effort into the reasoning.

Originally Posted by CMPunk

The police...obviously

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Who hurt you?

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

You really should spend an extended period of time in an actual military state if you think this is somehow a slippery slope to Orwell's nightmare.

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

Happened in our own city recently, and this is just one case that found its way to the news. But yeah, do go on about how this can never happen

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your point would be easier to take seriously if you ever felt like discussing it based on reality.

I'll pose the same question to you as I did to Weitz. Which countries who have had this law for 5, 10, 20 etc years worry you? Which ones do you think are uniquely Orwellian? Police-states? Which ones are terrible examples of a liberal democracy where your freedoms are at risk?

I understand that it's cathartic to talk about neighborhood raids and cops suddenly looking to pull over anyone for driving too close to the center line, but if you can show me one example where this has happened, or any reason why you genuinely find it likely to happen here, I'm more than happy to hear it.

This law isn't a new thing to a first world, liberal democracy. It's not unique in its structure or its goal. So if you're proposing a unique outcome, you need to put some amount of effort into the reasoning.

If your brake light is out, you probably shouldn’t face a drug test (roadside cannabis testing is still in its early days) that could give you a criminal record and cost thousands of dollars when you show zero signs of impairment.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

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

Happened in our own city recently, and this is just one case that found its way to the news. But yeah, do go on about how this can never happen

Cops routinely tell people their eyes look red or dilated doesn't matter if it is actually true. It's the "in the door" phrase.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Can you link a study detailing the effectiveness of mandatory screening versus the existing procedure? I can’t seem to find anything of substance on the topic.

Here's a link to a PDF of the Criminal Law Quarterly, which has some references on the topic:
http://www.madd.ca/english/research/...20of%20RBT.pdf

It is widely accepted that well-publicized programs involving both organized and mobile RBT with high testing levels increase the perceived and actual risk of apprehension, and thereby achieve sharp, sustained reductions in impaired driving crashes. (9)

(9) Individual studies, research reviews and meta-analyses have consistently found that these programs achieve significant and sustain reductions in impaired driving deaths and injuries. See generally C. Peek-Asa “The Effects of Random Alcohol Screening in Reducing Motor Vehicle Crashes” (1998); R. Shults et al., “Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving” (2001); World Health Organization (WHO), World Report on Traffic Injury Prevention: Summary (Geneva: WHO, 2004);

The footnote goes on, but there are a lot of studies related to it. They pretty much conclusively show that mandatory screening (RBT) effectively reduces drunk driving, crashes related to impairment, and deaths related to impairment across the board.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

If your brake light is out, you probably shouldn’t face a drug test (roadside cannabis testing is still in its early days) that could give you a criminal record and cost thousands of dollars when you show zero signs of impairment.

Did you read the link?

Again, drug testing is not part of this new legislation.

Why is there mandatory testing for alcohol, but not for drugs?
Mandatory roadside screening is not proposed for drugs to reflect the difference in the technology available between the approved screening device for alcohol and the oral fluid drug screener. The drug screener takes longer than the alcohol screener and cannot convert a sample of oral fluid to a blood drug concentration. Additionally, the results on the oral fluid drug screener will need to be combined with the facts necessary to the development of reasonable suspicion to move the investigation forward.

Originally Posted by White Out 403

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

Happened in our own city recently, and this is just one case that found its way to the news. But yeah, do go on about how this can never happen

Yeah, too bad this has nothing to do with the new law, happened before it, and no part of the outcome would be affected by it.

But yeah, keep sharing your opinion even though it's obvious you haven't taken the time to have even a cursory understanding of it. That's your right.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I’m absolutely opposed to impaired driving but cannabis has proven to be a particularly difficult one to test for impairment (other than a roadside field sobriety test) and I’m not sure the government has given enough thought about how to deal with this.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Section 8 is definitely engaged here, but my bigger concern is about self incrimination. Refusing to blow is a criminal offence. When an officer had to have reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed, that was more or less okay. Here, though, you're being told the following by the state: "we have no reason to think you have done anything wrong. Despite that, we require that you prove to us that you have not committed a crime. Accordingly, we require that you provide evidence to us that may be used to incriminate you. If you refuse to provide that evidence, that refusal will also be incriminating." It actually is fairly Orwellian.

Quoted so people can read this again. Why is this being ignored in this thread?

Here we have a lawyer's (if i'm not mistaken) interpretation of the consequences, yet people who see nothing wrong with this law are engaging in spurious debate.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I’m absolutely opposed to impaired driving but cannabis has proven to be a particularly difficult one to test for impairment (other than a roadside field sobriety test) and I’m not sure the government has given enough thought about how to deal with this.

Absolutely. If drug testing were a part of this it would be an insane disaster. The technology isn't even close for testing with probable cause (or how to identify drug-based probable cause, as evidenced by the article).

Glad it's not part of it.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I was actually looking at Best Buy site yesterday for them, they are all over the place for prices, and I am thinking you probably get what you pay for.

Am seriously considering getting one, this .03 drop sucks.

Here is an old thread that might have some info in it.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=165835

I remember this thread. Just gave it a read again.

The questionmark I have is for people who drink fairly often who supposedly won't feel the same effects of a 0.05 as most. Therefore you can't use subjective feeling as a guide to impairment, which seems odd.

Edit: another question. What about the next morning? I always feel like my breath smells like pure alcohol when I'm hungover, even if it's been 12 hours. Would I blow a 0.05 then since the breathalyzer measures alcohol content of the air to judge my blood content?

[DownInFlames]

What if you have asthma or another respiratory issue that prevents you from blowing? A minor inconvenience can become a big one or possibly even charges if the officer thinks you're not blowing on purpose. It happened to my Grandma who's been a smoker for 70 years.