Drinking at home = driver's license suspension

[4X4]

I suppose people with flying licenses lose that too.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

She got plastered one night and showed up in the emergency room with a broken arm. A week later, when her family doctor got the test results back, he saw medical evidence of a history of alcohol abuse and followed the law by reporting it.

This isn't a case of someone having a few beers and losing their license. It's not even a case of someone having 400 beers and losing their license. It's a case of someone with a long history of alcohol abuse having their license suspended and being asked to go to treatment.

If there's no proof of her driving drunk then it's an infrigement of her rights to suspend her drivers license. It's not against the law to sit in your house and get drunk and destroy your liver. You can't punish people for crimes that they haven't even committed.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Because it's a lot easier to operate a boat while drinking than a car.

Doesnt change the fact someone could be injured or killed.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

I really don't see where the argument is. No one has a right to be hammered and operate any vehicle.

Different licensing is a tax grab and an attempt to teach people the rules of boating vs a car.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by 4X4

But you do realize that losing a boating license for impairment can come under either of those circumstances, right?

Yep. There's a huge difference between a guy who had a beer at the neighbour's two doors down and the guy hammered to the point he can't talk and doing 180 the wrong way on deerfoot. One is obviously not going to kill anybody while the other obviously is, however they're charged the same.

I realize I'm in the minority of people that don't drink and fish, but I think there's 0 reason to be controlling anything with a motor while drunk.

[moon]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Like I said wheres the deterent? How many times is the average boater on the water? Maybe a dozen times a year?? People wouldnt give a sh*t about losing their boating license. They certainly care a lot more if they might lose their drivers license.

How about including a big fine for boating while drunk? That would be a pretty good deterent.

I would think that most people wouldn't expect to lose their driver's license for boating and drinking so how much of a deterrent is it right now anyways?

There are a ton of crimes out there that don't have losing your license associated with them and the deterent seem to be pretty effective.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Doesnt change the fact someone could be injured or killed.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

Someone can be injured or killed while driving a car sober. Does that mean we ban cars?

[Superflyer]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

She got plastered one night and showed up in the emergency room with a broken arm. A week later, when her family doctor got the test results back, he saw medical evidence of a history of alcohol abuse and followed the law by reporting it.

This isn't a case of someone having a few beers and losing their license. It's not even a case of someone having 400 beers and losing their license. It's a case of someone with a long history of alcohol abuse having their license suspended and being asked to go to treatment.

Yes but she showed up in an ambulance not in a car under her own driving. There is a huge difference. This is taking someones license away because she may drive drunk. In her 40-50 years of driving she never drove drunk (or at least never got caught) and that is enough to say she should have a license.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Someone can be injured or killed while driving a car sober. Does that mean we ban cars?

Seriously? Thats the best rebuttal you could come up with?

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Seriously? Thats the best rebuttal you could come up with?

I was tailoring it to the (really lame) argument presented.

[Traditional_Ale]

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by moon

How about including a big fine for boating while drunk? That would be a pretty good deterent.

Would it? Do people take fines seriously to begin with? There's still around $10 million in unpaid tickets in Calgary alone...

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

I was tailoring it to the (really lame) argument presented.

You may disagree with the law, but I didnt make it, and thats the reality of the situation.

Judging by this thread there seems to be quite a few people who think drinking and boating is ok. Unfortunately society is geared toward the lowest denominator, the stupid people who get incredibly drunk and start ripping around the lake in a speedboat. Sure some people who probably arent that drunk will get caught up in the law. But thats no different than the people who have a couple beers on the way home from work and blow over.

[onetwo_threefour]

I'd be interested to see a Charter challenge of both the reporting requirement and the suspension power. Is the need to protect public safety really rationally connected to reporting the condition of alcohol dependence, and is the infringement of the privacy expectation reasonably justifiable?

With respect to the suspension it would seem to be a violation of the presumption of innocence.

I know that driving is not a right, but there are rights that are infringed here and I suspect that this oversteps the boundaries.

[sclitheroe]

“I haven’t told many people,” she said, “because I bet everyone will think, ‘I bet she was drinking and driving and doesn’t want to admit it.’ It’s the shame of it all.”

So Ms. Copp suffered in relative silence for the first six months, feeling ashamed and believing she was probably a rare victim

Ms. Copp told The Globe, “I don’t think I’m an alcoholic” and that she frequently goes a week or longer without a drink.


Shame, sense of victimhood, denial, and counting the number of days you can go sober.

Ignoring the political side of this story, statements like these along with the liver function tests are a strong warning sign she needs to get some help. I hope she does. Licenses can be re-obtained, but her disease could be fatal.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

If there's no proof of her driving drunk then it's an infrigement of her rights to suspend her drivers license. It's not against the law to sit in your house and get drunk and destroy your liver. You can't punish people for crimes that they haven't even committed.

You know what? I've never had an at-fault accident or had a driving infraction that lead to losing demerits off my license, but I still had an insurance premium that was four times higher than my fathers while I was growing up. Why? Because statistics show that 17 year-old male drivers are higher risk than other people.

In Ontario, they passed a law based on stats that show people who abuse alcohol on a repeated basis have a higher chance of driving drunk than people who don't.

It's important to realize we're not talking about someone cracking open a beer during a hockey game, and a swarm of police officer come crashing into the living room to throw you in the slammer.

All she has to do is report for treatment, and demonstrate that she has control over her drinking, and then she gets her license back.

If someone brings their 8 year old son into the ER with a broken arm and a black eye, and tells the doctor he just fell down the stairs, what happens? The doctor calls social services and the boy gets taken away until you're able to prove to them that you're not a child abuser.

This is no different. If my father gets hit by a drunk driver one day while crossing the street, do you really think I give a crap if they don't have a history of drunk driving? How do you think I'm going to react when I find out the person was just in the ER the other day and there was evidence of him being an alcoholic, but he was still allowed back on the road? You think I might have some concerns about that?

If this law prevents even one person from getting killed by a drunk driver, it's worth it.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

“I haven’t told many people,” she said, “because I bet everyone will think, ‘I bet she was drinking and driving and doesn’t want to admit it.’ It’s the shame of it all.”

So Ms. Copp suffered in relative silence for the first six months, feeling ashamed and believing she was probably a rare victim

Ms. Copp told The Globe, “I don’t think I’m an alcoholic” and that she frequently goes a week or longer without a drink.


Shame, sense of victimhood, denial, and counting the number of days you can go sober.

Ignoring the political side of this story, statements like these along with the liver function tests are a strong warning sign she needs to get some help. I hope she does. Licenses can be re-obtained, but her disease could be fatal.

Exactly what I was getting at when I mentioned there are classic signs of alcoholism in this article.

[flamesfever]

I think this case shows that everyone should attempt to establish a close, trusting, first name basis relationship with their doctor.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Yep. There's a huge difference between a guy who had a beer at the neighbour's two doors down and the guy hammered to the point he can't talk and doing 180 the wrong way on deerfoot. One is obviously not going to kill anybody while the other obviously is, however they're charged the same.

I realize I'm in the minority of people that don't drink and fish, but I think there's 0 reason to be controlling anything with a motor while drunk.

What about my lawnmower? Remote control car? Chain saw? (ok that one definitely shouldn't be used drunk)

I hate paternalism in all its forms. And by the looks of this thread there are definitely some big fans of telling others what their best interests are, above and beyond the drinking and driving/boating thing. IMO unless there is proof of wrongdoing to another person or threat or wrongdoing to another person it shouldn't be a crime. Sitting at home being an alcoholic would obviously not qualify.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think this case shows that everyone should attempt to establish a close, trusting, first name basis relationship with their doctor.

By going to the pub

[mikey_the_redneck]

Bogus infringement on the rights of Canadians.

They don't really want to fully stop drinking and driving. They would rather ramp up laws like these and exploit this problem to make maximum money and throw more Canadians into the new jails they will be building.

The trend of infringing on people's rights for the good of public safety is sickening. And even worse is all the liberal boot lickers that endorse crap like this. FanIn80 would fit in nicely in communist China. It's not illegal to be an alcoholic.

This is equivalent to the following scenario:

My doctor finds out I drink on occasion.
He phones the government and reports this.
The government punches up my file and realize that I own a shotgun.
As a result, it is assumed that because of these conditions I may get violent and go on a shooting rampage. Therefore the government makes me go to some kind of evaluation to prove that I am not a criminal in waiting. Bogus.

Very Orwellian.......