B.C. Introduces Canada's Toughest Impaired Driving Laws

[Ford Prefect]

I don't care for police officers having the power to hand out 90 day suspensions based on their own discretion. Not all police officers are Sgt. Prestons. Some are power tripping meatheads who will abuse that power.

And for the record, I support zero tolerance for drinking and driving. Anything else is just a partway measure and inadequate. So my objection to police officers having the discretionary power to hand out 90 day suspensions is based on principle, not opposition to the law itself.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

From my experiences playing around with a research grade breathalyzer 0.08 is pretty drunk. 3 pints in an hour and I'm still legal to drive according to the letter of the law, which I think is a little ridiculous. Bring on the 0.05.

Depends on the person. I weigh about 200 pounds and drink fairly regularly, and just last Saturday I had 3 Saddledome beers over the course of 2.5 hours at the Hitmen game and blew under 0.01 at a checkstop. My friend who weighs maybe 20 pounds lighter, but drinks much less often, consumed the same amount over the same period of time at a Flames game and ended up with a 24 hour suspension for blowing 0.10 and then 0.08.

I would gather that the main reason for those 'just one drink' style ads is that quite concievably a light, non-regular drinker could get to 0.05 on one drink depending on a variety of factors. Also another reason for those ads is that MADD is really a temperance movement and if they had their druthers no one would have any drinks, driving or not, but that's for another thread.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Depends on the person. I weigh about 200 pounds and drink fairly regularly, and just last Saturday I had 3 Saddledome beers over the course of 2.5 hours at the Hitmen game and blew under 0.01 at a checkstop. My friend who weighs maybe 20 pounds lighter, but drinks much less often, consumed the same amount over the same period of time at a Flames game and ended up with a 24 hour suspension for blowing 0.10 and then 0.08.

I would gather that the main reason for those 'just one drink' style ads is that quite concievably a light, non-regular drinker could get to 0.05 on one drink depending on a variety of factors. Also another reason for those ads is that MADD is really a temperance movement and if they had their druthers no one would have any drinks, driving or not, but that's for another thread.

I don't think the Hitmen use as much heroin in their beer batches as the Flames do.....

[IliketoPuck]

I predict more drunk people driving across Lake Windermere in the middle of the winter to avoid checkstops.

Much like they did before the law.

[greyshep]

Not tough enough.

Its sad that its so hard to drill this point through peoples heads. If you drink, dont drive, its really that simple. Its not worth the risk.

Zero tolerance should be the policy IMO.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

From my experiences playing around with a research grade breathalyzer 0.08 is pretty drunk. 3 pints in an hour and I'm still legal to drive according to the letter of the law, which I think is a little ridiculous. Bring on the 0.05.

As a pharmacist this brings to mind some important things we learn early.

a) Blood levels only tell half the story. 80mg/ml may be completely different for different people. You cannot acurately measure level of impairment, so blood levels are all we can go on. We all remember that chick that has one drink and is crying and taking off her shirt, right? Her level may be at 50mg/ml. This leads me to believe 0.05 is probably about right.

b) Alcohol is eliminated in first order kinetics. I don't believe there are many drugs that are first order. What this means is that the more you have the longer it takes to be eliminated. Think of it this way. Your body eliminates about 10-20mg/ml/hr. That means that every hour x amount is eliminated. Almost every other drug goes by second order kinetics (think half-lives) as this means the higher the level in the body, the faster it is eliminated; leaving the amount of time the drug is in the body is constant regardless of dose. This bring up a difficult point of determining when exactly someone is OK to begin driving again. Many officers will tell you they have stopped people in the mornings with >80mg/ml. How do we properly account for this? Also, if we have zero tolerance, when will people be at zero. The rate can vary widely depending on many factors including medications, temperature, genetics (huge), gender, etc.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

As a pharmacist this brings to mind some important things we learn early.

a) Blood levels only tell half the story. 80mg/ml may be completely different for different people. You cannot acurately measure level of impairment, so blood levels are all we can go on. We all remember that chick that has one drink and is crying and taking off her shirt, right? Her level may be at 50mg/ml. This leads me to believe 0.05 is probably about right.

b) Alcohol is eliminated in first order kinetics. I don't believe there are many drugs that are first order. What this means is that the more you have the longer it takes to be eliminated. Think of it this way. Your body eliminates about 10-20mg/ml/hr. That means that every hour x amount is eliminated. Almost every other drug goes by second order kinetics (think half-lives) as this means the higher the level in the body, the faster it is eliminated; leaving the amount of time the drug is in the body is constant regardless of dose. This bring up a difficult point of determining when exactly someone is OK to begin driving again. Many officers will tell you they have stopped people in the mornings with >80mg/ml. How do we properly account for this? Also, if we have zero tolerance, when will people be at zero. The rate can vary widely depending on many factors including medications, temperature, genetics (huge), gender, etc.

Can you send me her number?

[SeoulFire]

Zero tolerance would reduce the innocent until proven guilty whinging - but then every lawbreaker would have a bottle of mouthwash in the car to fuzz the system.

I have no problem with it being a cash grab either - clearly people do not care about the safety and well-being of themselves and others so perhaps a financial deterrent may do it Put the proceeds into developing something that resembles a decent public transportation system.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by valo403

Can you send me her number?

I lost your sister's phone number when I switched phones. OOOOoooooooh! Zing!