Drinking at home = driver's license suspension

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

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

I have elevated liver enzymes from taking statin drugs.

Causes of elevated liver enzymes

Viral hepatitis

• A fatty liver

• Alcoholic liver disease

• Drug/medication-induced liver disease

• Autoimmune hepatitis

• Herbal toxicity

• Genetic liver diseases

• Liver tumors

• Heart failure

- Strenuous exercise

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

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.

So in this case you are guilty until adequate evidence is provided that proves your innocence? The point is to provide the child with medical help, not to blame someone because they got hurt. In the case of this woman, she did not harm anyone but herself and should be allowed to decide if she wants to receive treatment for something she is doing legally.

[Traditional_Ale]

So let me get this straight...

If I go golfing, stay sober, and decide to float on an air matress in a water-trap, when the cops come to get me (even though I have paid my fees and am sober and not disturbing anyone) I'm going to lose my driver's liscense because I wasn't driving golf karts drunk with all the other wackos?

[amorak]

I cannot believe anyone would be in favour of this. This is a huge infringement on this ladies Charter Rights (if not the letter, then the spirit) and I would happily donate money to a legal challenge.

This lady has every right to get shammered nightly, as long as she's not driving (she has NO DUIs!). Taking her license away is insane and I hope there is a lot of public outcry. This is a slippery effing slope.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by amorak

This lady has every right to get shammered nightly,

Aaand cue the "not when I'm paying for her health care" posts.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Aaand cue the "not when I'm paying for her health care" posts.

I didn't say she had the right to have us pay for it - that's a separate argument. Should alcoholics/smokers/etc pay a higher portion of healthcare costs? is a very valid arguement, but not relevant to the scope of this discussion.

This lady is being punished on the basis that she may very well be an alcoholic, but without any proof that she committed the crime (DUI) while being punished as if she did.

If we follow this logic, I move that we put all male homosexuals under 18 in jail.
The logic is the same: Sodomy is illegal in Canada when you're under 18. Since gay teens under 18 would likely have sex at some point before they turn 18 (stats show average male has sex by 16), then it is very likely that these gay male teens will break the law.

Therefore, we should jail them before they do, to avoid the possibility that they sodomize each other before they turn 18.


That's the same effing logic used to take this woman's driving privileges away. She's an alcoholic, so she may drink and drive, thus we take away her license.


I am a huge anti-drunk driving advocate, but I am a much bigger advocate of reasonable laws and personal freedom. This infringes on personal freedoms in a way I hoped Canada would never do.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by amorak

I didn't say she had the right to have us pay for it - that's a separate argument. Should alcoholics/smokers/etc pay a higher portion of healthcare costs? is a very valid arguement, but not relevant to the scope of this discussion.

This lady is being punished on the basis that she may very well be an alcoholic, but without any proof that she committed the crime (DUI) while being punished as if she did.

If we follow this logic, I move that we put all male homosexuals under 18 in jail.
The logic is the same: Sodomy is illegal in Canada when you're under 18. Since gay teens under 18 would likely have sex at some point before they turn 18 (stats show average male has sex by 16), then it is very likely that these gay male teens will break the law.

Therefore, we should jail them before they do, to avoid the possibility that they sodomize each other before they turn 18.


That's the same effing logic used to take this woman's driving privileges away. She's an alcoholic, so she may drink and drive, thus we take away her license.


I am a huge anti-drunk driving advocate, but I am a much bigger advocate of reasonable laws and personal freedom. This infringes on personal freedoms in a way I hoped Canada would never do.

Don't tell it to me. I agreed with your post. I'm making fun of the inevitable posts from the high and mighty around here.

[sclitheroe]

So what is people's take on suspending driver licenses for the other cases listed in the article:

Alcohol dependence” is one of 16 specific medical conditions – including certain heart conditions, unstable mental illness and uncontrolled diabetes – that must be reported in most Canadian provinces if, in a doctor’s opinion, it “may make it dangerous for the person to operate a motor vehicle"

[amorak]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

So what is people's take on suspending driver licenses for the other cases listed in the article:

Alcohol dependence” is one of 16 specific medical conditions – including certain heart conditions, unstable mental illness and uncontrolled diabetes – that must be reported in most Canadian provinces if, in a doctor’s opinion, it “may make it dangerous for the person to operate a motor vehicle"

How can someone be so blind?

All the conditions you listed, save one, are UNCONTROLLABLE AND WITH SOMEONE 24/7. Those conditions could, at any time, without any DECISION by the affected person, make operating a car dangerous.

ONE of these conditions is totally USER-DEPENDANT and is CONTROLLABLE and relies ONE HUNDRED PERCENT ON AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE PERSON. A person who is an alcoholic can also operate a car safely 100% of the time, if they so choose. NO ONE ELSE WITH ANY OTHER CONDITION ON THAT LIST CAN SAY THAT.


Seriously, am I the only one who sees how different choosing to get drunk is over being afflicted with diabeties?

[algernon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

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

I'm almost certain that the majority of violent offenders in prison have tattoos on their body.
If a Doctor notices a patient with tattooed arms, the person should be reported, and made to go to anger counseling, as they have a higher than normal chance of killing someone.

If a law prevents even one person from getting killed by a tattooed convict-to-be, it's worth it.

[moon]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

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

If there was a $500 fine and then jail time if it isn't paid I would think that people would take it seriously.

Considering most people in this thread are shocked to find out you can lose your license for boating and drinking that doesn't seem to be doing a good job of deterring people.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

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.

Youth have a higher chance of driving drunk, no more licenses for people under 25, men are more likely to drive drunk no more males with licenses, race X more likely to drive drunk take away there licenses, humans more likely to drive drunk than dogs no more human licenses.

Just because some group is more likely to drive drunk doesn't mean they should lose they licenses. Unless there is some study to show that if you are an alcoholic you will drive drunk there is no justification to take away the license.

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.

When does this happen? There has to be a lot more indications than a black eye and broken arm for the kid to be taken away. Just like there should be a lot more evidence of drinking and driving for the license to be taken away.

[sclitheroe]

I'm also curious - if an airline pilot showed up at the hospital with broken bones due to falling over drunk, demonstrated medical signs indicating long term alcohol abuse, and was told to leave a recovery program after 4 sessions because he wasn't taking it seriously, would you be in favor of him flying a jumbo jet just because he'd never been caught impaired impaired in the cockpit?

Now another question - say your pilot is sober on the job, and your ok with his personal right to pound at home. What about when he starts having the shakes and DT's at 30,000 feet over the Atlantic? He's still sober, remember. But he's an imminent risk for a crash, don't you think?

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by amorak

A person who is an alcoholic can also operate a car safely 100% of the time, if they so choose.

Not a sober alcoholic in withdrawal.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by amorak

How can someone be so blind?

All the conditions you listed, save one, are UNCONTROLLABLE AND WITH SOMEONE 24/7. Those conditions could, at any time, without any DECISION by the affected person, make operating a car dangerous.

ONE of these conditions is totally USER-DEPENDANT and is CONTROLLABLE and relies ONE HUNDRED PERCENT ON AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE PERSON. A person who is an alcoholic can also operate a car safely 100% of the time, if they so choose. NO ONE ELSE WITH ANY OTHER CONDITION ON THAT LIST CAN SAY THAT.


Seriously, am I the only one who sees how different choosing to get drunk is over being afflicted with diabeties?

To further my point - look at this:

uncontrolled diabetes


So if you, as a person, ARE ABLE TO ADMINISTER insulin to CONTROL your diabetes, you can drive.

However, if you cannot control your diabetes by actively medicating yourself, you cannot drive.

THIS IS THE SAME AS AN ALCOHOLIC, so how can you give a diabetic who can mange his disease the right to drive, while taking it away from an alcoholic who can make the same choice.

This is a ridiculous infringement on personal freedoms and I find that your argument helps to completely cement my view that this lady was wronged, regardless of how wrong a DUI is, banning someone from driving because they have a clean driving record by are a lush and may be slightly more statistically likely to cause an accident is such a slippery slope, I don't want to even start down it.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Not a sober alcoholic in withdrawal.

Okay, so based your logic, ER doctors should also be banned from driving.

They work so many hours in such odd chunks of time that it is statistically proven that they are some of the most sleep deprived people in our society.

Furthermore, it is also proven that driving sleepy is as bad as drunk driving.

Therefore, it would be reasonable, using this same logic, to ban ALL DOCTORS FROM DRIVING.

Who's with me?!? F U sleepy doctors, no BMW for you!

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

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

Apparently I should have clarified that with driving/navigating modes of transport while drunk. I should have seen that coming.

Although can't imagine mowing the lawn is a good idea while hammered...

[4X4]

This is just getting stupid in here. Pilots with the shakes at 30,000 feet, eh? Better ban peanuts from the carts in case one of the pilots has a peanut allergy and somehow encounters a peanut while opertaing the plane. Or better yet, take away licenses from people with bee sting allergies in case a bee flies in the window and stings the driver.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Better ban peanuts from the carts in case one of the pilots has a peanut allergy and somehow encounters a peanut while opertaing the plane.

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/p...ights-/95355/1

Nothing ever came to fruition. Just thought it was funny that it's actually been looked at.

[IliketoPuck]

Seriously though, can I lose my license for driving a golf cart and finishing off a leisurely 12 pack during the round?

[4X4]

A golf course is private property. I doubt it.