Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 12-26-2018, 08:11 PM   #81
Snuffleupagus
Franchise Player
 
Snuffleupagus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Arguments over this aside, I’d like to here a cognisant argument over why 0.05 BAC level limit is bad. Have you been that drunk before? It’s pretty drunk, no way someone should be driving a vehicle in good conscience.
Only for non drinkers, I played hockey with guys with that amount in their blood and you wouldn't even know they had a drop.
Snuffleupagus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 08:12 PM   #82
FireGilbert
Franchise Player
 
FireGilbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane
Exp:
Default

Checkstops are an inefficient use of police resources and I would prefer to see the cops on patrol for dangerous drivers and only requesting breath tests with reasonable suspicion. The priority should be to stop as many drunk drivers as possible, not to test as many drivers as possible. I can see why the police like them though as checkshops provide great looking statistics that help the Helen Lovejoys of the world sleep at night.

I also find them to be a massive violation of the right to be presumed innocent but have come to accept this loss of rights as one of the rules for having a license. I just hope the slope doesn't get any slipperier.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
FireGilbert is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 08:12 PM   #83
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus View Post
Only for non drinkers, I played hockey with guys with that amount in their blood and you wouldn't even know they had a drop.
Not really. Even regular drinkers (not alchoholics) are pretty drunk at 0.05 and wasted at 0.08.
Weitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 08:16 PM   #84
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

0.05 is two drinks.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SebC For This Useful Post:
14
Old 12-26-2018, 08:20 PM   #85
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
0.05 is two drinks.
Well it’s not. But ok.
Weitz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Weitz For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 08:23 PM   #86
CaptainYooh
Franchise Player
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
0.05 is two drinks.
This is not a direct relationship. Depends on a lot of personal factors - body weight, metabolic rate etc. See here.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
CaptainYooh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 08:26 PM   #87
FireGilbert
Franchise Player
 
FireGilbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane
Exp:
Default

I thought the rule was that 2 drinks in an hour gets you to 0.05 and then 1 drink an hour will keep you there?

The 0.05 limit is so incredibly arbitrary and fails to take into account how alcohol effects people differently. When I've had two drinks I'm feeling a bit buzzed but am still in control while if my wife has two drinks she is hammered and needs to go to bed.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
FireGilbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 08:59 PM   #88
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Obvious simplification is obvious, you pedants.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 09:01 PM   #89
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

FWIW, this site has been fairly reliable for me, nailed the number within .002 both times I was in a checkstop.

http://www.alcoholhelpcenter.net/pro...0&wu=0&h=2&n=4

0.05 could conceivably be reached with two drinks in very short order if you’re a small person (150lb male). But if that’s what you had, you’d be under in a half hour.

I really don’t think people understand how much alcohol at a sustained rate people have to drink to be at 0.08 or even 0.05 when a cop pulls you over. It’s well into the category of dangerous driving. Even if yer buds can balance on a pair of skates at 0.05, would you actually trust them to operate a motor vehicle?

I think part of the problem is people who view drinking and driving as a game. “How much can I drink before I can’t drive.” Or that the cops are out to stop you from having a good time. If you’re driving around at 0.05, you’re a ####ing idiot. If you’re driving around at 0.08? Then you deserve absolutely everything coming your way.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 09:03 PM   #90
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
Obvious simplification is obvious, you pedants.
If you have a personal rule of only 2 drinks or you won’t drive that’s great. But most people who drink regularly are not blowing 0.05 after 2. And probably aren’t close after the 20 minute wait if you get pulled over.

Edit: Pepsi nails it above.
Weitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 09:03 PM   #91
Johnny Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Johnny Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger View Post
I’d rather 1000 drunk drivers go free than give up one iota of our protected rights.

This is unquestionably a slippery slope and the expansion of police powers, while reducing our right to presumed innocence, is deeply concerning.

Why not let them search your car without probable cause? Spy on your phone records, photos and texts? Search your house? Browser history? Bank statements?

Surely if we increased our monitoring levels we could prevent all kinds of crime, not just drunk drivers.
You guys must be a hoot at airport security. When they ask you to remove your shoes do you tell them to eff off?
Do you speak out loudly that you aren't carrying a bombbombombombo bomb bombo?
Why aren't you outraged at the airport? bomb.
__________________
Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
Johnny Makarov is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Johnny Makarov For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 09:10 PM   #92
ShotDownInFlames12
Scoring Winger
 
ShotDownInFlames12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Exp:
Default

I drove through one last week (first checkstop I’ve been through in 15 years) I had had 1 pint after a hockey game.

I rolled up. It was spread across crowchild by the old viscount bennett and they stopped everyone (not a lot of cars on the road) the cop read a blurb to me that Alberta law requires a breath sample and brought out the machine and put it together. He asked if I had a drink in the last 15 mins and if I had smoked (didn’t specify what) in the last 15 mins. I said no to both

Gave me the test. Waited 45 seconds and he held it in front of me as it beeped 0

(Didn’t show decimals which I thought was weird. granted I’ve never taken one before). I asked him how long law has been in effect and he said one day and the public reception to it has been very positive. (Totall BS I’m sure)
Even after 1 beer I was nervous.
ShotDownInFlames12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 09:21 PM   #93
Cecil Terwilliger
That Crazy Guy at the Bus Stop
 
Cecil Terwilliger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Springfield Penitentiary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov View Post
You guys must be a hoot at airport security. When they ask you to remove your shoes do you tell them to eff off?
Do you speak out loudly that you aren't carrying a bombbombombombo bomb bombo?
Why aren't you outraged at the airport? bomb.
What in God’s name are you talking about? We don’t even take off our shoes at the airport in Canada. You’re all over the place with irrelevant nonsense.

I can’t imagine a less intelligent response to a valid criticism of these new laws.
Cecil Terwilliger is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 09:27 PM   #94
Johnny Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Johnny Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger View Post
What in God’s name are you talking about? We don’t even take off our shoes at the airport in Canada. You’re all over the place with irrelevant nonsense.

I can’t imagine a less intelligent response to a valid criticism of these new laws.
So where is your outrage when they scan your crotch with a wand? you aren't carrying a bomb in your underwear. Where are your rights? Why do you have to take out your laptop or ipad? You aren't hiding a bomb in there.

and i dare you to say this this crap to someone who lost a loved one to a drunk driver. I’d rather 1000 drunk drivers go free than give up one iota of our protected rights.
__________________
Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
Johnny Makarov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 09:41 PM   #95
Red Potato Standing By
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Exp:
Default

If they made it so it was a condition of your license that they could give you a breathalyzer at any time would it still be against a persons rights?(seeming driving isn’t a right)
Red Potato Standing By is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 09:56 PM   #96
White Out 403
Franchise Player
 
White Out 403's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cape Breton Island
Exp:
Default

Just because you're driving doesn't mean you give up your Charter rights. People need to get this through their thought process.
White Out 403 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to White Out 403 For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 10:02 PM   #97
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Charter rights are not absolute though. This one will probably head to the courts to be decided, but don't be surprised if it is allowed.
Quote:
Section 1 allows reasonable limits on Charter rights
Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute. The Charter and the courts recognize that governments can make laws in the broader public interest, even if a law violates the Charter. In such a case, Canada’s Parliament or a provincial legislature can try to justify the violation—under section 1—as a reasonable limit on the right. Section 1 says that a reasonable limit must be prescribed by law and demonstrably (clearly) justified in a free and democratic society. If a government tries to use section 1, a court can then decide if the government has justified the Charter violation. If so, the court may allow the violation.
But section 1 applies only to written laws, not to government action, because it requires any limit on a Charter right to be “prescribed by law”. So when government action—not a written law—violates the Charter, section 1 does not let the government try to justify the violation. The action is unconstitutional. Lawyers call it a Charter breach.
The essential questions courts must decide under section 1 are whether the law has an important objective and whether the government chose a proportionate way to meet that objective—a way that interferes as little as possible with Charter rights. For example, could the government achieve its objective in another way, without violating Charter rights? Does the law do more harm than good?
https://www.cbabc.org/For-the-Public...our-Rights/230
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 10:08 PM   #98
Red Potato Standing By
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Exp:
Default

Driving isn’t a right though,so if you are asked to prove you are sober(being sober I am sure is a condition of having the privilege to drive) how is that violating your rights?

Last edited by Red Potato Standing By; 12-26-2018 at 10:09 PM. Reason: Bad wording
Red Potato Standing By is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Potato Standing By For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 10:20 PM   #99
Mickey76
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Exp:
Default

I don’t drink, so I am not as invested as some, but one thing that drives me crazy is the constant refrain like bad elevator music that “driving is a privledge not a right.” That is nonsense. I am Canadian citizen and driving is a right. Yes there is a proficiency test and yes it is a right that can be lost with certain behaviour, but I hate the mindset that the government is doing me a favour by letting me drive. I don’t need to be greatful that I am allowed to drive.
Mickey76 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mickey76 For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 10:20 PM   #100
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

I think it probably would be saved by section 1. However, the people being glib about laws that violate Charter rights are pretty ####ing horrible examples of Canadian citizens. Those rights should only be encroached on when absolutely necessary and any encroachment, even if it is justifiable (for example, increased security and concomitant reductions in personal privacy at airports) need to be taken very seriously and implemented in a manner that minimally infringed the right and does not permit any slippery slope effect. It's not something to be joked about or dismissed as being obviously fine because it has a proven benefit in terms of public safety.

Curtailments of rights are always cast in well-meaning terms, are usually justified as being about safety, and only ever happen a little at a time. The fact that anyone can look to the south and be glib about ceding power to the federal government or the erosion of bulwarks like a protection against self-incrimination is very disturbing. Not surprising, though, I guess, given who seems to be at the front of that line.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:19 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021