Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[corporatejay]

Nm

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Not really. Even regular drinkers (not alchoholics) are pretty drunk at 0.05 and wasted at 0.08.

So wrong, 3 beers in the 1st hour will put a 200lb man at 0.05, 3 more in the next hour will put him over the legal limit to drive, but a regular drinker would not be wasted.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

So wrong, 3 beers in the 1st hour will put a 200lb man at 0.05, 3 more in the next hour will put him over the legal limit to drive, but a regular drinker would not be wasted.

What do you call 6 beers in 2 hours?

Jesus.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What do you call 6 beers in 2 hours?

Jesus.

I thought a Jesus was 6 bottles of wine in 2 hours.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

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.

0.o

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What do you call 6 beers in 2 hours?

Jesus.

Lunch?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What do you call 6 beers in 2 hours?

Jesus.

I actually have a breathalyzer and did that once, I blew a .06 after drinking a 6 pack in 2 hours. Then it took an hour and a half of not having another before I dropped below .05

Who knows how accurate my little $100 breathalyzer gag gift is, but it's interesting to experiment

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

So wrong, 3 beers in the 1st hour will put a 200lb man at 0.05, 3 more in the next hour will put him over the legal limit to drive, but a regular drinker would not be wasted.

You don’t have to feel wasted to be impaired.

You are certainly significantly impaired in your reaction time and judgement if you are over .08 BAC. The concept of not being wasted and not having reduced capacity to operate a motor vehicle are completely different things.


On the original topic.
To me I think some sort of cause should be required to be demonstrated by the officer in order to demand a breathylizer. However given how non invasive that act is the threshold of “unreasonable” should be very low such that an officer noting any smell in a log book should be sufficient that it isn’t overturned in court.

I think people misunderstand what the charter says. You have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. What is unreasonable is legislated by governments and interpreted by the courts. The debate of is it reasonable is absolutely the correct debate to be having here.

[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.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GGG

You don’t have to feel wasted to be impaired.

That was my point

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What do you call 6 beers in 2 hours?

Jesus.

Impaired, You're not likely a drinker but please pay attention

[Maritime Q-Scout]

My first response is I'm completely against this.

I hate the "if you have nothing to hide" argument, as it assumes that everything legal is ok to be public knowledge. It also assumes that the police have to be truthful in their dealing with you, which the Supreme Court has said would be too detrimental to their job.

Sure we could look at stats to see if we could find the "bad cops" but we already have numbers about institutional and racial bias and those problems continue.

There have been many posters that have said that there is evidence this law reduces drinking and driving.

I haven't seen these studies, no one has posted them. I don't want to discuss what I think methodology would be without seeing the methodologies.

The Charter is there for a reason. It should be held in high regard. Yes, Section 1 can overrule Section 8, but it's not as simple as "well the law is reasonable so its cool" there's a detailed test to determine if a law can justifiably overrule a constitutional right. That said, no point going into it now without the evidence of the law working elsewhere.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Impaired, You're not likely a drinker but please pay attention

I think you’re confusing “drinker” with “binge drinker.” Perhaps you should pay attention to the signs of alcoholism. 6 beers in two hours is not a healthy social activity, it’s drinking to get drunk, which can be fun on it’s own, but it’s not something to thump your chest proudly about.

Regardless, it comes down to semantics. Wasted, impaired, buzzed, everyone is going to feel a little different depending on their body size (if you’re 300 pounds, maybe 6 in 2 is a light buzz, if you’re 150, you’re stumbling) but the point is that drinking and driving is not some sport. You don’t measure it against your ability to play hockey, or your ability to own the crown of “drinker” and handle 6 drinks.

Pay attention to this: if you drink, be a an adult and don’t drive. I don’t care if you’re at 0.03, 0.05, 0.07, or 0.08. Being a proud drinker is great, but it’s ok to be an intelligent adult too and use an Uber when you’ve been drinking. You may get some ego from drinking John under the table. But you’re just a ####ing loser if you grab your keys and decide you’re good to drive.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Everywhere I've read, including this thread, debates what 0.05 actually is.

Is there somewhere to buy a good quality breathalyzer?

I'd really like to have a better idea of what 0.05 feels like. It's a little scary if that's only two beers in an hour for most. I feel like it wouldn't be since the 0.05 mark is meant to target when people's motor skills are effected.

[corporatejay]

First. My concern about the 0.05 is more constitutional. It's quasi criminal and mandated by the province as opposed to the feds.

The data suggests 0.05 is much safer. Consequently I'll retract my previous statement. I still have a problem with mandatory blowing at checkstops.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4448946/

[1991 Canadian]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Shouldn't any infringement on our charter rights be a big deal?

I would consider not being killed by a drunk driver a more fundamental right than not having to do a breathalyzer on a public road.

The right to life vs the right to avoid a minor inconvenience.

The following section came from https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...-freedoms.html

Section 9 - Detention or imprisonment
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Section 9 says that government officials cannot take individuals into custody or hold them without a good reason. For example, a police officer must have reasonable grounds for detaining a person. However, courts have stated that laws allowing officers to stop drivers for breath tests are reasonable and do not violate the Charter.

[White Out 403]

I think people have become too soft and their defenses down too much when it comes to giving the state more and more authority, at the expense of personal freedoms. That's my takeaway from this.

Originally Posted by 1991 Canadian

I would consider not being killed by a drunk driver a more fundamental right than not having to do a breathalyzer on a public road.

The right to life vs the right to avoid a minor inconvenience.

The following section came from https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...-freedoms.html

This is pretty spurious logic. Using this line of thinking then people, with the intent of not being the victim of a homicide, should begin appealing to the police to kick down peoples doors and remove firearms by force. Cuz, you know, we don't want to be victims of gun violence right?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by 1991 Canadian

I would consider not being killed by a drunk driver a more fundamental right than not having to do a breathalyzer on a public road.

The right to life vs the right to avoid a minor inconvenience.

The following section came from https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...-freedoms.html

I asked earlier. But how many innocent people are killed by drunk drivers? How about compared to speeding?

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What do you call 6 beers in 2 hours?

Jesus.

The second intermission?

[RogerWilco]

This doesn't bother me at all, I like to drink but I leave my vehicle at home if I know I will be, other than a limit of 1 glass of wine if I am out for dinner. Those are just the rules I set for myself. I'm fine with a tinny bit more screening at road side if it save some lives for sure.

The constitutional issue is a separate matter. I personally don't see this as some sort of slippery slope. Driving isn't a right it is only a privilege. Alcohol limits your ability to drive safely, so I think screening is appropriate. I don't see this moving to illegal searches as that is a separate issue that isn't really linked to your ability to operate a vehicle. That would be more of an issue of searching private property. Just my opinion.