we have to understand that laws are for society as a whole. 1 or 2 particular instances of bad should not be given as much weight as the overall benefit. It is all about the net effect. People will always complain regardless of how the law changes but as long as the law provide a net positive result, I think it's a good law. Bottomline is, this change makes people more aware of their alcohol consumption, which is definitely good for society as a whole.

sucks for restaurant workers. first the hst hits them, now this.
what's next, thanksgiving in a box?

Statistically, how much more likely is someone with a BAC of 0.05 to get into an accident than someone with no alcohol in his system? That is the question I would like an answer to.

The better question is why have some European countries switched to 0.02 from much higher before? Find the answer to that and you'll find the answer to your question.

Hard numbers aside, the simple answer to your question is: someone with a 0.05 BAC is more impaired than someone sober, and thus more likely to have an accident. How much more does not matter, all that matters is that it is more.

Before you try to compare it to sleepy drivers or any other legal impairment - remember what your mother told you - two wrongs don't make a right.

The restaurant industry grew exponentially over the past decade. I do not feel bad, that industry was due for some contraction. Hopefully expensive bottle service and $10 drinks will be replaced with what I remember from first going to bars: $1 drink specials. :D

I went from being an alcoholic to a 2 beer a night drinker.... dayum my weekends are filled with excitement with stories to tell

I was working in the attorney general's office today, and I was literally ready to call Mike De Jong a clown to his face if I happened to see him.

Their bodies didn't change their ability to process alcohol as a result of the new law. If they are lightweights, they would have still blown over 0.08 if they had that alcohol between them. They would still have needed to take cabs home under the old laws. If they're 300 pounds, chances are, they would still blow under 0.05 now.

If you were an 'alcoholic' before and were driving home, then you would have likely blown over 0.08 easily. See my point above.

If you have a hard day at work and are tired do you take a nap before going home?

If you wake up late and have to be somewhere do you call and tell the person you need to wait half an hour to an hour before you can drive? (not sure if this is true but I've heard its just as dangerous to drive when you first wake up as if you are really tired since you arent fully awake)

If something/someone upsets you do refuse to drive since you might be distracted?



I know technically these things arent being impaired but any of these things are most likely just as if not more dangerous then driving after having a beer or a glass of wine.

distractions and impairments are different, as you've mentioned, we can only prevent so much but we do try to prevent both (no cell phone use)

what you mentioned there the only people that can stop that are the individual just like when it comes to drinking think before you get behind the wheel


if we can lower the risks people face why not?

StylinRed i got a question for u.

Do u drink? if yes than how much would u say u consume?

cause i have friends of all ages, some who drink lots and some who drink very little. But all them have said thats its retarded that someone cannot enjoy a nice cold one or two after a hard day of work, or a glass of wine at dinner ect without being afraid of potentially losing there car and licence cause of it

The only people i can see who would defend this new law is people who dont enjoy drinking or who dont drink at all

no i've never had a sip actually; so i don't know the affects on a person after a couple drinks first hand, but i do know that regardless its a level of impairment and it affects each person differently

I honestly dont know if ur being sarcastic or not but if u arent, dont u think ur being alil biased here? This is kinda like how smokers cant smoke in BC parks. Lets say u werent a smoker ud be saying "oh fuck those smokers, they shouldnt be poluting my air with cigarette smell anyways"

Obviously u have a valid point that if it saves lives then why not, but they've gone to the extreme on this one

Lol.... Society at it's best has become THIS.
Posted via RS Mobile

Ok over .08...I can see why the new laws make sense. Scare the fuking retard drunks off the road

Someone explain WHY do you deserve to get penalize for blowing a warn? .05 - .08?

This is just overkill and targets the average joe who enjoys the light buzz...what proof do they have that .05 causes accidents/deaths?

But how much more does matter in the perspective of whether the punishment fits the crime.

Where do you draw the line of what's acceptable punishment?

How about automatic roadside death penalties for anyone with BAC 0.01 or more?

Quit being a drama queen. I told you to lookup the European countries that have lowered the BAC to 0.02 and investigate why. Be lucky we're still at 0.05, cause there is justification to go lower.

and what would that serve? To help him justify why these laws are good?

He'll just assume since you're not very smart and resorting to rage that you'll be equally as dumb and aggressive behind the wheel, and these laws are good to punish people like you.

My mother taught me that two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes these are all impairments that should be looked at too, yet it doesn't justify not looking further at alcohol impairment.

Smokers lost their right to smoke in parks due to littering. If they were more respectful and threw their butts away, they wouldn't have lost the privilege.

California has the same no smoking law on beaches, and it was implemented solely due to litter.

Other countries have 0.02 and 0.00 BAC levels with jail time for exceeding the limit. We are nowhere near the extreme.

There has always been a penalty for blowing a warn, it was a 24hr license suspension and possibly tow and impound. Why people think this is new is beyond me, the only thing that is new is the punishment is increased from 24hrs to 3 days.

No, just to express my personal opinion of him. I didn't like him BEFORE any of these new laws, nor did I vote for him or his party.

I never said I was looking for him to like me back.

Taylor seems to want a police state in Canada.
What's next, making it illegal to make fun of poorly modified cars?

:lol


sigh. a low blow indeed. I'll probably get the dreaded "taylor fail" now.

Regardless, wven the police union agrees with us. Thus the point of this thread. I'll quote it for you, with the important parts in bold.


what more needs to be said, other than stop being an argumentative asshole.

I'm using an example of hyperbole, not being a drama queen.

That's a pretty non-trivial task that you're proposing I do, and frankly with the couple minutes I spent looking it up on Google, I was not able to find any reports on why some European countries have lowered it to 0.02.

Heck, if we're using other countries as examples, why not go further? Armenia, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, and the Slovak Republic all have 0.00 BAC as the permissible level.

Now, I don't know what the punishment is if one were to be in violation of that.

Whatever the case, just to be clear, my main point of debate isn't the level of BAC set to 0.05, it's whether the punishment is too stiff at that level.

Never going back to a buck a drink. City's now have bylaws saying they can't charge below cost. In Nanaimo the min price is $3.25.

I remember going to a bar dropping a $20 and getting a table full of drinks. Made you feel like you were balling.