We can discuss having moderator privileges to ban someone who points out where you are wrong and banning is the only response you have.

Statistically accidents decrease with stricter rules and lower BAC. The police can complain, yet this does more to help pubic safety than they can provide. The police are welcome to their opinion - yet it is wrong.

That you are wrong.

So it's safe to assume that you've never had a drink or two with dinner and than drove after right? Since it's wrong.

Well I'm sure statistically not having a passenger to talk to or a radio to play with would make accidents go down as well, as they are both distractions...let's ban that too in the name of safety.
Posted via RS Mobile

Basically one side is saying which is stylinred and taylor, if it says lives and decreases accidents then I'm all for this law

And the other side is saying which is the majority of us is saying the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Taylor why don't we go one step further and say speed kills and change the punishment to vehicle impoundment for a year. Does that make sense? It should since the new punishment for blowing a warning does to u
Posted via RS Mobile

but the majority are saying that the punishment is for people drinking a glass or wine or a bottle of beer.

for the average person, let's say, male, 170lbs, drinking 2 beers over an hour with dinner will only have 0.03%BAC level. Drinking a glass of wine with dinner won't put you in the 0.05% range. I don't understand what the fuss is about?

Maybe it's just me, I don't see myself really that affected by this law, because I wouldn't drink more than 1 or 2 drinks with dinner. And if I'm going to the bar to watch the game, and I want to drink more than that, I'll make sure I have a DD to drive me home.

Officer; "have u had anything to drink tonight?"

Driver; "I had 2 beers at dinner"

Officer; "ok I have grounds to give u a breathalzyer"

Driver; "ok no problem"

Officer; "well u blew a fail, I'm gonna have to impound ur car and u lose ur licence for a couple days"

Driver; "wtf I only had 2 beers though...."

Officer; "sorry but its the new law"

Driver; "so I'm guilty till proven innocent?"

Officer; "its the law"


Now don't u think this may happen to some of us down the road?
Posted via RS Mobile

All I have to say is if it's a warning then nothing should happen to you. If they punish you then it's not a warning. It's a punishment. If you get a warning for speeding, you don't get a smaller fine. You get to leave. THis is all bull.

its funny how they're trying to get "tough" on drunk driving while two police officers essentially got off scott free for dui...one while killing a man

i.e.
http://media.canada.com/1ceaa7d7-388...20Robinson.jpg

"RCMP docked 10 days pay for driving impaired"
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

the police should should start by setting an example and holding their employees to a higher standard

Your point is that the punishment is too strict: Are there any countries/regions that have raised the BAC and shown a decrease in accidents? or have a 0.05 or 0.08 BAC and lessened the punishments and shown a decrease? Come back with some non-trivial examples to back up your opinion - then we'll have a debate. :thumbsup:

It has been like this for years - why are the complaints only being raised now?

The "warning" is to that at the next level (0.08) it becomes a criminal charge. The warning has to be relative to the potential infraction. Speeding does not have criminal charge as the next step, so the warning is less harsh.

I can recognize my bad behaviour AND recognize the merit of the laws.

I am not advocating I am an angel and never break the law - yet I am advocating the laws exist for a good reason.

It seems most here cannot make that separation.

This is the only reason I support it as well. I am appalled that the police did not mention this in their media statement.

In Ontario the punishment was 12 hrs for 0.05-0.08 BAC, then I moved to BC where it was 24 hrs. Thus the punishment doubled, yet I wasn't racing to the BC legislature complaining that it was so out of line with Ontario. Now the punishment has tripled, and I'm still not rushing. Why? Cause 12hrs, 24hr, and even 3 days seems reasonable.

365 days does not. You want to multiply the punishment by 100+. That's not one step further, that's off the charts and is not reasonable.

This is not reasonable either.

You both want to debate an unreasonable law by providing unreasonable comments. Do you see the irony in that? It is funny, and keeps the discussion going, yet does nothing in your favour to reverse the law.

If you have a problem with the law, find examples in other countries/regions where higher BAC or lesser punishments result in decreased or at least the same level of accidents/deaths. If you cannot, then at least we agree the new law will save lives whether we like the law or not.

For the record, I do not like either the DUI or speeding law - yet do see the statistical safety benefit.

I'm not arguing that increasing the punishment will reduce the number of incidents. Obviously it will. But the question is at what point does the punishment become unreasonable?

Why not raise the penalty for blowing 0.05 to driving prohibition for a year and $10,000 fine? I'm sure you'll see even fewer incidents then.

Edit: I see RiceIntegraRS made the same point as I did, which you have responded to.

Who determines what is "reasonable"? You seem to think the new penalties are reasonable. However, many people do not.

I don't know about "many" people though, I know there is some backlash, particularly those working in the restaurant industry, but I don't think it's a majority of people who oppose the new laws. Maybe we need a poll (of course, this will be skewed, being that this board is mostly populated by young males, some of whom can't even legally drink yet).

I think it is reasonable to increase the rules until an appreciable decrease nolonger occurs. Ontario enacted the 50km+ impound laws, BC went further and made it 40km+, Germany goes even further with 30km+. Studies can tell you if these rules were reasonable in making an appreciable decrease. There are studies for Ontario showing it worked, there might be for Germany, and no doubt BC will release some after the law has been around for some time.

Next we can argue whether 1%, 5%, 10% is appreciable - yet lookup the Ontario studies - it is > 10% and there's no arguing against that.

no sarcasm intended in my post (although i can see how it can be seen like that, my bad)

and you're right i don't smoke and i don't think smokers should be polluting my lungs cuz they wanna smoke but i just avoid people who are smoking rather than telling them to stay away from me

but the thing is although i can avoid smokers or drunk drivers that shouldn't be such a prominent issue when out and about


Those using the "innocent until proven guilty" card on this sound like they've never heard of a 24hr suspension this can be viewed along the same lines

or like in Ontario with the stree racing law and the impounding of cars (a law which many who are anti .05 agree with)


this just sounds like a case of "it's all good unless it affects me" that's when you hear people scream "i have my rights!" but they don't understand under the law those rights can be rescinded/infringed upon

if you want to head to the courts to argue your charter rights i'd be all for it but don't be surprised if you get turned away

This along with other recent laws resulted in a 30 - 50% drop in business at our restaurant. I hope smaller businesses closing down and people losing their jobs is worth it in the end. They have really been hitting us hard with no free parking after 8, hst and now this and nothing to compensate at all.

It would be nice if the government would atleast educate people on what .05 means. Like an above poster said 2 drinks over dinner is usually safe for most people, yet most people dont know this and are still scared. Hopefully people start to smarten up.

Usually safe? Doesn't sound very reliable to me. I think people who DON'T take a chance and have water or coke at dinner, ARE being smart.
Posted via RS Mobile

Botox defence beats drink charge

Judge agrees WV woman's frozen face meant she couldn't blow


A woman in West Vancouver has had her charge of refusing to give a breath sample tossed out in court after telling a judge she couldn't blow into the roadside screening device because her face was frozen from Botox injections.

Paddi Anne Moore, 51, used the unusual Botox defence while representing herself during a trial on a charge of refusing to give a breath sample in North Vancouver provincial court.

Moore was pulled over in West Vancouver shortly after midnight on April 24 and asked to blow into the roadside-screening device.

Moore was given four chances to blow into the breathalyzer, but the equipment failed to register a sample every time.

Moore argued in court she couldn't purse her lips properly around the roadside device because of Botox injections she had received 10 days earlier in Playa Del Carmen, Mexico, where she lives for part of the year.

Cpl. Fred Harding of the West Vancouver police said Moore first came to his attention because she was driving 50 kilometres per hour on a stretch of highway where the speed limit is 90 km/h. He said he pulled her over after Moore drove through a commercial brake check area on the side of the highway and almost collided with two other vehicles when she pulled out.

After Moore acknowledged drinking alcohol that night, Harding asked her to blow into the roadside breathalyzer device. But "she made no attempt to blow," he said.

In a letter handed up to the judge in court, Moore's Mexican doctor wrote that "the physical effects of Botox injections to the upper lip and mouth area is that the patient is unable to purse (her) lips or whistle." The doctor wrote it is not uncommon for someone who has had the injections to be unable "to wrap their lips around a straw or wide circumference such as a breathalyzer blow apparatus" for up to six months.

Botox injections -- which prevent wrinkles by partially paralyzing facial muscles -- are a common plastic surgery procedure.

Judge Carol Baird Ellan agreed Oct. 4 to dismiss the charge against Moore.

Outside the court, Harding said he's been involved in thousands of drunk driving investigations during his police career but added, "I've never seen anyone who had the gall to go into court and say Botox was their defence."

"The absurdity is hard to fathom," he said, adding Moore's face didn't appear to be frozen into a particular expression when he arrested her.

"If you can speak, you can exhale some kind of air from your mouth," he said.

Harding said despite the judge's warning that the case shouldn't be seen as setting a precedent, he's concerned the case could open up a whole new set of defences for drunk drivers who try to get off on technicalities.

jseyd@nsnews.com
© Copyright (c) North Shore News


Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Boto...#ixzz1396r0zVZ

NEVER tell them you drank anything.. You do that you are admitting some sort of guilt..
Its up to them to prove you are doing something wrong

This has cut down on how much we go out. Instead of hitting a pub after sports we now tend to suggest pubs with free parking nearby. Just easier, sorry it is affecting your business.

in vancouver, they never check if you have your pass or not except on random occasions. They have turnstiles which force people to pay before entering in new york and...EVERYWHERE ELSE...which force u to pay when u skytrain. How does the rest of the world fund its late-running trains? I'm not suggesting some innovative new idea here - just basic common sense.

cool, thanks for the tip! :) wouldn't it be just as expensive (and much more convenient) to operate the skytrain instead of having bus drivers drive around til 3am? i guess this just adds to my point above...

A letter from a Mexican Doctor ????, who does not even appear in court for cross examination, saying that Botox given 10 days earlier makes your face swell so much that you can't blow into a screening device? That will be news to my wife who administers Botox and has seen hundreds of treatments given without this ever happening. What a load of BS. Crown should have objected to the admission of the "evidence" from someone in Mexico. The Doctors I know would never make a false statement like that. I hope Crown appeals this decision.

Lesson learned. Don't marry a chick who uses botox

Posted via RS Mobile

I love how taylor192 is arguing he knows what's better for the population of BC than the PRESIDENT OF THE POLICE UNION.

What a sheep, it's too bad they unbanned this clown. RS was a better place for that short period of time when his e-lips weren't flapping.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0...geemo1_400.gif