I was going to bring that exact same point up, but I know there are people on here who disagree with me for the sake of stirring the pot so I didn't.

How about this: The restriction printed on the back of a DL requires corrective eyewear, yet the licencee had laser vision correction and no longer needs glasses. Should the police officer issue a ticket for driving contrary to restrictions?

Define it any way you want, but anyone who breaks the law and provokes an armed response from the police is a criminal.

Then why don't you stop by the Drivers licencing to get your Licence Restriction changed? I know people who got laser surgery who still don't have good enough vision to pass a vision test at the Drivers Licencing. How is a police officer supposed to test for that on the road? Are they supposed to keep an eye chart handy to test people on the road? Are they supposed to get trained on how to administer an eye test?

The issue behind this is, you were too lazy in the first place. Maybe you might not deserve the punishment that comes with the violation, but - you are wasting everyone's time/resources. The police officer that pulled you over. The judge's time at the court. The administration that comes with the appeal process. Should we have a violation ticket that has a lower fine - but one that is issued to people who are lazy?

Gotta love the childish responses from people like jlenko. Tell you what - go spend some time in a country where the law is black and white, there is no grey in the court system and officers act as judge and jury. Then try tell me having a justice system, and the notion that innocent until proven guilty is "unfair"

Have to strongly disagree here. There is an enormous difference between being criminal, and being deviant.

It is a very basic legal principal, that every crime violates law, but not every violation of the law is a crime. You cannot classify those involved in civil suits, or in contravention of legal regulations as criminals, otherwise practically every human being would be a criminal. It's more suited to the term of "infraction", which is a widely accepted term.

They are "offenders" or "deviants" but not most DEFINITELY not criminals.

Granted - loosely defined, crime and criminals, involve action outside of normal social constraints as defined by law, but that is a little to broad to be applied generally. In Canada, it is pretty simple, because Crimes are spelled out under the Criminal Code or other criminal law acts.

So what about all the people under the new drink-driving laws who *should* be convicted as criminals but are instead being given an administrative punishment because the police don't want to bother with the court system?

My family came from those very countries.. I know what it's like. I value the fact that Canada gives people opportunities, but people like the OP who are clearly breaking the rules and getting away with it are what is ruining this great country.

Try applying the same scenario to something other than a driver's licence. Maybe you children will understand when your family is missing a family member, and the person responsibly skirts court time by simply lying and getting away with murder. You might think differently. Sure, extreme situations... but you never know.

BTW, I have to use childish language so you fools will understand me.

The big kerfuffle with the new drinking/driving laws, is that the ones getting affected are the ones blowing in the "warn" range - which falls under an impaired driving violation, but is not criminal. They're the ones who are facing harsher punishments (I think the criminal BAC 0.08 has harsher punishments as well, someone can correct me, but I don't think anyone really argues against more lenient punishments for them....).

If you want to petition to lower the Criminal BAC to 0.05, go ahead, start your petition.

I'm talking about the massive reduction in criminal charges of drunk driving, the people who should be made criminals are getting off with a simple ADP.

I would support the limit being lowered to criminal at BAC 0.05 under one condition, a breathalyzer we made available at any place of business that serves alcohol so people can ensure they are within the legal range. I don't believe people should drive after more than one drink, but allowing one drink isn't unreasonable and that alone can be push the 0.05 limit in certain people.

I noticed that bit on the news last night... I'm surprised more people aren't aware of this change. Seems like a pretty big deal to me!

Think of all the poor lawyers who will be out of work now!

Irony, thy name is sebberry.

:confused:

The pot calling the kettle black.

Hardly.

Obliviousness and self-delusion, thy names are also sebberry.

:lol