Federal proposal to lower legal BAC

[WTF]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/canada-lower-legal-blood-alcohol-limit-1.4238896

OK.....so I don't drink and drive....it's a pretty easy thing not to do

but is this proposal not complete bullshit?

I thought when the .08 limit was set....it was done because the medical/scientific community determined by facts that once you reached a BAC of 0.10...that level and above created impairment from alcohol that would affect your ability to operate machinery safely

so the limit was set set just below at .08

said another way....a BAC of .079 and below does not from a scientific standpoint affect your ability to safely operate machinery

now....these bullshit artists in Ottawa are saying this proposal is a measure to reduce drunk driving fatalities

but....aren't most/all the fatalities due to people completely shit-faced.....1.69, 1.87, 2.45 etc etc

this proposal to lower the level is gonna create criminals out of folks abiding by the law

[ZR]

Not so much as a drink n get behind the wheel policy at our house as well but still feel this is complete and utter bullshit.

[ZR]

Seriously, is there anything these idiots get right???

[Ghost Rider]

Someone could be impaired with .02, it depends on many factors, you can't go by the "Science" of it

Regardless, mostly all of Canada is .05 and don't seem to have a problem...Hell, I think Sask is even .04

[WTF]

Someone could be impaired with .02, it depends on many factors, you can't go by the "Science" of it

Regardless, mostly all of Canada is .05 and don't seem to have a problem...Hell, I think Sask is even .04

Feds create the laws that criminally charge...not the provinces

Ontario punishes between .05 and .079 with a 24 hr susp

current criminal charge for measured BAC is at .08

and imo....you have to go by the science of it....because the line has to be drawn somewhere

you don't put a line in the sand and you'll get some hungry copper busting you for impaired....just because you fucking looked impaired

[03svt]

I don't have an issue with people going and having a couple beers then heading home, they aren't the problem, like Tim said it's the idiots that are having 10-12 beers then driving.

Maybe stiffer penalties might do the trick!

[Ghost Rider]

Feds create the laws that criminally charge...not the provinces

Ontario punishes between .05 and .079 with a 24 hr susp

current criminal charge for measured BAC is at .08

and imo....you have to go by the science of it....because the line has to be drawn somewhere

you don't put a line in the sand and you'll get some hungry copper busting you for impaired....just because you fucking looked impaired


Right, but those suspensions are still reported on the drivers record in which repeated offences can bring on longer suspensions and higher penalties especially in the event of a criminal conviction...at least as I understand it...so I still think the .05 is being used as a deterrent kinda thing

My thing about the science is you could have someone way over the limit that is absolutely fine as far as testing their fine motor skills and ability to operate safety with no difference between that and no alcohol at all...is it still illegal? Absolutely, no question, the Law has been broken, however, you could also have someone under the legal limit that is of impairment and fall asleep at the wheel, or drive off the road...whatever the case may be, should that just be charged as a regular accident?

That being said, I understand both sides to this and I'm not really on one side of the fence of the other...I'm another that doesn't have a drink if I know I need to be driving in the near future...

[RedSN]

If you want to lower the limit to some arbitrary 0.05, fine.
But don't do it and not give me the tools to determine if I'm legal or not. Especially when you lower the limit down to the really light grey end of the spectrum.

It's like setting a speed limit, but not equipping cars with speedometers.

[92redragtop]

They can solve a lot of these issues if they put the same resources into stopping the repeat offenders from driving - too many cases like Marco Muzzo (he's just a high profile one but there's been several DD deaths just this year from people who have multiple DUIs/convictions who keep doing it until their - and their victim's luck runs out; last one I read about recently had 5 DUIs in the past) where they have a history of excess and they cycle through the system repeatedly with minimal consequences, rinse and repeat, until they hurt or kill someone. The single drink folks aren't the problem.

[Mellow Yellow]

OK guys, read between the lines....this tightening is in advance of the legalization of recreational cannabis.

No me knows for sure what level weed will impair you, so they will take the conservative route and lower drink limits as well. This is to set up the new system, not just penalize borderline impairment.

[WTF]

OK guys, read between the lines....this tightening is in advance of the legalization of recreational cannabis.

No me knows for sure what level weed will impair you, so they will take the conservative route and lower drink limits as well. This is to set up the new system, not just penalize borderline impairment.

screw the weed....these politicians are all on crack

no idea how to measure impairment on the drug we're gonna make legal so we're gonna get tougher on something else we can measure even though we're now gonna criminalize behavior that science has said should not be criminal

fucking brilliant

I shouldn't be surprised

it's 2017.....if you light up a cigarette you should be tarred and feathered.....but if you're shooting herion you get a hug and a kiss

[Intmdtr]

as far as I am concerned if you are impaired and caught, or you kill someone...you may as well be handed a loaded weapon and point it at yourself. Having close family members that were killed by a drunk driver, I don't have any sympathy for those that get caught or do it and think they can get away with it. there should be no second chance.

[WTF]

as far as I am concerned if you are impaired and caught, or you kill someone...you may as well be handed a loaded weapon and point it at yourself. Having close family members that were killed by a drunk driver, I don't have any sympathy for those that get caught or do it and think they can get away with it. there should be no second chance.

.05 is not clinically impaired

put a passenger in the shot gun seat and have a conversation while driving and you're the equivalent of .05

pissed drivers that kill people are shit-faced...they have blurred vision......they stumble into the car....they blow the likes of 1.89 etc...they're cronics and deserve severe punishment

.05 is not even in the realm of pissed

be very careful what you wish for

laws cannot be made with emotion

[7up-5.0]

I know there is alot of ppl on both sides of this but I for 1 feel the level should be zero across the board. For everybody and we need stiffer penalties for first time and driving ban if your caught a 2nd time I'm sorry I've seen first hand what drinking and driving does. And there is no good reason to drink and drive. If you can pay $8 for a beer pay $20 for a cab or make the plans for somebody to fo the driving. Just my 2 cents.for what it's worth.

[Ponyryd]

I never understood how there's "street racing legislation" that gives officers the right to charge you $5k, take your license and impound your car, but drunks are out and about, every day, every night, and the penalties are an absolute joke!

[Ghost Rider]

.05 is not clinically impaired



Maybe not for you...but it deff affects many people differently...sure they draw the legal line at .05 but it's been proven that impairment can be evident at .02, again there is just too many factors to have an exact science

Joe Blow that is shit faced runs somebody over goes to jail...

Jane Blow is clearly impaired and runs somebody over but is under the "legal" limit, should go free?

IMO, it should be judged on a case per case basis...and yes I know that will never happen...

[83 5.0]

Was thinking the same thing, Feds are going after the easy targets. I have always limited my self to a beer an hour when out for dinner at a friends etc., and a max of 4 in a 5-6 hour time frame. Heard today a guy of my build, 6'1', over 200 lbs could drink 4 beers in an hour and still be under .08? Might have done this in the 70's/80's but never would consider it today.


OK guys, read between the lines....this tightening is in advance of the legalization of recreational cannabis.

No me knows for sure what level weed will impair you, so they will take the conservative route and lower drink limits as well. This is to set up the new system, not just penalize borderline impairment.

[92redragtop]

OK guys, read between the lines....this tightening is in advance of the legalization of recreational cannabis.

No me knows for sure what level weed will impair you, so they will take the conservative route and lower drink limits as well. This is to set up the new system, not just penalize borderline impairment.

Is it the same definition and testing? Does the cannabis level translate to a BAC or is measured the same way? I'm not familiar with how they test for that or the equivalency.

[Ghost Rider]

Is it the same definition and testing? Does the cannabis level translate to a BAC or is measured the same way? I'm not familiar with how they test for that or the equivalency.


how hungry the person is?

[Harbinger]

Solution: don't drink any ounce of alcohol that particular night if you're driving. So simple

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Mellow Yellow]

Is it the same definition and testing? Does the cannabis level translate to a BAC or is measured the same way? I'm not familiar with how they test for that or the equivalency.

Right now there is no definitive test...and that is a big problem. The road side physical tests are the only ones right now and are unreliable. The level in the blood that is considered intoxicated is not known for certain.

I will say that I can tell when someone in a car is smoking or vaping. When vaping the cloud of smoke is much larger and whiter. It seems to fill the whole car.
Now some who vape (medically) have a product that has little to no THC (the part that give the high) so you can't really equate someone vaping in a car with someone downing a tall boy while driving. It's an unknown the police are scrambling to handle by July 1, 2018.....but I think it's already an issue.

Just because I will be growing it, legally, doesn't mean I will be ignoring the social issues.

[RedSN]

I will say that I can tell when someone in a car is smoking....
I was behind a car last week on the DVP heading downtown for a meeting, dude in front of me is smoking a doobie. Could smell it clear as day, and a big shit grin on his face.

We have become reliant on gizmos to produce hard factual numbers to use in court because we can no longer trust and/or rely on police officers judgement and discretion. You can tell physically when somebody is too high or too drunk to drive.

[Mellow Yellow]

I was behind a car last week on the DVP heading downtown for a meeting, dude in front of me is smoking a doobie. Could smell it clear as day, and a big shit grin on his face.

We have become reliant on gizmos to produce hard factual numbers to use in court because we can no longer trust and/or rely on police officers judgement and discretion. You can tell physically when somebody is too high or too drunk to drive.

Agree totally, but then its subjective and the judicial system is based on objectivity.

[RedSN]

But that's kinda the point I'm trying to make.

They have created this 0.05 BOC to objectively quantify impairment.
Whereas my argument is impairment is a subjective analysis of ones physical state.

[WTF]

But that's kinda the point I'm trying to make.

They have created this 0.05 BOC to objectively quantify impairment.
Whereas my argument is impairment is a subjective analysis of ones physical state.

if you read the articles of shit-faced drivers getting busted....you often see 2 charges....1 for 80 over....1 for impaired operation

the cops are double charging because the lawyers will go after the accuracy of the breathalizer

same deal with stunting now....you get a 50-over charge....plus the stunting charge when they clock your speed that high

I assume the "impaired" and "stunting" charges involve the subjective opinion of the officer....while the other charges rely on machines spewing out #s

either way...the system is designed to insure something sticks


I would expect every half decent lawyer hired to fight a DUI for someone blowing 0.05 if this new limit goes through to present every fucking data point that was used to demonstrate why .08 was used for the past 40 odd years

to be clear....the medical community said the impairment level that hindered safety was 0.10 and the politicians went with 0.08....so this new lower 0.05 is actually half the level

mission creep from these professional bullshitting politicians.....we apparently get pissed way easier now

as I said in the OP.....I don't drink and drive...it's so simple not too.....and in the past 20-odd years, the only profession that I have observed who feel tilting back 5 or 6 beers and driving in OK.....are cops

my understanding of cops with the current .08.....is if you're right on the cusp you're getting a warning and not a criminal charge.....they want a blow of .10 and up so there's no question you were aiming to piss it up and drive

I gotta think the coppers are gonna see this .05 level and do a collective WTF

[WTF]

screwing around on a BAC Calculator to see what the realities are here....for those who like to do patio lunches

did my own stats

50 years old, 5'8"....200 lbs

45 minutes

1 375ml 4.9% alc beer = .016
2 375ml 4.9% alc beer = .041
3 375ml 4.9% alc beer = .067

so there's what you're playing with now folks

2 beer max....and you better sipp them over an hour

[RedSN]

I think your speeding+stunting comparison to BAC+impaired is spot on combining the objective and subjective charges.

In both of these cases, the subjective charge is the more serious of the two and should have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, preferably with video evidence.

[Mellow Yellow]

I think your speeding+stunting comparison to BAC+impaired is spot on combining the objective and subjective charges.

In both of these cases, the subjective charge is the more serious of the two and should have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, preferably with video evidence.

Interesting you bring up the stunting. Down here an Ontario driver got nabbed at 160, stunting/racing charge and the requisite suspension - sound right.

Next day a driver from Georgia gets caught doing 180 - no stunting charge and no suspension. Harder to get it to stick on a foreigner? Doesn't seem right, but brings up the subjectivity. Do you think the guy from Georgia is coming back to court.....not likely.

Objectively with are wrong, but subjectively one is more wrong than the other.


(note information based on media reports, so may be incorrect reporting but can't confirm either way. Media always loves to report stunting charges)

[TheMustangShow]

Just another order of meddling BS from the Radical Left Wing Justice Minister and "Community Activist", Jody Wilson-Raybould.