“Supreme Court Justice Jon Sigurdson has declared part of the province’s tough new impaired driving law unconstitutional for turning police into a roadside judge, jury and executioner.”
“The ARP legislation infringes section 8 of the Charter insofar as it concerns the prohibition, penalty and costs arising from the screening device registering a “fail” reading over 0.08,” he said. “This infringement is not a reasonable limit which is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
So does this mean the laws are reverting back to how they used to be…if you blow under 0.08 you are free to go…and if you blow over 0.08 you have a DUI situation?
Damn that Constitution, eh?
Haha I called it too, so did anyone with a vague notion of what civil rights are (which doesn’t include the BC Liberals).
They can still nail you under the warning section of the law. Shirley Bond says if you blow over .08 it’s off to the cop shop for old fashioned justice. As it should be.
Whoops, I didn’t mean that to mean fall down the backstairs or handed over to a mob or something. I mean blow into a proper machine and get a criminal charge!
What? Saying you’re wrong is a tone of disrespect?
Well, it certainly wasn’t intended that way. Would you rather I not point out that you misread the article?[/quote]
And what purpose did pointing out the old thread to me serve? I didn’t reference it at all, and none of my posts in the old thread contradict what I said in this thread. Incudentally, i have to correct you as i didn’t argue in support of the law, but against drunk driving at any level… Which I still stand behind.
Perhaps I confused your bluntness for rudeness, but if that’s just how you speak to people on a daily basis you should change that, because I think more people than just me would read your post above with a less than polite tone.
[quote=“eccentric”]
Perhaps I confused your bluntness for rudeness, but if that’s just how you speak to people on a daily basis you should change that, because I think more people than just me would read your post above with a less than polite tone.[/quote]
I didn’t think there was anything wrong with MiGs post. It seemed like an appropriate response.
[quote=“eccentric”]And what purpose did pointing out the old thread to me serve? I didn’t reference it at all, and none of my posts in the old thread contradict what I said in this thread. Incudentally, i have to correct you as i didn’t argue in support of the law, but against drunk driving at any level… Which I still stand behind.
Perhaps I confused your bluntness for rudeness, but if that’s just how you speak to people on a daily basis you should change that, because I think more people than just me would read your post above with a less than polite tone.[/quote]
No, I did. In the first post. Even linked to it. Then you replied and said that nothing was going to change. Then I said you were wrong, and you got really defensive over it
If you think my response was rude, and you thought that the article said that nothing was going to change, then I think perhaps you need to take more time to read carefully. I don’t want to speculate about how you react to people on a daily basis, though. Because despite what you inferred, I wasn’t being personal. I didn’t make a roundabout insult like you did.
I was pointing out that you were wrong.
“maybe some cops will abuse this new legislation to make things hard for people.”
“I’m not worried.”
Sounds like you were ok with no due process to me. Not being worried that cops could abuse the legislation? Sounds good.
Perhaps you have to read more carefully. Then you wouldn’t jump to conclusions so quickly.
From what the studies have been saying, drunk driving has gone down quite a bit since the law was introduced. Well, deaths caused by drunk driving have gone down. It kinda saddens me, that people have to be threatened with losing their license on the spot, to stop messing around like that. I honestly don’t understand how anyone can even consider getting into their car after having a drink. But I don’t think police officers should be given that kind of power. That’s almost like Martial law. And Martial law scares me just a teensy bit. We do have rights, it’s just unfortunate people take advantage of those rights to the point where these strict rules need to be thought up and enforced.
No, I did. In the first post. Even linked to it. Then you replied and said that nothing was going to change. Then I said you were wrong, and you got really defensive over it
If you think my response was rude, and you thought that the article said that nothing was going to change, then I think perhaps you need to take more time to read carefully. I don’t want to speculate about how you react to people on a daily basis, though. Because despite what you inferred, I wasn’t being personal. I didn’t make a roundabout insult like you did.[/quote]
Yes, I saw that you quoted the old thread in your first post. I specifically asked why you mentioned my comments in the old thread in this thread. Again, what purpose does it serve? What does my opinion on the issue have to do with misreading the article and my attempt at answer someone’s question?
That’s why I think it was rude–clearly. Not because you corrected me, but the manner in which you did it. However, I’m sorry for my insult. Still, why bring up my old posts in the old if you weren’t trying to provoke me?
[quote]
“maybe some cops will abuse this new legislation to make things hard for people.”
“I’m not worried.”
Sounds like you were ok with no due process to me. Not being worried that cops could abuse the legislation? Sounds good.[/quote]
That’s almost the whole quote. It began, “Perhaps there should be a way to dispute falling in the gray area. And maybe some cops will abuse…”
I wasn’t a lawyer then, so I wasn’t sure if you people were correct in your belief that the law was unconstitutional. The meaning of me saying “I’m not worried” is clear in the context of the thread and my other posts. I’m against drinking and driving. If you’ve had a drink, don’t drive. If you have to drive, don’t drink. I don’t ever drink and drive, so I wasn’t worried about the law affecting me.
As for it’s legality, I was clear back then that I was unsure if changes were required to the law, but also I was clearly not against changes. I have no issue with the new ruling, but I still don’t think people should drink and drive, even if they’ll blow under 0.08. I figure that’s just a good general rule and would keep us all safer.
In a rare agreement between eccentric and bubbasteve: Exactly, bubbasteve.
No, I did. In the first post. Even linked to it. Then you replied and said that nothing was going to change. Then I said you were wrong, and you got really defensive over it
If you think my response was rude, and you thought that the article said that nothing was going to change, then I think perhaps you need to take more time to read carefully. I don’t want to speculate about how you react to people on a daily basis, though. Because despite what you inferred, I wasn’t being personal. I didn’t make a roundabout insult like you did.
Yes, I saw that you quoted the old thread in your first post. I specifically asked why you mentioned my comments in the old thread in this thread. Again, what purpose does it serve? What does my opinion on the issue have to do with misreading the article and my attempt at answer someone’s question?
That’s why I think it was rude–clearly. Not because you corrected me, but the manner in which you did it. However, I’m sorry for my insult. Still, why bring up my old posts in the old if you weren’t trying to provoke me?
“maybe some cops will abuse this new legislation to make things hard for people.”
“I’m not worried.”
Sounds like you were ok with no due process to me. Not being worried that cops could abuse the legislation? Sounds good.
That’s almost the whole quote. It began, “Perhaps there should be a way to dispute falling in the gray area. And maybe some cops will abuse…”
I wasn’t a lawyer then, so I wasn’t sure if you people were correct in your belief that the law was unconstitutional. The meaning of me saying “I’m not worried” is clear in the context of the thread and my other posts. I’m against drinking and driving. If you’ve had a drink, don’t drive. If you have to drive, don’t drink. I don’t ever drink and drive, so I wasn’t worried about the law affecting me.
As for it’s legality, I was clear back then that I was unsure if changes were required to the law, but also I was clearly not against changes. I have no issue with the new ruling, but I still don’t think people should drink and drive, even if they’ll blow under 0.08. I figure that’s just a good general rule and would keep us all safer.
In a rare agreement between eccentric and bubbasteve: Exactly, bubbasteve.
(Edit to include second quote.)[/quote]
It would be wonderful if you would man-up and quickly admit you were wrong when MiG beats you in an argument. Let me get this straight. Now you are reprimanding MiG because he defeated you in a debate and used your words to prove you wrong. Please stop this now.
Just because it was patently obvious to anyone who isn’t completely retarded that this law violates the charter doesn’t mean you need to get butthurt when someone points out you’re a member of the latter group. I hear they sell tampons 711… just watch your tires.
