I have better idea. If Alberta was serious about getting the bad drunks off the road, then stop harassing the social drinkers and put the real drunk in jail for ten years, never allow them drive or own a car again.
One must fear the punishment in order to not commit the crime. Those who don’t are crazy and should be locked up.
Just a thought.
Now if they pulled over drivers and could detect the smell of curry on thier breath I’d understand!
This is another example of why the WRP will be the party to look at in the next election.
I’m one of those old fossils who cherishes the notion of innocent until proven guilty, so I find this appalling, but hardly surprising. Guess I need to call my local Wildrose candidate and ask when I can do to help.
Ridiculous. I could be more of a threat to my fellow drivers if I didn’t catch enough shut eye the night before. Either completely ban people from drinking anything before driving or stop with this vote bating. I’m curious how many accidents occur as a total percentage of all accidents with a BAC between .08 and .05. It’s not fair to make people guess whether they’re legally safe or not when their motor skills aren’t impaired.
This simply ‘legislation by sound bite’ and another excuse for the legislator to stand in front of the camera blathering on about how they are ‘doing something’.
What they need to do is enforce the existing law as it is written. Instead they are found engaging in legislative social tinkering which achieves precisely zero substantive policy objectives.
In short, a legislative ‘brain fart’.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Redford just put a few more nails in the coffin of the PC party in Alberta. The government had no mandate to enact such legislation. This legislation was not on the radar until she was elected leader of the PC party. This is the type of in-effectual feel good legislation that a great majority of Albertans despise (in the same vein as the long gun registry).
Can’t wait for the next provincial election!
The idea that the officer gets to be judge jury and excecutioner is particularly galling.
Here in BC if you are accused of exceeding the speed limit by more than 40kmh, kiss your car goodybye for the next week – and it is plenty easy to do with many 4 lane roadways set at an artificial 60kmh limit.
Confiscation by the state of your private property on the grounds of an unproven allegation.
It does not matter if you fight the charge and win, you have already been grossly inconvenienced and had your rights duly trampled.
I cannot believe such laws can be constitutional.
Actual enforcement of existing laws coupled with more severe minimum penalties for repeat offenders, would be much more effective.
There are legion of driving habits which are at least as dangerous or worse than driving with a BAC between .05 and .08, such as speeding, texting or drowsiness, all of which can get you a fine, but do not result in instant license suspension or vehicle impoundment. Proper control of a motor vehicle is the issue, and one should expect the law should apply equal penalties for equivalent offenses. That this is not the case is primarily due to the fact that there are no organizations out there called Mothers Against Speeding, Mothers Against Texting, or Mothers Against Tired Drivers. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
It’s jackboot legislation. This government needs to be booted out. http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/12/06/new-law-biggest-folly-since-gun-registry
“Here’s the kicker: Only 2% of all fatal vehicular accidents were caused by drivers who were found to be in the .05 to .08 range — the precise range Redford is taking aim at.
Like the gun registry before it, Redford’s new law targets the wrong people.
It puts law-abiding people on the same level as criminals. And it won’t reduce impaired driving deaths on our streets.”
Licensing police officers to assume the role of judge and jury? What could possibly go wrong? Among the things that could not possibly go wrong would be police officers encouraged to be even more imperious than they already too often are. Never happen.
a joke – have written my MLA and told him of my dismay – and intent to vote and work for Wildrose in the future , until their brains re-engage – get the drunks OFF the road, and let the peaceful, law-abiding , long suffering taxpayer alone
Read somewhere that REDford was Joke Larks assistant or something.
That makes sense, another big government leftard disguised as a conservative.
Hope you guys elect the WR.
And that is spreads!
Recently a 70 year old lady fell asleep and plowed straight into the front end of my pickup truck at 50 kph while I was stopped at a turning lane. The impact pushed me into another truck behind me. No one was injured although her car was a complete wreck, my truck sustained $7000 worth of damage (it was luckily a 3/4 ton diesel) and the pickup behind me had its front end pushed in.
She lost her car not because of impoundment but because it was undriveable. I’m certain they would have pulled her license, but probably not immediately. She was unlikely to be charged with a criminal offense, and if so only after a court date. She easily caused as much damage as anyone who was seriously drunk, but suffered a fraction of the penalty.
Had no one been stopped at that turning lane, she would have careened out into four lanes of oncoming traffic.
We’ve had this law in Bantario for years. It’s a joke.
It’s getting so that even one drink before getting behind the wheel is a game of russian roulette, depending on the mood of the cop at the time he stops you.
Great for the taxicab industry, a death knell for bars and restaurants.
MADD have a lot to answer for, those cranky cows are not about reducing drinking and driving they are against freedom and choice. Prohibition doesn’t work ladies and germs, it just makes innocent families suffer for your anal fears.
A couple of years ago Ontario they made it illegal for anyone under 25 to have even one drink and drive. Had to blow zero and then MADD trumps the increase in DUI’s…Well no Poop Sherlock, self important, money hungry, stateist “I know whats best for you the unwashed whom I steal funds from”, biddies. Drop down a huge hole and never be heard from again I say.
Bad law,similar mentality to the gun control laws.
Both target the 99.9% of law abiding people because of the actions of the other .01%.
Governments have kissed the butts of greenies for about a decade now, I guess they were looking for a new group to suck up to.
Four letters MADD
Unfortunately, this new “mission” has nothing to do with drunk driving; it is a manifestation of MADD’s deep-seated belief that any and all drinking before driving should be prohibited — regardless of whether it’s done responsibly and legally. Instead of focusing on repeat offenders and those who are too drunk to drive, the twenty-first-century MADD endorses higher beverage taxes, needlessly low drunk driving arrest thresholds, and roadblocks designed to frighten people out of social drinking. These tactics have failed to reduce drunk driving deaths, since they target social drinkers, not product abusers.
In March 2004, MADD expanded its attack on responsible adults by calling for a “mandatory provision in every separation agreement and divorce decree that prohibits either parent from drinking and driving … with minor children in the vehicle.” Violating this provision, it argues, should result in penalties such as license suspension, jail, or even the “termination of parental rights.”
Once again, MADD is not talking about drunk driving, but drinking and driving — meaning that if a divorced mother safely drives her children home after having a glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant, MADD supports sanctions that include losing custody of her children. http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/17-mothers-against-drunk-driving
: “Only 2% of all fatal vehicular accidents were caused by drivers who were found to be in the .05 to .08 range — the precise range Redford is taking aim at.”
I’d bet there were extenuating circumstances in many of those 2% of accidents, such as weather conditions,light,speed,road conditions,etc,etc.
Wonder if any other factors were taken into account. With the trust we have in “studies” today due to AGW science, this 2% figure is highly suspicious.
If they want the limit to be .05 then make it .05 but make it an offence instead of being an administrative penalty with no appeal. A machine that tests a breath sample to aproximate your blood alcohol content is by definition inacurate.
This is the wrong approach. Reasonable people already know it is wrong to drive while impaired. These penalties punish the wrong people.
Do it like workplace safety. If someone is in an incident that involves property damage or injury, then have them take a D&A test. If impairment was an issue, fire them.
If someone gets in a car accident that involves damage to someone else, then D&A them. If alcohol was a factor, then intensify the penalties due to the intentional nature of the accident – they chose to drink and drive thus exposing others to risk.
Penalties should match the harm and include confiscation of the vehicle, voiding the insurance, fines, or imprisonment in line with existing penalties for unsafe operation of a motor vehicle.
Drawing an arbitrary line which has varies widely from person to person and situation to situation, and which cannot be shown to have caused harm (yet) seems very capricious.
Give the RCMP jackboots judicial power? I guess getting after drunk drivers worked so well they decided to go after sober ones. I actually like my Conservative MLA as a neighbor but I can’t vote for him anymore. They were aware it is unconstitutional but voted for it anyhow. Idiots.
Just send the multiple offender drunks currently on the catch and release program to jail big time. Mind you, criminal code is federal, and the Liberals believe that more drunk drivers should be out of jail where they belong, killing people.
Imagine if the legal speed limit is 100 Km/hr. and you are stoppped for doing 80. Your car is impounded and licence suspended because you just might speed. Either the limit is 0.08 or isn`t.
Moron McGuinty has done the same trick in Ontario.
I was driving Tow trucks when the new law can into effect in BC. I got a call from via my dispatcher from the RCMP to tow a pick-up. The officer at the pick-up told me “stay near the phone as he was going to keep me very busy tonight” I quit shortly after, as I did not hire on to work for the police.
Alison Redcom and the Progressive party will be gone next election. But until then…
I haven’t done so yet ,but I will be buying a Wild Rose membership.
Ms. REdford did not mention this social engeneering in her campaign for leadership. If the tories can cause her fall,and give us an election,I may change my mind.
If you want to play with statistics,more than half of the fatalities on Alberta roads were caused by drivers with NO alcohol in their system. Time to drink up,if it saves just one life….
Good or bad? BADD!!
This insane law, in addition to all the drawbacks pointed out above, has virtually destroyed the restaurant business in BC.
The staff at one Indian restaurant in Vancouver, established in the early 80s, told me that without take-out they’d be out of business. The law is so draconian that most people have decided it’s just not worth the risk of having ANY alcohol, so may as well stay home and have drinks.
Politicans seem to have fallen into a kind of competition trap wherein they prove how “progressive” they are; how serious they are about rooting out social problems. “I see your 0.05 and raise the ante to … 0.04 … take that!”.
We saw this with anti-smoking laws which, arguably, were initially somewhat reasonable, but which morphed into straight-out macho busybodiness, going so far as to ban smoking on outside patios, even on city beaches. Coming soon: your own car, your home.
She’s gotta know she’s stepped in it with this move. I’d be surprised if there isn’t some tough-on-crime legislation popping up soon that provides cover for this misstep. What’s she doing next that endears her to the electorate .. a provincial gun registry? This broad is a dream come true for Danielle Smith.
A bunch of us used to repair to a bar following an event that lasted from 7:30 – 10:00 PM. A few years ago, there were tons of people in the bar, and we left before closing.
With this lousy economy, whenever we get to the bar it’s closed – the waitresses say in general the last customer leaves at 9:00 PM.
Add in this legislation – and you can say goodbye to many pubs and restaurants. People will get takeout – and stay at home to libate.
Even tougher times to own a restaurant
Does one HAVE to open their window when pulled over? Your documents could as well be handed through a cracked window.A window that has been smeared with some smelly substance precluding a whiff of ones breath.
I dunno, this whole subject smacks of political opportunism, and piling on.
We ALREADY have an alcohol benchmark .08.
Whats with the wedge tactic of further intrusion. And I know all about the yearly death toll from people driving with .08 to .25 BAC.
It’s akin to punishing someone for precrime, you haven’t broken the law but we’re going to punish you anyway sans rule of law and a pesky investigation.
If you have 1 beer you better not drive.
Sure, why doesn’t Red Redford start an Alberta gun registry. Seems like her style. She has no clue what it means to be a conservative and she won by signing up all the socialist teachers and offering them a $100 million bribe. We had Red Ed Stelmach and now Red Redford. A 2 word solution – Wild Rose.
MADD is not what it appears. It is the remnants of the WCTU ( Womens Christian Temperance Union) as well as a gaggle of do-gooder Baptists. Their agenda is not to get drunk drivers off the roads. It’s to stop society from imbibing in The Demon Rum.
The Post is right, the laws are idiotic. But I think the worst aspect is that they are unconstitutional, that it gives cops the power to take your car away, without any for of due process. Heaven knows what happens to people when due process no longer exists. I know a lot of people here are supportive of the police force, but it takes just one rogue cop with a bad attitude to take advantage of something like this, or even a malfunctioning breathalyzer can wreak undue havoc on people.
Horse crap. Cash grab. That is all.
Oh, sorry. Horse crap is actually useful…
Total nonsense. Alison Redford and the entire Alberta Conservative Party needs be kicked out of this great province.
Why not just cut to the chase and rename the PC party the Alberta Teachers Socialist Party?
There have been a number of instances where bars have installed a breathalyzer for their customers to use prior to leaving, but those installations invariably go away after the owners realize that there could be liability issues. We’re told over and over again that “if you think you need to test yourself, then you’ve had too much to be driving!” So, let me get this straight: You’re a criminal for driving over 0.08, but you can’t test yourself before driving…so stay well under the limit just in case. Oh, and you’ll have your car confiscated if you’re somewhere around 0.05, give or take the margin of error, but you’re still not allowed to test yourself so stay well under 0.05 as well.
The only reasonable weapons in the fight against true DD — accurate knowledge and due process for all — are null and void in this province. Makes me sooo proud to be an Albertan!
Mommy Aly knows we are too stupid to care for ourselves so will look after us. Don’t worry that she will ignore the people causing the deaths while penalizing those who are not impared, don’t worry that police will lay charges, convict the driver and carryout the execution. Mommy knows best. The next law will all police to collect cash from drivers doing more than half the speed limit, they might speed up. Toss Aly and her trained seals out. P.S. Over half of Aly’s trained seals didn’t even show up to vote but still collected their pay with a 30% salary increase.
Alison the Red takes over from Eddy the Unready. did anybody really think that something good was going to happen?
This legislation is another wedge to drive out the status quo PC party and divide the Alberta voters.
This has been the Progressive plan by eastern Liberals for decades. Stalmec and Redford are opportunistic liberal sheep in wolf’s clothing to bring forward this Progressive agenda. They have been smothering Alberta politics with eastern immigration especially foreign ethnic immigration wholesale for a decade now.
If you want drunk drivers off the road (at .08) simply seize the car upon conviction just like the law allows for poachers but then again that might result in a few MP’s having to walk.
Redford promised an open government that listens to Albertans and then she rammed through this legislation in less than 3 weeks with zero public consultation and most of her caucus not supporting her. How is she different than Stelmach. How many Albertans support guilty if the police say so and no chance to appeal, that innocent until proven guilty concept is so American.
I can tell you with absolute certainty, as it’s already happened here in B.C., that this will kill the Legions. Nobody is going to drive all the way to a Legion for one beer, and then take the risk of a cop arbitrarily seizing his/her licence and impounding the car for a few days. Not worth the gamble.
Same for going out for dinner.
What the rest of you have said. Plus, isn’t there something incredibly wrong with a government whose liquor laws, on the one hand, require neighbourhood pubs to be in commercial zones and have X number of parking spaces, and on the other hand, exact draconian punishment for operating a car with as little as .05% BAC?
It’s nothing short of a racket.
I was born and raised in Alta by Sask parents.
Alberta got taken over by libtards.
Thank goodness Sack has picked up the torch of non self destructive society.
O and BTW expect Wild Rose to sweep the next election.
Alberta hates Ontario liberal tricks.
Drunk driving in the extreme may be considered a crime. (Remember, the classic definition of a crime requires a guilty mind and a guilty act , mens rea & actus reus.) Even the existing level, where .08 is deemed criminal is an offense to justice. .05 is authoritarian overreach.
BC is every bit as bad.
Hang ’em high!
I have better idea. If Alberta was serious about getting the bad drunks off the road, then stop harassing the social drinkers and put the real drunk in jail for ten years, never allow them drive or own a car again.
One must fear the punishment in order to not commit the crime. Those who don’t are crazy and should be locked up.
Just a thought.
I beleive that the BC Courts have found that the same laws passed here in BC are unconstitutional.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Drivers+file+court+petitions+after+judge+finds+drunk+driving+laws/5833273/story.html
We already have a law, why is that not good enough for these folks? If they want to change that, then they should petition the Federal Government to make the changes and apply then to all Canadians.
Now if they pulled over drivers and could detect the smell of curry on thier breath I’d understand!
This is another example of why the WRP will be the party to look at in the next election.
I’m one of those old fossils who cherishes the notion of innocent until proven guilty, so I find this appalling, but hardly surprising. Guess I need to call my local Wildrose candidate and ask when I can do to help.
Ridiculous. I could be more of a threat to my fellow drivers if I didn’t catch enough shut eye the night before. Either completely ban people from drinking anything before driving or stop with this vote bating. I’m curious how many accidents occur as a total percentage of all accidents with a BAC between .08 and .05. It’s not fair to make people guess whether they’re legally safe or not when their motor skills aren’t impaired.
This simply ‘legislation by sound bite’ and another excuse for the legislator to stand in front of the camera blathering on about how they are ‘doing something’.
What they need to do is enforce the existing law as it is written. Instead they are found engaging in legislative social tinkering which achieves precisely zero substantive policy objectives.
In short, a legislative ‘brain fart’.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Redford just put a few more nails in the coffin of the PC party in Alberta. The government had no mandate to enact such legislation. This legislation was not on the radar until she was elected leader of the PC party. This is the type of in-effectual feel good legislation that a great majority of Albertans despise (in the same vein as the long gun registry).
Can’t wait for the next provincial election!
The idea that the officer gets to be judge jury and excecutioner is particularly galling.
Here in BC if you are accused of exceeding the speed limit by more than 40kmh, kiss your car goodybye for the next week – and it is plenty easy to do with many 4 lane roadways set at an artificial 60kmh limit.
Confiscation by the state of your private property on the grounds of an unproven allegation.
It does not matter if you fight the charge and win, you have already been grossly inconvenienced and had your rights duly trampled.
I cannot believe such laws can be constitutional.
Actual enforcement of existing laws coupled with more severe minimum penalties for repeat offenders, would be much more effective.
There are legion of driving habits which are at least as dangerous or worse than driving with a BAC between .05 and .08, such as speeding, texting or drowsiness, all of which can get you a fine, but do not result in instant license suspension or vehicle impoundment. Proper control of a motor vehicle is the issue, and one should expect the law should apply equal penalties for equivalent offenses. That this is not the case is primarily due to the fact that there are no organizations out there called Mothers Against Speeding, Mothers Against Texting, or Mothers Against Tired Drivers. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
It’s jackboot legislation. This government needs to be booted out.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/12/06/new-law-biggest-folly-since-gun-registry
“Here’s the kicker: Only 2% of all fatal vehicular accidents were caused by drivers who were found to be in the .05 to .08 range — the precise range Redford is taking aim at.
Like the gun registry before it, Redford’s new law targets the wrong people.
It puts law-abiding people on the same level as criminals. And it won’t reduce impaired driving deaths on our streets.”
Licensing police officers to assume the role of judge and jury? What could possibly go wrong? Among the things that could not possibly go wrong would be police officers encouraged to be even more imperious than they already too often are. Never happen.
a joke – have written my MLA and told him of my dismay – and intent to vote and work for Wildrose in the future , until their brains re-engage – get the drunks OFF the road, and let the peaceful, law-abiding , long suffering taxpayer alone
Read somewhere that REDford was Joke Larks assistant or something.
That makes sense, another big government leftard disguised as a conservative.
Hope you guys elect the WR.
And that is spreads!
Recently a 70 year old lady fell asleep and plowed straight into the front end of my pickup truck at 50 kph while I was stopped at a turning lane. The impact pushed me into another truck behind me. No one was injured although her car was a complete wreck, my truck sustained $7000 worth of damage (it was luckily a 3/4 ton diesel) and the pickup behind me had its front end pushed in.
She lost her car not because of impoundment but because it was undriveable. I’m certain they would have pulled her license, but probably not immediately. She was unlikely to be charged with a criminal offense, and if so only after a court date. She easily caused as much damage as anyone who was seriously drunk, but suffered a fraction of the penalty.
Had no one been stopped at that turning lane, she would have careened out into four lanes of oncoming traffic.
We’ve had this law in Bantario for years. It’s a joke.
It’s getting so that even one drink before getting behind the wheel is a game of russian roulette, depending on the mood of the cop at the time he stops you.
Great for the taxicab industry, a death knell for bars and restaurants.
MADD have a lot to answer for, those cranky cows are not about reducing drinking and driving they are against freedom and choice. Prohibition doesn’t work ladies and germs, it just makes innocent families suffer for your anal fears.
A couple of years ago Ontario they made it illegal for anyone under 25 to have even one drink and drive. Had to blow zero and then MADD trumps the increase in DUI’s…Well no Poop Sherlock, self important, money hungry, stateist “I know whats best for you the unwashed whom I steal funds from”, biddies. Drop down a huge hole and never be heard from again I say.
Bad law,similar mentality to the gun control laws.
Both target the 99.9% of law abiding people because of the actions of the other .01%.
Governments have kissed the butts of greenies for about a decade now, I guess they were looking for a new group to suck up to.
Four letters MADD
Unfortunately, this new “mission” has nothing to do with drunk driving; it is a manifestation of MADD’s deep-seated belief that any and all drinking before driving should be prohibited — regardless of whether it’s done responsibly and legally. Instead of focusing on repeat offenders and those who are too drunk to drive, the twenty-first-century MADD endorses higher beverage taxes, needlessly low drunk driving arrest thresholds, and roadblocks designed to frighten people out of social drinking. These tactics have failed to reduce drunk driving deaths, since they target social drinkers, not product abusers.
In March 2004, MADD expanded its attack on responsible adults by calling for a “mandatory provision in every separation agreement and divorce decree that prohibits either parent from drinking and driving … with minor children in the vehicle.” Violating this provision, it argues, should result in penalties such as license suspension, jail, or even the “termination of parental rights.”
Once again, MADD is not talking about drunk driving, but drinking and driving — meaning that if a divorced mother safely drives her children home after having a glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant, MADD supports sanctions that include losing custody of her children.
http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/17-mothers-against-drunk-driving
: “Only 2% of all fatal vehicular accidents were caused by drivers who were found to be in the .05 to .08 range — the precise range Redford is taking aim at.”
I’d bet there were extenuating circumstances in many of those 2% of accidents, such as weather conditions,light,speed,road conditions,etc,etc.
Wonder if any other factors were taken into account. With the trust we have in “studies” today due to AGW science, this 2% figure is highly suspicious.
If they want the limit to be .05 then make it .05 but make it an offence instead of being an administrative penalty with no appeal. A machine that tests a breath sample to aproximate your blood alcohol content is by definition inacurate.
This is the wrong approach. Reasonable people already know it is wrong to drive while impaired. These penalties punish the wrong people.
Do it like workplace safety. If someone is in an incident that involves property damage or injury, then have them take a D&A test. If impairment was an issue, fire them.
If someone gets in a car accident that involves damage to someone else, then D&A them. If alcohol was a factor, then intensify the penalties due to the intentional nature of the accident – they chose to drink and drive thus exposing others to risk.
Penalties should match the harm and include confiscation of the vehicle, voiding the insurance, fines, or imprisonment in line with existing penalties for unsafe operation of a motor vehicle.
Drawing an arbitrary line which has varies widely from person to person and situation to situation, and which cannot be shown to have caused harm (yet) seems very capricious.
Give the RCMP jackboots judicial power? I guess getting after drunk drivers worked so well they decided to go after sober ones. I actually like my Conservative MLA as a neighbor but I can’t vote for him anymore. They were aware it is unconstitutional but voted for it anyhow. Idiots.
Just send the multiple offender drunks currently on the catch and release program to jail big time. Mind you, criminal code is federal, and the Liberals believe that more drunk drivers should be out of jail where they belong, killing people.
Imagine if the legal speed limit is 100 Km/hr. and you are stoppped for doing 80. Your car is impounded and licence suspended because you just might speed. Either the limit is 0.08 or isn`t.
Moron McGuinty has done the same trick in Ontario.
I was driving Tow trucks when the new law can into effect in BC. I got a call from via my dispatcher from the RCMP to tow a pick-up. The officer at the pick-up told me “stay near the phone as he was going to keep me very busy tonight” I quit shortly after, as I did not hire on to work for the police.
Alison Redcom and the Progressive party will be gone next election. But until then…
I haven’t done so yet ,but I will be buying a Wild Rose membership.
Ms. REdford did not mention this social engeneering in her campaign for leadership. If the tories can cause her fall,and give us an election,I may change my mind.
If you want to play with statistics,more than half of the fatalities on Alberta roads were caused by drivers with NO alcohol in their system. Time to drink up,if it saves just one life….
Good or bad? BADD!!
This insane law, in addition to all the drawbacks pointed out above, has virtually destroyed the restaurant business in BC.
The staff at one Indian restaurant in Vancouver, established in the early 80s, told me that without take-out they’d be out of business. The law is so draconian that most people have decided it’s just not worth the risk of having ANY alcohol, so may as well stay home and have drinks.
Politicans seem to have fallen into a kind of competition trap wherein they prove how “progressive” they are; how serious they are about rooting out social problems. “I see your 0.05 and raise the ante to … 0.04 … take that!”.
We saw this with anti-smoking laws which, arguably, were initially somewhat reasonable, but which morphed into straight-out macho busybodiness, going so far as to ban smoking on outside patios, even on city beaches. Coming soon: your own car, your home.
She’s gotta know she’s stepped in it with this move. I’d be surprised if there isn’t some tough-on-crime legislation popping up soon that provides cover for this misstep. What’s she doing next that endears her to the electorate .. a provincial gun registry? This broad is a dream come true for Danielle Smith.
A bunch of us used to repair to a bar following an event that lasted from 7:30 – 10:00 PM. A few years ago, there were tons of people in the bar, and we left before closing.
With this lousy economy, whenever we get to the bar it’s closed – the waitresses say in general the last customer leaves at 9:00 PM.
Add in this legislation – and you can say goodbye to many pubs and restaurants. People will get takeout – and stay at home to libate.
Even tougher times to own a restaurant
Does one HAVE to open their window when pulled over? Your documents could as well be handed through a cracked window.A window that has been smeared with some smelly substance precluding a whiff of ones breath.
I dunno, this whole subject smacks of political opportunism, and piling on.
We ALREADY have an alcohol benchmark .08.
Whats with the wedge tactic of further intrusion. And I know all about the yearly death toll from people driving with .08 to .25 BAC.
It’s akin to punishing someone for precrime, you haven’t broken the law but we’re going to punish you anyway sans rule of law and a pesky investigation.
If you have 1 beer you better not drive.
Sure, why doesn’t Red Redford start an Alberta gun registry. Seems like her style. She has no clue what it means to be a conservative and she won by signing up all the socialist teachers and offering them a $100 million bribe. We had Red Ed Stelmach and now Red Redford. A 2 word solution – Wild Rose.
MADD is not what it appears. It is the remnants of the WCTU ( Womens Christian Temperance Union) as well as a gaggle of do-gooder Baptists. Their agenda is not to get drunk drivers off the roads. It’s to stop society from imbibing in The Demon Rum.
The Post is right, the laws are idiotic. But I think the worst aspect is that they are unconstitutional, that it gives cops the power to take your car away, without any for of due process. Heaven knows what happens to people when due process no longer exists. I know a lot of people here are supportive of the police force, but it takes just one rogue cop with a bad attitude to take advantage of something like this, or even a malfunctioning breathalyzer can wreak undue havoc on people.
Horse crap. Cash grab. That is all.
Oh, sorry. Horse crap is actually useful…
Total nonsense. Alison Redford and the entire Alberta Conservative Party needs be kicked out of this great province.
Why not just cut to the chase and rename the PC party the Alberta Teachers Socialist Party?
There have been a number of instances where bars have installed a breathalyzer for their customers to use prior to leaving, but those installations invariably go away after the owners realize that there could be liability issues. We’re told over and over again that “if you think you need to test yourself, then you’ve had too much to be driving!” So, let me get this straight: You’re a criminal for driving over 0.08, but you can’t test yourself before driving…so stay well under the limit just in case. Oh, and you’ll have your car confiscated if you’re somewhere around 0.05, give or take the margin of error, but you’re still not allowed to test yourself so stay well under 0.05 as well.
The only reasonable weapons in the fight against true DD — accurate knowledge and due process for all — are null and void in this province. Makes me sooo proud to be an Albertan!
Mommy Aly knows we are too stupid to care for ourselves so will look after us. Don’t worry that she will ignore the people causing the deaths while penalizing those who are not impared, don’t worry that police will lay charges, convict the driver and carryout the execution. Mommy knows best. The next law will all police to collect cash from drivers doing more than half the speed limit, they might speed up. Toss Aly and her trained seals out. P.S. Over half of Aly’s trained seals didn’t even show up to vote but still collected their pay with a 30% salary increase.
Alison the Red takes over from Eddy the Unready. did anybody really think that something good was going to happen?
This legislation is another wedge to drive out the status quo PC party and divide the Alberta voters.
This has been the Progressive plan by eastern Liberals for decades. Stalmec and Redford are opportunistic liberal sheep in wolf’s clothing to bring forward this Progressive agenda. They have been smothering Alberta politics with eastern immigration especially foreign ethnic immigration wholesale for a decade now.
If you want drunk drivers off the road (at .08) simply seize the car upon conviction just like the law allows for poachers but then again that might result in a few MP’s having to walk.
Redford promised an open government that listens to Albertans and then she rammed through this legislation in less than 3 weeks with zero public consultation and most of her caucus not supporting her. How is she different than Stelmach. How many Albertans support guilty if the police say so and no chance to appeal, that innocent until proven guilty concept is so American.
I can tell you with absolute certainty, as it’s already happened here in B.C., that this will kill the Legions. Nobody is going to drive all the way to a Legion for one beer, and then take the risk of a cop arbitrarily seizing his/her licence and impounding the car for a few days. Not worth the gamble.
Same for going out for dinner.
What the rest of you have said. Plus, isn’t there something incredibly wrong with a government whose liquor laws, on the one hand, require neighbourhood pubs to be in commercial zones and have X number of parking spaces, and on the other hand, exact draconian punishment for operating a car with as little as .05% BAC?
It’s nothing short of a racket.
I was born and raised in Alta by Sask parents.
Alberta got taken over by libtards.
Thank goodness Sack has picked up the torch of non self destructive society.
O and BTW expect Wild Rose to sweep the next election.
Alberta hates Ontario liberal tricks.
Drunk driving in the extreme may be considered a crime. (Remember, the classic definition of a crime requires a guilty mind and a guilty act , mens rea & actus reus.) Even the existing level, where .08 is deemed criminal is an offense to justice. .05 is authoritarian overreach.
BC is every bit as bad.
Hang ’em high!