What’s next? Random blood tests to protect the public from potential AIDs infections? Random brain scans to find those thinking of committing a crime? When do the police finally get to do anything they want to anyone they want anytime they feel like it? It’s all for our own good, of course.
The federal justice minister is considering a new law that would allow police to conduct random breathalyzer tests on drivers, regardless of whether they suspect motorists have been drinking.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson raised the prospect recently at a meeting of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, according to MADD chief executive Andrew Murie.
If random testing were to be adopted, it would be a major change to Canada’s 40-year-old breathalyzer legislation, which stipulates that police may only administer a test if they suspect a driver has been drinking.
In June, a House of Commons parliamentary committee recommended changing the legislation to allow for random testing, arguing it is an effective deterrent.
The change would also bring Canada in line with a number of other countries in Europe and countries like Australia, which have adopted similar measures.
Ahhh #13, the old, ..”if you’ve done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear” argument.. love that one.
The problem you see is neither of us wants a drunk person driving on the road, but no matter how hard madd tries this is not a black and white argument.
One drink does not = drunk for most people, nor 2, perhaps even 3 or so.. it depends alot on the individual.
This is an argument where people get sensitive over it due to its nature, but we need sensible policy; all or none is not a sensible policy.
When madd (and prohibition types) begin targeting drunks and habitual offenders and leave those of us who know how much is too much alone I’ll start championing their cause. I know asking for common sense on any issue is asking alot.
“How about ruthlessly prosecuting and punishing those that do harmful things while driving under the influence, yet leave innocent people alone?”
That’s called installing a padlock after a break-in, you bonehead. “Innocent people” are not innocent if they drive under the influence. They are accidents waiting to happen, possibly fatal. If you stopped for one second to remember that there is no cure or reversal for death, you’d quickly realize why prevention is so important.
Random breathalyzer testing is common in my country. Geez, I wonder why?!!! Because thousands of morons drive under the influence and kill truly innocent people every year, that’s why.
Keys, passwords and padlocks wouldn’t exist if people were honest. Such laws wouldn’t exist if people had any sense in their numb skulls. Douse yourself in alcohol, whatever, I do myself sometimes, but STFU and take a taxi. Your penis won’t shrink just because you’re not driving your own killing machine on your way back home.
#17, hermes
Wouldn’t it make more sense to require licensed establishments to have a breathalyzer available for patrons?
Wouldn’t work.
Breathalyzers are sensitive items. But they only measure the amount of alcohol in the breath from alcohol in the bloodstream. If you burped, still had traces of alcohol in your mouth, or just downed a shot minutes before the test, the results will be wrong. A driver could end up driving off thinking he was legal when he wasn’t.
Alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream at differing rates. The BAC will be different when you are tested by the police than when you leave the establishment. It is the amount of BAC when the police test you that counts.
I don’t see why this is news. Let me know if I’m missing something. As #11 pointed out, they do this is the US already at checkpoints. And the Supreme Court said 19 years ago that it’s allowed.
#24
First of all the U.S. supreme court has no jurisdiction in Canada!(Read the post!)
Second, it’s not about checkpoints, it’s about police randomly pulling people over with NO probable cause.
“The change would also bring Canada in line with a number of other countries in Europe and countries like Australia, which have adopted similar measures.”
The best reason of all, all the other kids are doing it. Ah the joy of a homogeneous world.
Fusion, they don’t ask for driver’s licenses at checkpoints?
The reason cops like checkpoints at all along with seat belt laws is that it gives them an opportunity to run checks.
>Second, it’s not about checkpoints, it’s about police randomly pulling people over with NO probable cause.
Think about that again.
#27
Whether you want to accept it it or not, there is a difference between police setting up a checkpoint to check for DWI’s, which they frequently do during the xmas season or down the road from a bar, or setting up a dragnet to capture someone, so they check every car/driver vs. just picking out a car at random cruising along doing nothing wrong, pulling it over, just to “check” for DWI. You can argue there isn’t all you want and just call it a difference of opinion, since I see a difference in the two.
#27, MikeN, I was never asked for my driver’s license at a checkpoint for DWI’s.
Not sure but I’d think the boss would be bleeped off if you spent the day giving breath tests and nobody tested positive.
It would suggest you are a waste of money.
It’s the Conservatives, they love this kind of stuff.
Well, unfortunately in Saskatchewan rural cops don’t seem to have anything better to do than pull over someone whether they suspect anything or not… even if you were driving civilly and obeying traffic laws you can be subject to the red and blue. Even more so it seems, or seemed, that if your under the age of 35 and its past the hours of 8pm… a breathalyzer exam is common.
As we (Australia) already have this, plus many other checks such as ‘bona fide’(Sth Aus), at random in Australia, just remember it all started with random breath testing.
Then they waited and introduced drugs, then vehicle roadworthy … and the list goes on, til now you are required to prove your innocence before being allowed to continue.
I, personally, refuse and request to be arrested, at which point the police have, so far, moved me on.
A friend of mine, who works in the government legal area, says this is because they don’t want it tested, and probably dis-allowed, by the courts and they would rather the few they tell to get lost than losing it all.
The Australian Supreme Court has inferred in the past they are somewhat bemused by these laws and are looking for an excuse to end them, something they cannot do without a test case before them.
Why don’t they have these checks outside of congress and parliment?