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.

It would suggest you are a waste of money.

>Second, it’s not about checkpoints, it’s about police randomly pulling people over with NO probable cause.

Think about that again.

The best reason of all, all the other kids are doing it. Ah the joy of a homogeneous world.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh no, that wouldn’t work, that doesn’t assist the government in it’s ever growing quest for more power and control!