LOL Lucky Day For Those In Court W3 At Eglinton!! (Toronto)

**OpenGambit** · 04-17-2012, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by fastar1

He's saying that strict enforcement of a regulation that has nearly no impact on safety is that same as... strict enforcement of a regulation that has nearly no impact on safety.

He said RIDE checks turn average joes into criminals. ya... no.

**Rob MacLennan** · 04-17-2012, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

He said RIDE checks turn average joes into criminals. ya... no.

There was a time I would have agreed with you. With the way that a 'warning' has been turned into a punishment, however.....

**Vlad** · 04-17-2012, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by fastar1

He's saying that strict enforcement of a regulation that has nearly no impact on safety is that same as... strict enforcement of a regulation that has nearly no impact on safety.

Thank you, that's exactly what I'm saying. The question is not whether driving 200km/h on Gardiner during rush hour or driving anywhere after a twelve beers drank in past hour is dangerous, by anyone's standards. Limits keep getting lowered, tolerances eliminated, sentencing mandated, rights to due process trampled. To what end? Until someone who had a beer last night or is driving 101km/h on the highway is thrown in jail?

Check the latest legislation that was passed largely unnoticed - Omnibus Crime Bill C-10

The issue is much bigger...

**fastar1** · 04-17-2012, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Vlad

Check the latest legislation that was passed largely unnoticed - Omnibus Crime Bill C-10

OMG are you siding with the child molesters!?!?!

**Vlad** · 04-17-2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by fastar1

OMG are you siding with the child molesters!?!?!

Since I already belong to the most maligned and hated social group in US (it's not that different here, people are just more politically correct which is not always a good thing) "siding with child molesters" may be considered bad for child molesters.

**OpenGambit** · 04-17-2012, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Rob MacLennan

There was a time I would have agreed with you. With the way that a 'warning' has been turned into a punishment, however.....

RIDE checks are about criminal impairment too, not just 0.05.

**Rob MacLennan** · 04-17-2012, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

RIDE checks are about criminal impairment too, not just 0.05.

I full well realize that. The problem is that through pressure from people like Tim Mulcahy and groups like MADD, it has grown to encompass far more than was originally intended. When we essentially defeat an epidemic, do we then have to create new criminals? Only if you're a politician, who's looking for re-election.

**OpenGambit** · 04-17-2012, 07:20 PM

The original point was that laws do not change behaviour. I reject that premise, I haven't seen any data that supports that view and my personal experience suggests otherwise. I never supported particular laws, i simply stated that laws work, whether that behavioural change results in any tangible benefit to society, thats part 2.

Also it was suggested that enforcement of simple speeding and impaired driving was both a cash grab. I reject the idea that the 2 are comparable, in penalty, moral repugnancy, and potential for harm.

**Rob MacLennan** · 04-17-2012, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

The original point was that laws do not change behaviour. I reject that premise, I haven't seen any data that supports that view and my personal experience suggests otherwise. I never supported particular laws, i simply stated that laws work, whether that behavioural change results in any tangible benefit to society, thats part 2.

Also it was suggested that enforcement of simple speeding and impaired driving was both a cash grab. I reject the idea that the 2 are comparable, in penalty, moral repugnancy, and potential for harm.

I will not argue that laws don't change behaviour, as it seems to be a rather untenable position to take (the kind that gets you slaughtered in high school debates). Rather I will interject the concept that some behaviour isn't in need of modification as it has negligible effect on society as a whole. TRUE impairment is one thing. Being in the 'warn range' is quite another and throwing a wider net merely criminalizes non criminal behaviour, while being of little or no benefit to society. That goes against the spirit of The Charter, and even its exceptions.

Where we are at an impasse is when 'speeding' becomes 'racing', or when 'having an arbitrary measurable BAC' becomes 'impaired operation.'

**FiReSTaRT** · 04-17-2012, 08:20 PM

Great post, Rob. Another thing.. Getting too nannyish with the legal system, makes one portion of the population resentful of the legal system and always looking for ways around restrictive laws, while the rest (and even some of the original group) start equating legality with morality with all of the caveats of that phenomenon. Neither of those 2 effects is desirable.

**OpenGambit** · 04-17-2012, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Rob MacLennan

IWhere we are at an impasse is when 'speeding' becomes 'racing', or when 'having an arbitrary measurable BAC' becomes 'impaired operation.'

without arguing about the current placement of lines, I think the idea of "bright line" tests in law are in general, a good thing, bright lines should not be confused with legal presumptions, which are similar, but not the same thing.

Bright lines create certainty in the system for both citizens and police, and creates efficency in the court system. It certainly does have flaws, but I prefer the breathalizer to having a cop say that I am impaired becuase i wasn't accurate in touching my nose.