Random breathalyzer tests considered for Canada (CBC)

[Drew Wilson]

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.

More...

Hmm... a British politician must be in town. The British have a way at implementing Big Brother tactics on their own citizens.

:soapbox:

[mountain_rage]

Don't think this will change tactics much, they might just randomly check people at the regular check stops. From what I can tell the idea is to get people who think they drive fine drunk to think twice about driving drunk. Either way I'm not sure what there is to be pissed off about, unless you do drink and drive.

[Drew Wilson]

Don't think this will change tactics much, they might just randomly check people at the regular check stops. From what I can tell the idea is to get people who think they drive fine drunk to think twice about driving drunk. Either way I'm not sure what there is to be pissed off about, unless you do drink and drive.

I personally get up in arms over the idea of suspicionless searches in general. The thing I worry about is arguments eventually being floated that goes along the lines of, "well, since police check vehicles without suspicion, why not your home?"

*shivers*

[Hath]

Don't you know? WE ARE ALL CRIMINALS WAITING TO BE CAUGHT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW!!!

The best you can do is know your rights, keep your mouth shut when questioned by a cop, and don't consent to any searches, and make it clear that you don't!

[don webb]

.

I don’t know much about driving laws up in Canada, but in the US most states have “Mandatory Consent Laws”, you must consent to a Breathalyzer and or Blood Test when asked period, no questions asked.

This is a stipulation you must agree to upon application for any type driver’s licenses before it will be issued. If you do not agree, you will not receive a license. Driving is a privilege not a right.

Once you have agreed, if at any time you refuse to submit to the test(s) when asked, your driving license can be suspended for refusal to take the test(s). A 1yr suspension is common.

Also, at the time of refusal you are considered a (suspect) can also be arrested for (suspicion) of driving under the influence. You will go to jail be finger printed, have a nice mug shot taken and thrown in what is commonly known as a Drunk Tank until which time you can provide Bail for your release.

Innocent until proven guilty? I call it MADD.

My suggestion is don’t Drink and Drive or weigh the circumstances if you do.

.

[w31n3r]

.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

.

too bad there isn't an effective way to get that across to the countless morons who are on the road...

[rainbowdemon]

"well, since police check vehicles without suspicion, why not your home?"

*shivers*

That's what I'd be concerned about. It's a slippery slope.




*shivers too*

[don webb]

too bad there isn't an effective way to get that across to the countless morons who are on the road...

I agree 1000000000%

My wife’s cousin and her two small children were hit and killed by a Drunk Driver walking to school one morning...:damnit1:

This was his 3rd offence and his High Dollar Lawyer got him off with probation.......:aargh4:

.

[mountain_rage]

That's what I'd be concerned about. It's a slippery slope.




*shivers too*

Its also the name of the fallacious argument both you and Drew committed. Unless you have another reason to believe that passing a law related to drinking and driving would lead to a law for warrant less search and seizure, you don't have a valid argument. Its simply baseless speculation.

[Drew Wilson]

Its also the name of the fallacious argument both you and Drew committed. Unless you have another reason to believe that passing a law related to drinking and driving would lead to a law for warrant less search and seizure, you don't have a valid argument. Its simply baseless speculation.

Ever heard about the return of Lawful Access?

[mountain_rage]

Ever heard about the return of Lawful Access?

Unrelated to the breathalyzer, but definitely proof of warrant less search and seizures. So at least you have reasoning for your argument. To be honest it does scare me how much government is trying to increase police powers in the name of public security, especially when the public is demanding they don't.