BC Libs Take Another Swing at the Restaurant Sector

whatnext · #1 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 4:29 AM**

Hot on the heels of adding the HST to drive up restaurant bills, I see Gordo's landing another body blow to the dining sector with his draconian new drunk driving laws, that could and you in trouble with the law for just ONE glass of wine with your meal.

I'm wondering how the this part is even legal. Either point .08 is the legal limit, or it isn't:

...The new rules also create a “warning” category for drivers with blood alcohol levels between 0.05 and 0.08 per cent. Penalties include an immediate, three-day driving ban and a $200 fine for a first-time offence...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1548399/

Its not often (ie. never) I agree with David Eby but they seem to feel the same way:
...David Eby with B.C. Civil Liberties wonders if the new law will survive a court challenge. Eby says it's like punishing a driver for committing a crime, even though they haven't been charged or gone to court....
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...k-driving-laws

jlousa · #2 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 4:53 AM**

Umm you'd have to be child sized to be over the limit on 1 drink, most people could have 2 over the course of a meal or 4 over the course of an evening and still fall under the lower limit. Seems pretty reasonable to me. What do you suggest, we vote the NDP in and have them squash the limit completely so that we can help the restaurant industry?

Yume-sama · #3 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 5:01 AM**

Our entire Asian population runs in fear.

What? You know it's true! My circle of friends can not handle alcohol in the slightest... luckily none of us drive.

Stingray2004 · #4 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 5:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

What do you suggest, we vote the NDP in and have them squash the limit completely so that we can help the restaurant industry?

Well that ain't gonna work either:

Quote:

The bill received immediate support from the Opposition New Democratic Party. "We think this legislation is the right approach," said NDP public-safety critic Mike Farnworth.

"People should not be drinking and driving," he added. "It's not acceptable."

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/in...831/story.html

Hmmmmmm... perhaps 'whatnext' had in mind two other potential political contenders all registered with Elections BC:

1. Party Of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves And Be Their Own Politicians;

2. The Platinum Party of Employers Who Think and Act to Increase Awareness;

http://www.elections.bc.ca/index.php...last-10-years/

GeeCee · #5 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 5:19 AM**

Drinking and driving kills people. You want to have a glass of wine with dinner? Take a cab.

Politics goes in the politics forum. Also you seemed to agree with David Eby when it came to having a haterection for the Olympics.

Canadian Mind · #6 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 5:29 AM**

Anybody remember when Gordo got drunk in Hawaii?

artvandelay · #7 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 5:53 AM**

A friend of mine who's a cop says that 3 drinks over 2 hours is a good rule of thumb for most people. The most I'll have before driving is 2 pints or a couple glasses of wine.

zivan56 · #8 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 6:04 AM**

What I personally find disturbing is that you can be forced to submit to a breathalyzer test or are automatically assumed guilty. That goes directly against so many fundamental rights, its not even funny.
The warn level thing is fishy as well, since you are not given a chance to contact a lawyer or argue your case before being punished. That essentially gives the police the power of judge, jury, and executioner. This was proven unconstitutional in Ontario when they passed a "stunt driving" law there which gave police the same powers.

Overground · #9 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 6:09 AM**

Remember too, the average adult's body/liver can process one drink per hour.

One drink = one glass of wine(5oz measure) or 1 bottle of beer(12oz) or 1 oz of spirits. So some people need to be careful with pints, which are 20oz for an Imperial measure. Sleeves, which are the biggest scam in BC, can range from 12 - 16oz.

touraccuracy · #10 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 7:43 AM**

pretty tight laws... i'd have to disagree with them.

can you even feel .05? i don't think it's a fair law that you can be considered too impaired to drive when it's such a low amount you honestly can't even tell whether you've been drinking or not. i usually don't feel it until the third pint.

i've driven plenty of times after 2 or 3 pints (i'm 210 pounds, 6'3", experienced drinker) and it honestly doesn't feel any different.

i agree that being drunk and driving should be illegal. being tipsy and driving should be illegal. being buzzed and driving should probably be illegal. but having a 2 or 3 beers and hitting the road....... they're not going to kill someone.

red-paladin · #11 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 8:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

What I personally find disturbing is that you can be forced to submit to a breathalyzer test or are automatically assumed guilty. That goes directly against so many fundamental rights, its not even funny.
The warn level thing is fishy as well, since you are not given a chance to contact a lawyer or argue your case before being punished. That essentially gives the police the power of judge, jury, and executioner. This was proven unconstitutional in Ontario when they passed a "stunt driving" law there which gave police the same powers.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you drive the police have a right to see if you are safe to drive. It's not about civil rights, it's about you being dangerous to me and my family or not.

whatnext · #12 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Drinking and driving kills people. You want to have a glass of wine with dinner? Take a cab.

Politics goes in the politics forum. Also you seemed to agree with David Eby when it came to having a haterection for the Olympics.

A glass of wine kills? Nothing like over the top hyperbole.

By your rational anything Olympic-related should have gone in the political forum then?

The more I consider it, this proposed law is clearly unconstitutional.

joeyedm · #13 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 3:23 PM**

if your driving dont drink. im suprised that anyone would be against a law that prevents people from being killed.

WarrenC12 · #14 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 3:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Anybody remember when Gordo got drunk in Hawaii?

Yep, he blew .114, received a $900 fine and 3 month driving ban. Not sure what that would get under the new laws in BC.

I support this new law... drunk driving kills so many people every year, it's terrible. And as crimes go, it is far too acceptable in society. That needs to change.

zivan56 · #15 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you drive the police have a right to see if you are safe to drive. It's not about civil rights, it's about you being dangerous to me and my family or not.

No, its totally about civil rights, but has been wrapped up under the guise of morality/safety/etc. It reminds me of the copyright industry in Europe claiming peer to peer networks should be outlawed because they are a major source of child pornography. That way, its not a rights issue...but a "wont somebody please think of the children" issue.

I guess you fail to see how police cannot be judge, jury, and executioner regardless of what it is about. I suggesting going to a 3rd world country and seeing what its all about

And for the record, I never drink and drive...I even offer people rides and make sure they don't drive home when they are drunk at a bar. So you are barking up the wrong tree. However, I am opposed to the laws, which are fundamentally unconstitutional.

GeeCee · #16 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 6:43 PM**

What about my civil right to not be killed by a drunk driver?

Yume-sama · #17 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 6:45 PM**

I don't know where in the Canadian Charter it says you have the right to drink thy drink and drive thy car. You can kill yourself if you want, but, please refrain from bringing others with you.

Often times, public safety trumps your rights, whether real or imagined.

And, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Locked In · #18 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 7:04 PM**

Just out of curiosity, a question for those people who think the warning category is unconstitutional: what Charter right does a fine and a 3-day driving ban infringe upon?

Charter

Yume-sama · #19 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locked In

Just out of curiosity, a question for those people who think the warning category is unconstitutional: what Charter right does a fine and a 3-day driving ban infringe upon?

Charter

The Charter is often misunderstood. But, perhaps, not as much as the US Constitution (which a lot of Canadians actually think applies to Canada, too.)

I swear, every time I am in the USA I hear someone going on about how their rights are being infringed.

Even though I'm pretty sure the founding Fathers didn't give them the right to the last ketchup packet at In N Out, or to ride in the train without paying.

raggedy13 · #20 Posted: **Apr 29, 2010, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

By your rational anything Olympic-related should have gone in the political forum then?

There is zero mention of the restaurant industry in the articles you posted. This discussion does not belong in the the Food and Dining subforum. With the title you created for this thread you were clearly going for a political bend.