It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Random Breathylizer Tests Considered For Canada

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by DrumsRfun

I don't think it has anything to do with the victims of drunk driving. This is strictly about giving the police more powers.

I was pulled over one time as a teenager because the cop said he smelled illegal contraband. Well, I didn't use any back then and I still don't. He made a note of it and proceeded to search my car, my person and the person of my passenger.

We were only teenagers so we didn't realize that it was a clear violation of our rights. The cop even put in his report that he saw 'papers' on the dashboard. But never confiscated the invisible papers to prove it. There was nothing found and we were let go, but if it wasn't for family members looking into it I would have never even known anything was done wrong. And to be honest some of them sided with the cop.

This is just one more way of police having a tool in their arsenal they can use anytime they deem fit. They already have roadblocks and can breathalyze anyone who looks drunk that passes through it, it doesn't make sense for this to become law.

I have a feeling it has to do with the new legal limit of alcohol that was changed from (I believe) .08 to .05, Now you are tempting fate by having a single beer and driving. As shown in tests some people failed the new limit while only consuming one drink. So technically, drunk drivers might not look so drunk anymore. You can blow over even if you are 90% sober.

Furthermore, MADD is a terrible organization that preys of the emotions of woman who have lost their children to drunk drivers. It is disgusting the way they operate. The pan handle pity through cold calling looking for donations and the government uses them to earn sympathy during the voting process.

If laws are too be changed it should be done on non-biased scientific review, not a pity ridden victim mentality controlled lobby group.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:35 PM
I have to agree with the posters who are suggesting that this is more about rescinding our rights than the actual issue of drunk driving.

I am a non-drinking (total abstainer) Ontarian who is familiar with the RIDE program currently in effect. These checks are cursory and quick. I can't say that I have been inconvenienced by them.

It's another matter, however, if I am forced to arbitrarily submit to a breathalzyer test. I would be both highly insulted (knowing that they would never find a trace of alcohol in my body) and enraged by the substantial delay and presumption of my guilt.

The RIDE program is held right on the open road. Nothing like having an acquaintance drive by, recognize you and your vehicle while the police are administering the breathalyzer -- even if it is totally unwarranted.

If the authorities want to reduce the incidence of drunk driving, they can set up their breathalyzer testing posts at the egress to every public drinking establishment. That'll bring the numbers down substantially.

On this issue, my instinct meter reads: This is wrong!

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by threekings

I was pulled over one time as a teenager because the cop said he smelled illegal contraband.

Exactly...they can invent a reason.

This is just one more way of police having a tool in their arsenal they can use anytime they deem fit.

They already do its just going to be legal.

If laws are too be changed it should be done on non-biased scientific review, not a pity ridden victim mentality controlled lobby group.

I agree 100% with the last sentence.

I think all this is going to do is take the power away from drunks hiding behind their rights and allow the police to quit being crafty as to attain a reason for their looking into something further.
I don't get harrassed by police and when I have it was very easy and simple to deal with.

In this day and age where rights are so important I can see why this is such a touchy subject but I can't help be happy that a few more drunk drivers might get caught.
I might be biased because I made a decision years ago to not own a car or drive so I am not as outraged as most are.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:14 PM
For starters the dui thing is a SCAM

A giant SCAM, the majority of fatal accidents has always fell within a certain youthful age demographic between 17 and 25-30 and the causality of alcohol being involved has barely changed the stats, in fact accidents have fallen at a slower rate than before cameras and duis were involved.

People of that age demographic already pay 2-3 times the insurance rates, without alcohol, pot, drugs, prescription... even things as simple as full time school and work and lack of experience behind the wheel still take it's toll.

This is actually about giving out Millions of Felonies and collecting tons of money from the public while holding up babies... babies that mainly were in someones car at 3:30 am for some unknown reason.

With that said

Since most are brainwashed and wont listen to the truth AND, really drinking and driving no matter how you look at it isn't a Safe behavior (even though far more people will slip in the bathtub this year and die) it's still not safe sooo...


Seriously, Enough...

If it wasn't a game and a money maker... they wouldn't hire more cops, put them on the street, bust people drinking on holidays and rob them of allot of money...

it's all crap... a scam

BUT, if they are going to be jerks about it, put the breathalyzer into every car so no one ca actually drive drunk, then it's easy, no jail, no altercations with cops, no need for cops all over on Saturday night invading our privacy


Because it's a money making scam...

If they can't arrest you and the problem goes away, they loose allot of money to fund the Police State and legal system.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by DrumsRfun

So why would it be okay for them to legalize the immoral and unconstitutional acts they are currently involved in?

As I stated, the blood alcohol level in Ontario was reduced to .05 from .08 to reduce drunk driving deaths. That legislation, along with the what has been enacted for convicted drunk drivers( breathalyzer installed devices that shut a car off if the driver doesn't blow) Both haven't had time to even see a change made. And already they are talking about a new law?

There are plenty more deaths from other issues that could be tackled, so I don't see the rationale behind this possible legislation.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by mopusvindictus

Well spoken. This is a clear definition of our justice system. It's not like you have to look far to see the same circumstances in other laws as well. I wont mention them because its against the T&C of the forum.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:23 PM
Driving is a privileged, not a right and the lay abiding citizens on the road have the right to be safe from morons who drink and drive.

Just like an employer can set certain rules in the work place that can overlap personal freedoms outside of work, like free speech; when you're on the road certain rules take over which you agree to when you get into your car. If you don't like it, don't drive, or drive on your own property where you don't have to agree to such rules.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by DrumsRfun

Seems to me, it would be easier to put technology in vehicles which would not allow a person access to operate the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

That would be 100% effective, for the most part.

The other way, you would only catch people when you were actively looking.

Vehicles operational computers are sophisticated enough to shut down the vehicle if low on oil, so why not excessive alcohol in the operator's blood?

Other wise you are making laws that are hard to police 98% effectively. That would probably only change things slightly. Can we send you the bill for the extra police needed to make this work effectively?

Keep the police at the road blocks, leaving the rest of the city un-protected.

It is common knowledge ..... when police set up check stops, they restrict their man power to a confined spot. That works like a diversionary tactic for law breakers.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by win 52

You could also put speed limiters on every car from the manufacturer and although I wouldn't like to see that happen, it actually makes more sense then the current system.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

Technically, that is false. If you research Common Law and UCC Law you will understand. But it is a whole other subject altogether.

Under ever traffic act, highway act, etc. is all under UCC Law, commerce Law, which is contractual.

There is a way to travel throughout a free country with no license or restrictions. Although it puts a giant bulls eye on your back to be harassed by the authorities.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by threekings]

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by threekings

I have often thought of this.

Speed says 50K .... you go 50K ... not 30K not 40K not 60K.

I believe cars already have the smarts to easily do this. There is just no will by manufacturers to do it.

Would eliminate speed traps and check stops.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by dmorgan
The only people who will complain about this are 1.) drinkers and 2.) arrogant people who can't spare a few minutes to be tested. There is a lot of angst towards the police on ATS (seems to be mostly USA) and I'm sure some will see it as invasion of rights or they'll think the police are out to get them and all this crap.
[edit on 5/10/09 by dmorgan]

You forgot about the people who would like to believe they are in a free society. How long before there is random blood testing? Once you open the gates for your rights to be trampled on then one shouldn't be surprised when you have no rights left.

Spare a few minutes to be tested? Absolute rubbish, I was once pulled over for a "checkstop", I don't drink, but they asked to see my license anyway, because I had no front plate. Being a visitor to BC at the time, my home province didn't have a front plate requirement. The police were about to issue me a 250$ ticket for not having a front plate when they noticed I was from a different province. Then, not 20 feet further down the road I got pulled over again by a different cop for the same "checkstop". I asked him why I was pulled over since the last cop just let me through and then he finally waived me on.

The point here is that "random" breath tests are simply an excuse to run you through a fishing expedition for any possible infraction. The laws already exist that if you are showing signs of being impaired they can pull you over and test you. This will do noting except remove the requirement for you to show signs of being impaired before they stop you.

This is exactly the steps to a police state and if you think for one moment it will reduce impaired driving, you are sadly mistaken. If your intention is to actually stop drunk drivers, make the penalty for being caught so severe that no one can possibly afford to do it twice. But for Gods sake, punish the guilty not everyone else.

What you see against cops on ATS is what the cops have earned by their actions. Want a different result, try providing different actions. I can't remember the last time I actually saw a cop helping someone. That in itself should tell you something.


posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:34 PM
we now have forced blood withdrawals in missouri at dui checks.

judge cop DA all on site at dui checks, and you are forced to give blood

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by whistler16

That is the grossest thing I have ever heard. I would rather be deported back to Canada than go through that. I hope its some medical professional who takes the blood and not the cops. It just seems inherently dangerous.

I guess you guys down there are just more used to giving blood since employers can do mandatory drug tests too. Up here its considered a gross violation of privacy and not done except if your job takes you to the states (eg. truck driver) and even then its only to satisfy your American rules; nothing to do with Canada.

Boggles me how and why you have let the police state take hold down there to the extent that it has.

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by whistler16

Having to give your blood is disgusting. There are people that wont even give blood to doctors, that is a gross violation of human rights.

The path it paves is scary too, is the blood used just to determine if someone is drinking or is it/will it be in the future used to make a database storing dna markers.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:54 AM
reply to post by threekings

and it is not like you have an alternative, ie lose your license etc

you HAVE to give blood, there are wheels in motion though to fight this

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in