The legal limit as it stands in law is .08, thats the point at which one is considered legally impaired. Anything below .08 means one is NOT impaired and the police should not have the power to over ride the law. When the police start making the law we live in a police state.
Scott Kennie - 12 years ago
I always find it amazing - people that have not been affected by drunk driving continue to defend it as a social faux-pas and "a protection of RIGHTS and FREEDOMS". These people need to realise the numbers of impaired drivers we are talking about....it would scare you into not driving.
People have the RIGHT and FREEDOM to know that everything is being done to protect them on the roads. If you are not impaired, you have nothing to worry about - you won't receive a 90 day suspension.
Ask any family (like mine) that has had a loved one voilently murdered by an impaired driver the question: "what's a bigger infraction on your RIGHTS and FREEDOMS - having a 90 day driving ban or being ripped to pieces by the truck driven by an impaired driver that crossed the centre line?"
I believe my RIGHT to live outweighs someone's PRIVILEDGE to drive!
brad canning - 12 years ago
We can't start taking away the right to a hearing and due process. Police make errors and there are sometimes circumstances that only are provided during a judicial hearing. My biggest concern is it doesn't stop here. Are the police going to start making arbitrary decisions when attending an alleged crime scene and decide who is guilty and what their punishment will be? It's a slippy slope and one that should be avoided.
T - 12 years ago
Police should not be making judicial decisions at the roadside .
The legal limit as it stands in law is .08, thats the point at which one is considered legally impaired. Anything below .08 means one is NOT impaired and the police should not have the power to over ride the law. When the police start making the law we live in a police state.
I always find it amazing - people that have not been affected by drunk driving continue to defend it as a social faux-pas and "a protection of RIGHTS and FREEDOMS". These people need to realise the numbers of impaired drivers we are talking about....it would scare you into not driving.
People have the RIGHT and FREEDOM to know that everything is being done to protect them on the roads. If you are not impaired, you have nothing to worry about - you won't receive a 90 day suspension.
Ask any family (like mine) that has had a loved one voilently murdered by an impaired driver the question: "what's a bigger infraction on your RIGHTS and FREEDOMS - having a 90 day driving ban or being ripped to pieces by the truck driven by an impaired driver that crossed the centre line?"
I believe my RIGHT to live outweighs someone's PRIVILEDGE to drive!
We can't start taking away the right to a hearing and due process. Police make errors and there are sometimes circumstances that only are provided during a judicial hearing. My biggest concern is it doesn't stop here. Are the police going to start making arbitrary decisions when attending an alleged crime scene and decide who is guilty and what their punishment will be? It's a slippy slope and one that should be avoided.
Police should not be making judicial decisions at the roadside .