If the problem is a clogged legal system then how about streamlining the legal process for convicting drunk drivers rather than giving them the nod to go out and kill? Or perhaps we could restore funding to the provincial courts. In my lifetime I shall never understand the reasoning of this government.

This proposed change to the law is wrong, wrong, wrong. The current group of incompetents running this province have no real connection with reality. Dollar signs over common sense. The farce on TV recently of a policeman arguing with a drunk driver over a breathalizer test is indicative of how ridiculous enforcement has become. That man should have been given the option of doing the test voluntarily or having a forced blood test taken on the spot as is required in many European countries. We are not talking about a minor crime here but one that takes more lives than murders do in BC. I wonder if the present premier would have been given a pass arguing with the cops here in BC? But then he was so wasted all he could manage was that stupid grin. I know who I'm not voting for in 2005.

This is total BS. Offering an incentive to drink and drive is got to be one of the lowest points of this Fiberal regime of free enterprise at any cost. I mean come on give me a break. They must be really desperate for revenue if they think if they can encourage increased consumption of alcohol by reducing the penalties if you get caught. I really hope British Columbians stand up to this one. I also would really like to see MADD come out swinging rather than being sweet talked into taking a softer stand like they did when Gordo was busted in Maui.

If this is indeed what the Libs plan they are some of the stupidist people on the face of the planet. Fines should be getting higher and repeat offenders should face jail time. I have no pity for drunks or the drunk international felon who's running this province.

Not quite so simple, folks. Do you know how many people going through the "clogged" court system are actually convicted of impaired driving? It's a very small number, around 15%, mostly because defence lawyers have gotten very good at challenging these cases. These people are not ending up with records. They're getting off clean. Which is why so many more 24 hour suspensions are being issued - police know that a charge is not likely to result in a conviction, and a 24-hour suspension is the only real "penalty" an impaired driver is likely to get. Ever. Think about it a bit more - and read through the details - before jumping to conclusions. I know it's difficult.

Oh, and one more thing... The provincial government can't decriminalize anything. Only the feds can change the Criminal Code. I suspect this is simply the introduction of a new provincial offence, which might end up penalizing a few more impaired drivers than the current system.

dear colin mills. sad it is, this government. their reasoning? maximize individual freedom; minimize personal obligation or responsibility to others. i think that about covers it.

It is long overdue that our society should be waking up and recognizing that the old approach to impaired driving has not and will not work. Criminal Code charges for Impaired driving should be reserved for only the most heinous driving action while impaired. This great new incentive by the Province of B.C. will allow the individual who has simply had too much to drink without being in or causing an accident or injury to another person to be dealt with quickly and humanely. The system we now have is simply draconian and way overly excessive for most impaired drivers. The penalties handed out for impaired driving now far exceed those given out for the vilest criminal offences committed against people. When a person convicted of a simple impaired driving offence gets a huge penalty that cripples himself and his whole family and the next person who rapes or cuts someone up with a knife walks away with community work service, it is certainly time to bring some equality into our system of dealing with offences. GOOD for the Government of B.C.! This finally shows leadership at the political level in our province!

Nothing, absolutely nothing that comes from these guys surprises me any more. I wonder what colour the sky is on Gordon Campbell's Planet?

Too bad! Nobody, I mean nobody, who we have elected to govern us, can stand up and say: if we want Drunk Drivers of the roads lets make the Blood Alcohol Level 0.00. Let us make it clear to Drivers who drink that if you drink, you stay home, get a cab, have someone in your group skipper you home, or stay the night with frinds. The problem is a lack of political backbone that makes a jelly fish seem like a relative of Homo Liberalensis. Possible solutions: 1) Zero Blood alcohol level 2) Impound cars-they are an illegal weapon! return conditional upon contract signing citing obligations. 3) Curfew and community service for first offence for one year! The above solutions alone do not stop drinkers driving. Establishments serving alcohol, should have breathalysers available, and be accountable for drinking drivers driving out of the pub carpark. We must encourage each other to act and speak up about people, who drink and drive. Who will benefit? All of us! We will feel safer on our roads, and we as parents will sleep more soundly.

Add the mandatory blood test. That takes care of the court's decision. To loosen the laws now after all of the work to get where we are is ludricrous. If you don't take the breathalyzer, you give blood. Your right of refusal is gone.

The Criminal Code of Canada states .08 is the legal limit. If Coleman is looking at drivers impaired below .08, fair dues. If he's looking at ones from .08 on, he's treading on thin ice. The government changed from a cash penalty to point penalties in the early 70's because huge cash penalties were thought to be unfair to poor families, whereas wealthy offenders could blow off a fine with ease. The idea was if you amassed 10 penalty points, you faced the possibility of suspension, although first time offenders could take a driver's re-education course and skip the suspension. Criminal Code suspensions, ie impaired were an automatic 10 pt infraction. Around 1974, the province made an automatic suspension part of the crime, with 3 months if no accident was involved, 6 months if an accident with $200 or more damage occured for a first offence, longer for subsequent offences. This was later extended to a year for a first time offence. The suspensions became full, meaning a professional drivers risked loosing their jobs. For independent truckers with a massive loan on a Peterbuilt this meant financial ruin. But it was felt that the driver knew the risk when he chose to drink and drive. Part time suspensions, ie, able to drive to and from work, or for work purposes were just too hard to police in all but small outlying communities where the police know everybody on a first name basis. If the government hadn't opened bars til 4 am, and had kept the courts open, then this problem would not be as severe as its becoming. And what's up with 8 hours of paperwork to process one drunk driver? Its a dilema, choosing to make the punishment fit the crime, until you consider the last bit of the article: 30% of fatalities involve alcohol. Public safety must be the capital concern. 253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not, (a) while the person's ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or (b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood. http://www.lawyers.ca/statutes/criminal_code_of_canada_impaired_driving.htm

I think Ms. McLintock got it wrong. Unless Rich Coleman is lying. But, in this one instance, I actually think he isn't. The government discussion paper DOES NOT suggest decriminalizing drunk driving. Nor do the government's proposals amount to a "softening" of the law. If anything, the proposals toughen the law. Coleman rightly defended himself yesterday. What the Libs appear to be doing is going after the people who aren't drunk enough for criminal charges (i.e. blow less than 0.08) but are too drunk for a lenient 24-hour roadside suspension. It seems odd to me that The Tyee would say Coleman confirmed the McLintock thesis only for him (and the Premier) to totally deny it the next day. Wonder if a headline writer at The Tyee got a hold of Ms. McLintock's work and torqued it?

Daniel wrote: The government discussion paper DOES NOT discuss decriminalizing drunk driving..." Here is why, in the story above, I believe the reporter is proper to use the term "decriminalize": Under the Criminal Code, a person who pleads guilty to, or is convicted of, impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample, of having a blood-alcohol reading of over .08, must have his or her license suspended for a minimum of one year. The person also ends up with a criminal record. Now see page 14 of the government's Discussion Paper, linked where "government documents" are mentioned in our story. The proposed changes would allow a person to plead guilty to the newly-created provincial offence of impaired driving, and a) have their license suspended for far less than a year, and even drive to work immediately; and b) not end up with a criminal record. The discussion paper makes clear this option would be available for those who blow over .08 as well as those who blow the lower figure: "The new offences would also be available to Crown counsel when an accused is prepared to plead guilty a provincial offence rather than go to trial on a criminal offence." A trial on a criminal offence would occur only if the blood-alcohol reading is above .08. For the hundreds or thousands of drivers who would take advantage of this change each year, the change would amount to decriminalization of the offense of impaired driving.

Of course this whole idea is ridiculous. But it doesn't really surprise me coming from this group of incompetent morons. But are they really serious? Or is this just a ploy to create a reaction amongst the populace to distract their attention from other destructive plans they have? Also, a correction regarding Impaired Driving being a lifelong criminal offence. It is a Summary conviction and therefore the person can apply for a Pardon after 5 years.

While I can see the need to take some of the driving/drinking cases off the court docket, I feel uncomfortable with this "leavening" of the penalties. I prefer the Swedish model in which one simply loses the right to drive with one DUI conviction. And I'm a person who loves his liquor, perhaps too much. But the driving is now completely out of my system, and I'm providing the local taxi companies with more income. A $30 taxi fare is safer and cheaper than all the alternatives. Way to go, Gordie! You might have gotten "off" with this law.

I think its great that the Liberals are revisiting the laws for drinking and driving! I think the current laws are completely ridiculous. I mean, I do not by any means agree with drinking and driving but what gives any law or person the right to judge who's over the legal limit purely based on a device for one.The breathalizer's are not fool proof! There are so many factors that are ignored when the breathalyzer is given, for example, weight, what the person has had to eat, when they had there last drink, if they were taking any kind of medicaiton, etc. With the laws and punishments for impaired driving right now, someone who blew over, that has never had an impaired charge, was completely visually fine, driving fine, and has no characteristics of being impaired can still blow over the legal limit, lose their license, causing unemployment and an entire family to end up in poverty and possibly on Welfare! Also, with the current laws, BC dosnt have the option of requesting the Ignition Inter-lock system at all (other provinces have this option), or the exceptions for at least being able to drive to and from work! If a Single parent gets charged for drinking and driving they end up on Social Assistance! The laws have to be modified in some way to at least allow some room for survival.

I think the only resson hes doing this is because he got cought. If he did it again it wouldnt be has harsh. Inicent people are dieing because he wants hiself to get off easy. He should have have had to get harsher penalty becuase he is in the puplics eyes!!!

And then there's the cop who needs a good bust which is very easy since the one arrested hasn't the ability under current laws to disprove the alledged charges. Not even the breath test is proven, since there is no recorded evidence that a person (could it be you or your loved one someday?)was even over the accepted limit. I know this by personal experience and being the family member of several close relatives in law enforcement. The system is subject to the possibilty (and the reality for the unfortunate) of out of control corruption, but since folks who don't know the real truth are biased by documents and statistics provided by large government and non-govenment agencies, there will be no justice for minor or non-alcohol "caused" offences. Remember that the biggest play on words proponents of stringent drinking and driving laws use, is the word "related" as opposed to "caused" which can mean several different factors, including, the passenger was drinking or had drank, the victim has alcohol in their body(not the one causing the recorded accident) or any drinking remotely related, directly or indirectly to a fatality or bodily harm in any given accident scenerio. These misleading statistics assure that the penalties will stand strong, and continue to make a bundle of money for all that profit from Drunk Driving laws. Lastly, I don't promote anyone truly impaired to be driving on any road, anywhere. I'm just sickned by the middle income lives nearly destroyed by outright lies and misleading the voting public with the use of "related" rather than "caused" fatality statistics. Now shall we talk about the many celebs and government officials guilty of their own laws? Ha! They won't pay a penality near as great as the middle or low income person,, Guaranteed!! The monetary fine? No real problem! the loss of license? who cares? Call the chaffeur or a Taxi. No, or minimal loss of income, no loss of job. That's Equal Justice?

its just not fair for someone to lose their job and be frowned upon for one mistake

i think that you should tell more about da laws~!~

I think that if somebody has a perfect driving record and there was no accident or injury that a person losing their license for 90 days for a first offence is teaching them a good lesson and they will probably never ever drink and drive again. Taking someone's license away for 90 days and then 12 months is just disgusting because we are human and we do make mistakes. 15 months without a license can totally ruin someones career and family life. If you get caught again then you obviously did not learn your lesson and you had your one chance and should be given a stiff penalty. A person that is community minded, taxpayer and never in trouble with the law should not have to serve such a huge penalty for making a mistake as maybe having one extra glass of wine with dinner

Well it looks like the liberals took to long to make the change ,bill 66 changed everything today.I wonder just how many unlicenced drivers a law like that will put on the road? A man has to work and have a job that supports the family and home.If you are looking at loosing youe life would you drive without a licence to get to work? This law realy kills a man who must drive to work or works outside and must have tools for his trade.Its not the same for a man with an office job or anyone who punches a clock,they can just be dropped off and picked up.A provision should have been made for the truck drivers and construction workers etc.who must have a licence to be able to work.The time does not fit the crime.

this is bull shit who needs to smile when they are getting their jail pictures taken what a dumb ass i think he should die DIE DIE DIE

you guys suck ass