Actually drinking and driving offences have always been prosecuted under the criminal code. serious offences are indicable and not so serious are proceeded by way of summary conviction. 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 255. (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, (a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely, (i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars, Same thing in the states, DUI is a criminal offence, either a felony (indictable offence)or a misdemenor(summary offence). The Premier has a criminal record.

This particulair article is proof in the puddin' as to how powerful and influential the media can be. Bless you Barbara and everyone at The Tyee - you are an inspiration to us all!

Jean Binette writes,".. drinking and driving offences have always been prosecuted..." There are plenty of drunk drivers I know who have NOT been prosecuted, ever, but have been allowed to drive home from their watering holes in significant altered states. Other less-frequent drinkers are prosecuted. There's no consistency, but there should be.

The rest of the world is is demanding harsher penalties every day for impaired driving ,as well as making moves toward lowering the legal limit. Our current government thinks that by lessening the penalties there will be more convictions. It is remotely possible. What is a guarantee however is that that the numbers of dead and mangled humans on our highways will immediatley increase .If this ' discussion paper ' succeeds it will be the equivalent of removing safety standards for passenger planes. We now have a premier that is a convicted criminal due to impaired driving , who then moves to lessen the penalties in BC for the same crime. For another year , this party can do whatever it wants , with impunity , as seemingly nothing appears in the local press unless the RCMP are raiding legislature offices .What has happened ? This government appears just as corrupt as the previous one. With an election a little over a year away , money will now be spent freely , and as history tells us we all have very short memories, so what are we in for in the next 5 years ?.

Sure...and why not "forgive" the first murder, the first rape, the first abduction, the first drug offense, the first...get the picture? If it is a matter of clogging the courts...why not let just everybody walk free and we go back to the days of the "wild west": we take the law in our own hands. Shoot 'em up, partner!

shuttttttttttt upppp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our Gordo has privatized booze so he can get it any time of the night. With the comming law change, he'll be able to continue driving to pick up his bottle.

If that is the solution, then do away with the courts totally. Just police and prisons. Lots of profits for the security industry. Then "our leader" can drive to get his booze without worying.

I think the problem is the approach to these kinds of offences. I heard a government official say the other day that stiff sentences have not proved to be a deterrant. Who really cares if they are a deterrant, get these people off the streets and protect us. With respect to drinking and driving, I've always seen it as an emotional issue. I saw a lawyer quote a statistic once that deaths from drinking/driving accounted for less than 5% of all road deaths. I've been eligible to drink and drive for over 30 years, and in that time, I have not personally seen too many situations in which drinking/driving was all that dangerous. Yet, people have almost hysterical reactions to the notion of it. Having said that, I acknowledge it can have devastating effects when it leads to accidents. Especially when the driver is seriously impaired. I'm not promoting it. I think there should be laws in place that put people in jail for a long time if they are convicted of drinking/driving that leads to death or injury. I'm talking 15 to 20 years, at least. I was convicted once, about 20 years ago. I was tested at 0.016, twice the legal limit. An RCMP on the scene did not want to charge me. In a report he filed later, he said I was very co-operative, appeared rational and did not appear to be intoxicated. I was glad to hear that, because I did not feel impaired. I wasn't swerving on the road, my reactions were good, and more importantly, I was very aware I had been drinking and was driving very defensively. When I got out of the car to meet the RCMP, I could walk fine, with no stagger, and I wasn't slurring my words in the least. It was late at night with light traffic on the road. I don't think the current drinking/driving laws allow for people who can drive responsibly while moderately over the limit. I feel strongly that some kind of means test should be implemented. There are so many ways to beat roadblocks (I no longer drink) and if the police were serious, they would just set up on around the corner from pubs. As it is, conviction is by lottery. If you're unlucky enough to hit a roadblock, and get a nasty cop, you have a better chance of a conviction. I'm glad most cops I've met in my time, were handing out 24 hour suspensions if you were reasonable and cooperative, and not obviously impaired. On the basis of the lottery, some people who are serious drunks will never have a conviction, while people who are responsible about driving under the influence will get busted. Of course, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I think 0.08 is a good lower end, but no one should be busted for blowing that low unless they are seriously affected by alcohol. An upper level should certainly be a significant level of impairment. But many people react to alcohol in different ways. Some go crazy, or get aggressive, while others fall asleep or lose all coordination. Some drive very dangerously on alcohol, which I think is a major problem. With the current system, people are becoming adept at beating the roadblocks and spot checks. When a cop asks if you've been drinking, he can't apparently go any further if you deny it, even if he can smell it. I know one guy who was seriously impaired and just kept denying that he'd been drinking. The cop got really angry with him, but could do nothing. I disagree with the point of this thread, that people should get off completely in all cases. I think the cop on the scene is the best judge of that. In my case, the RCMP did not want to charge me. It was another cop from another jurisdiction, who was off duty, who insisted. Even though the cop gave me a glowing report, the judge listened to it vacantly and gave me a fine and suspension. Reading about it later in the paper another guy got off and another got a lesser fine. The system is not fair. Either you bust everybody, with a zero-tolerance law and a heavy jail sentence, or you play the game as it's played now. That means those with influence and good lawyers get better treatment. Under the present system, only selectede people get punished, and it's not doing much to resolve drinking/driving. Pulling a person over in a road block is no assurance the person is a risk. If the person falls out of the car, sure, charge him. If he can't stand up, or speak properly, charge him. But if the driver is a few points over, even double in my case, and he can perform sobriety tests, is co-operative and seems to be doing no one any harm, then give him a 24 hour, or let him go. If anyone is driving recklessly on alcohol, is seriously impaired, or causes bodily damage or death, put him away for a long, long time. We as a society are far too leanient on serious crime. It's not about punishment, it's for the peace of mind of the rest of us.

DWI, drunk driving, DUI, and a license to drink. madd, sadd, radd, A.A., and Alanon related. Copyright: 1993-2004 © Bruce Alm The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages. This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these; murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, college binge drinking, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless. If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular. There could also be many other positive results; families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we've all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc. This new law could go something like this: Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages. For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation. Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it,) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcohol beverages. What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle? What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers. This permit doesn't seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol. Most people of drinking age have a driver's license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don't drive. This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification. This could be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year. After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase. In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check I.D.s at the door, as they do now. Would this be a violation of rights? There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink. This could be a good saying, "If a person who doesn't know how to drive shouldn't have a license to drive, a person who doesn't know how to drink shouldn't have a license to drink." Here are some other pluses to this idea: A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically. The need for A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could be greatly diminished as well. What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases. Even though A.A. members as a group don't become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type. A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said "One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S.." If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue 'down the drain,' and so on. But it doesn't seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude. Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism. P.S. What ever happened to the skid row drunk?

Oh my goodnes what a boring life these people must lead. Drinking driving laws are way too strict.