Comments on: Idea alert

By: Style

Style — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:11:41 +0000

When you're pulled over in a car, for whatever reason, you need to show license and registration. The police then check whether there are outstanding warrants against you or the vehicle. This has been the case for a number of years and I have yet to have an officer come to my door and do the same. Does it happen regularly in your neighbourhood?

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:38:19 +0000

You you you pinko Bin Laden-loving communist!

By: Andrew (not P or C)

Andrew (not P or C) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:36:15 +0000

Maybe we should have police go door to door, performing 'random' inspections to ensure no illegal behaviour is occurring. There is no material difference between that and unwarranted breathalizer tests.

By: TJCook

TJCook — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:35:39 +0000

Ah, but you're assuming that our Dear Leaders give a rat's ass about such things.

The point is that it would play well to the base. Screw the constitution – in the words of George W. Bush, "It's just a goddamn piece of paper!"

By: MJ Patchouli

MJ Patchouli — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:33:53 +0000

I don't actually like MADD as an organization, and I'm intrigued that they have a man as their CEO. Hmmm…

anyhoo, yeah, don't need more legislation on this. What does Helene Guergis have to say about it?

By: Gaunilon

Gaunilon — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:17:49 +0000

People are alarmed about the civil liberties aspects to this, but how (in principle) is it any different from the RIDE program?

…which is also why I'm opposed to the RIDE program. If there's no particular reason to stop a motorist, the police should not have the right to do it.

EDIT: and now that I'm reading the comments I see that Jolyon has already made the same point, only more succinctly.

By: Gaunilon

Gaunilon — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:16:54 +0000

People are alarmed about the civil liberties aspects to this, but how (in principle) is it any different from the RIDE program?

…which is also why I'm opposed to the RIDE program. If there's no particular reason to stop a motorist, the police should not have the right to do it.

EDIT: and now that I'm reading the comments I see that Jolyon has already made the same point.

By: Gaunilon

Gaunilon — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:15:16 +0000

People are alarmed about the civil liberties aspects to this, but how (in principle) is it any different from the RIDE program?

…which is also why I'm opposed to the RIDE program. If there's no particular reason to stop a motorist, the police should not have the right to do it.

By: Gaunilon

Gaunilon — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:15:06 +0000

People are alarmed about the civil liberties aspects to this, but how (in principle) is it any different from the RIDE program?

…which is why I'm opposed to the RIDE program. If there's no particular reason to stop a motorist, the police should not have the right to do it.

By: Crit_Reasoning

Crit_Reasoning — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:48:10 +0000

It's just one guy – that familiar troll we all know and despise. He posted as "Lib Fail" a few months ago.

Don't worry, he doesn't actually believe a word of what he says. He's one of those "performance artist" commenters… in this case, a left-leaning individual who gets his jollies by identifying himself as a Conservative and then writing bigoted, intentionally ridiculous rants.

He probably thinks it's satire or caricature, but he's really just a sad, boring troll.

By: Crit_Reasoning

Crit_Reasoning — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:47:21 +0000

It's just one guy – that familiar troll we all know and despise. He posted as "Lib Fail" a few months ago.

He probably thinks it's satire or caricature, but he's really just a sad, boring troll.

By: Douglass

Douglass — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:20:02 +0000

Whats with the trolls and their anti-women crap today??

By: Foth Swallowed

Foth Swallowed — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:11:39 +0000

Don't blame conservatives for this one – if it were up to us they would be called Mothers For Staying The Hell In The Kitchen and they'd stick to their knitting.

By: hosertohoosier

hosertohoosier — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:41:29 +0000

Its only "organized crime" because pot (at least the production side) is illegal. If you want to deprive organized crime of a major source of revenue, and end a whole host of problems with pot, then legalize it 100%. We can then focus our resources on preventing minors from getting it. Imagine a Canada full of safe marijuana produced by profit-seeking corporations. It is only a matter of time before other countries legalize themselves. If Canada makes a move first (and legalizes pot in a free market way, rather than the Dutch approach) Canadian pot can be the French wine of the world of marijuana (actually I am reliably informed that it sort of already is).

By: Douglass

Douglass — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:20:37 +0000

Hmm I'm skeptical about this idea. I'd like to see the details as to what sort of powers this would give police. It seems to step on a great many of our civil liberties.

I understand why MADD trys to push reform like this. But even good intentions can go awry.

By: Douglass

Douglass — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:17:36 +0000

Oh my!

By: e_ron

e_ron — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:50:55 +0000

MADD is the same group that supported the previous batch of inane proposed changes for new Ontario drivers. With the current drinking/driving laws that are around now, what is MADD's function? Reduce the legal limit even more? Zero tolerance for having one beer while watching a hockey game at a pub? Prohibition?

By: Crit_Reasoning

Crit_Reasoning — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:36:30 +0000

Wait until you hear my thoughts on marijuana prohibition! I think that possession of small amounts should be effectively decriminalized, though large-scale grow ops and organized crime should continue to be targeted by the law.

By: Crit_Reasoning

Crit_Reasoning — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:36:19 +0000

Wait until you hear my thoughts on marijuana prohibition. I think that possession of small amounts should be effectively decriminalized, though large-scale grow ops and organized crime should continue to be targeted by the law.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:34:44 +0000

This seems unnecessary. If a cop doesn't have a basis for thinking someone's been drinking, why test them? Given that cops sometimes pull people over for no real reason and then try to find a justification, this would just be another thing for them to harass people with.

By: Style

Style — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:24:03 +0000

It's completely different – RIDE randomly stops drivers and *talks* to them before suggesting a breathalyser. Under this new totalitarian nightmare, the cop wouldn't talk to you first. And might shoot you, torture you or disappear you rather than administer a breathalyser (I'm extrapolating that last bit from comments). Seriously, if we allow this, how long will it be before there are cameras at the stoplights to catch drivers running red lights or radar cameras to fine speeding drivers? If we can't be safe from state scrutiny while endangering others on public streets, where can we be safe?

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:19:34 +0000

You latte-drinking, soft on crime, hippie leftie, you.

By: LynnTO

LynnTO — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:14:39 +0000

I thought we had a Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure? And of innocence until proven guilty? IMO, Such a law should never see the light of day in this context…

By: Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

Andrew (not Potter or Coyne) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:59:17 +0000

Sounds like we’re edging toward a police state. This government already wants to give police unfettered privileges to eavesdrop on citizens without a warrant. Why not just come out and say that they want to install checkpoints where police can search people for contraband.

By: jolyon

jolyon — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:50:25 +0000

Doesn't the RIDE Program launched every Christmas consist of random tests?

I think this is just a way for the State to be even more obtrusive than it already is. Police would assume all drivers are drunk until proven otherwise.

By: Crit_Reasoning

Crit_Reasoning — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:50:19 +0000

This is a terrible idea. The concerns raised about civil liberties are valid.

By: austinso

austinso — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:42:38 +0000

Nice…the CPC wants to give police carte blanche for harassment….why not just have them follow us around like in the good ol' days of the Soviet Union? We already have the billboards and the flyers…

By: Thwim

Thwim — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:42:16 +0000

Yes.. such a drastic change from the officer saying "Yeah, I suspected you'd been drinking" to saying, "Yeah, I wanted to pull you over."

It's a totally subjective opinion by the officer at the time in either case.