--Ron White, "Drunk In Public"
Prosecutors in Alberta and Ontario have asked courts for dangerous offender status for repeat drunk drivers. However, the courts have ordered long-term offender status instead. Long-term offender status can be handed down in cases in which a court finds that a person who commits repeated violent crimes has a reasonable chance of rehabilitation.
He's wrong, you know. Being drunk in a bar, at least in Ontario, contravenes the Liquor License Act, section 31.4 (a), which reads
No person shall be in an intoxicated condition in a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access.
Bingo: being drunk outside your own home is against the law. Of course, so is murder, but that never seems to stop people from murdering.
Sixteen individuals are charged with various offenses in the aftermath of a horrific crash that killed three young men.
Tyler Mulcahy, 20, and three of his friends were served a total of 31 drinks over a period of "a few hours"; the golf club they were drinking at made no attempt to prevent them from driving away.
Only three of the sixteen charged were actually working at the restaurant on the day in question. Penalties may include fines of up to $250,000 for the corporation that runs the golf club; each individual charged further faces fines of up to $100,000 and/or a year in jail.
I guess before I start the ranting I should come clear on my attitudes towards alcohol: I hate it. I don't abstain completely, but my alcoholic intake can be measured in ounces per year. Having observed (far too) many drunken people, mostly males, over the years, I am at a total loss to explain why anyone would ever feel the need to drink past the "tipsy" stage. Judgement and rationality are defining characteristics of our shared humanity, and anything that impairs either, in a sane world, would be illegal.
But the insanity of the world we live in keeps hammering me day after day, and we've already tried prohibition, with disastrous results. So alcohol is one of the many things I've learned to deal with, on something of a tenuous basis.
(I can hear a chorus of drinkers poo-pooing me. Drinking takes me away from my problems. Yeah, sure. Maybe for a few hours. I once had a housemate who got himself so stinking drunk he puked all over himself, shat himself, and then passed out. When he woke up hours later, I'm willing to bet every problem he drank to escape was still with him, compounded by a wicked headache and near-mortal embarrassment. I'll never drink again, he said. That resolve lasted all of a week.)
Meanwhile, here's this case where people who were miles away from Lake Joseph golf club are facing stiff fines and/or jail time if convicted--and according to the linked article, it looks like a slam-drunk case.
I have to think it would be...even if our quartet of drunken fools somehow managed to appear sober after ingesting 31 drinks between them, that mere total--31!--ought to have set alarm bells ringing.
I have no problem charging the person or persons who actually served this group--as well as the manager who should have put a stop to it. But...directors? The vice-president of corporate relations? Isn't that a tad out of bounds?
Here's a real winner. Roger Walsh, 56, has been previously convicted of impaired driving 18 times. His 19th offense killed Anee Khudaverian, 47; her family is seeking to have Walsh labelled a dangerous offender, which would indefinately keep him around bars he wouldn't like so much.
As they say in Quebec, Qu'est-ce que le FUCK?
EIGHTEEN PREVIOUS OFFENSES? How in the almighty HELL was this man allowed to roam free?
In my world, drunk driving would be the same class of offense as "attempt murder" is right now. (Then again, in my world, "attempt murder" wouldn't exist: if you intended to kill somebody, and you tried to do it, let's treat you as if you succeeded).
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who would drive drunk even once, let alone repeatedly, in this day in age is clearly insane and should be treated as such. I see from reading the CBC story linked above that
Reasonable, my ass. Lock 'em up...and take away their keys.
Finally, the "two beer defense" as in but officer, I only had two beers!
In the past, people who were convicted of impaired driving on the basis of a Breathalyzer test showing a blood alcohol content of .08 mg/100 ml or higher could tell the attending officer they'd only had two beers and more than likely get off. Legislation to close that nifty loophole is now being challenged as unconstitutional. As it stands now, the onus is on the accused to prove the Breathalyzer unit was not functioning properly--an "impossible standard."
That may be true, although Breathalyzer units are frequently calibrated and checked--but so what?
My stepdad once encountered an Ontario Provincial Police R.I.D.E. (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) program spot check. The officer asked him if he'd been drinking, and he told the truth: he'd had one beer, two hours prior.
One beer.
The officer had him blow into a Breathalyzer. He blew clean...just barely.
One beer. He resolved then and there never to drink and drive again.
You know, the words Don't drink and drive are one syllable each. Why do so many people find them so incomprehensible?
1 comment:
When i was in high school we had a speaker come in and speak about Drinking and driving. It was an 18 year old kid whose parents were killed by a drunk driver when he was 15.
It was so sad, to think of losing both your parents when you are 15 due to someone else's negligence. It did the trick for me.
We need to increase the penalty for drinking and driving, it needs to be treated as any other violent crime. You drove tot he bar, before you start drinking you know you have to drive home, you make the sdecision to be negligent with every single drink you order, being drunk in the end is NO excuse.
Post a Comment