Zero tolerance law for young (Ontario) drivers makes zero sense

[Body By Balco]

By David Menzies

Ah, to be an Ontarian! Lesser Canadians have no idea what’s it’s like to be living in a bubble-wrapped province, presided over by Premier Daddy McGuinty.

Indeed, Uncle Dalton – who is apparently head over heels in lust with a lacklustre lass who answers to the name of Nanny State – is about to introduce yet more motoring legislation to protect us from ourselves.

Thus, starting this Sunday, drivers under the age of 22 in Ontario must have a blood alcohol reading of precisely zero. This is regardless of how many years of driving experience they have or what type of licence they possess. If you’re 16-21 and you plan to quaff even half a glass of beer, don’t you dare get behind the wheel or you’ll be in big trouble.

As per usual, Premier Pinocchio has given the good folks of Ontario lots of notice – six full days, actually – to get up to snuff with the new regs. (Although, the changes were undoubtedly listed on some government website months ago – right next to the eco fee fiasco.)

How sad to think a 21-year-old can be penalized come Sunday for having just 0.01% of alcohol in his system. Surely many mature and responsible young drivers can function quite well after drinking a can of beer or quaffing a glass of wine. But they’ll find out the hard way that zero tolerance is the new provincial policy if they get pulled-over at a checkpoint this coming long weekend. Sad but true, if a young motorist blows .04% on Saturday, he’s good to go; should he blow that amount (or less) the following day, surprise! He’s a drunk driver.

For what it’s worth, the authority to enact these changes was contained within Bill 126, The Safe Roads Act, which received Royal Assent 15 months ago. The decision to move ahead with the changes was made by cabinet two months ago. Thus, the question arises: why did Premier Dad wait seven weeks to announce these profound changes?

This isn’t the first fiasco spawned by this government when it comes to young drivers. Two years ago, Premier Dad wanted to make it illegal for drivers under the age of 21 to have more than one teenaged passenger with them. The Preem quickly backed down when someone explained to him that kids, especially in rural Ontario, tend to carpool as a matter of necessity. Thus, limiting a driver under the age of 21 to only one comparably-aged passenger would make it illegal for a responsible 20-year-old to be a designated driver. Duh!

Let’s be honest: this ill-conceived tough-on-youth driving legislation was strongly encouraged by Tim Mulcahy, whose 20-year-old son Tyler was killed in a 2008 car crash after he spent the afternoon drinking to excess at a restaurant in Port Carling. Tyler and two of his friends died when his high-powered Audi veered into a river.

Tyler, by the way, was in danger of losing his driver’s licence due to several traffic charges at the time. Yet, after his son was killed, the well-heeled Mulcahy took out full-page newspaper ads urging Ontario to tighten rules for young drivers. And apparently in Ontario, money talks and common sense walks.

So, thanks to the grossly irresponsible actions of a young person from a wealthy family, now all young people in Ontario will pay a price – regardless of their level of maturity or responsibility.




My comments...

Drinking and driving is a serious issue, however this absurd law isn't going to change the drinking and driving habits of those had no respect for the old law. Those who drank too much AND drove under the 0.8 and then 0.5 regulations (whatever the measurement is mg/dl of blood or something), will still be drinking and driving under this new law. All that is going to happen is that even more responsible young people will be rounded up convicted by the courts, and ****ed over for years to come by insurance companies.

If a person who is 21 (the ON drinking age is 19), cannot go for dinner, a date or out with his friends and have a single drink ALL night for fear of a DUI charge, then this goes TOO far. Not every one lives in an urban setting with access to public transportation of taxi services.

In ON a person can have a full 'G' licence by the age of 18 if everything goes smoothly in the Graduated Licence program. Having a 'G' lic. for 4 years and having a ZERO alcohol tolerance is absurd.

[Aaron_37]

Here in British Columbia, we have similar legislation... albeit not as brutal. Our equivalent of the Ontarian "G2" phase requires only one passenger excluding family members and is void if a full-licensed 25 year old is in the car. Thus, though you're stuck with one passenger, there are other considerations given, especially for large families.

As well, it prohibits alcohol consumption to the amount of 0.00. When we graduate to full license, which can be done around the age of 18, then the limit moves to infinite passengers and 0.05 (implemented this fall.)

In this sense, though the legislation is similar, the BC one is a little more effective in achieving its goals. It makes sense to me that alcohol and passengers should be restricted, but I think that the Ontario method ought to take a page out of the BC one.

[Joe_Ripped]

I agree with you BBB.. good post..

to add to this... last week I was out golfing for the first time of the year, and in the golf cart (on private property) there was a sign saying "if you're holding an alcoholic beverage while driving this cart you can be charged with impaired driving"... I'm all for being responsible.. but seems ridiculous... I can't sip on one beer on my day off while driving an electric cart about 10km/hour?? and on private property?? Not to mention how hard it's been for golf courses to make a profit after the recession and par dollar with the US.. let's just make it even tougher by making golf not as much fun..

[turboturist]

Don't see a problem with it, I think it should be zero tolerance for everyone right across the board and right across the country.

Letting there be a .05 to a .08 limit gives people the chance to try and push that limit, IMO.

[clicker666]

I agree with the law, just because you have had one or two drinks doesn't mean that there is no level of impairment in your system. You may not be able to take that curve as fast, or were just a moment too slow in braking. Why take the chance when you are already dealing with drivers who have very little experience already?

How many "designated drivers" are picked because they had the LEAST amount to drink in the group?

[Doryphorus]

[QUOTE=Aaron_37;391569]Here in British Columbia, we have similar legislation... albeit not as brutal. Our equivalent of the Ontarian "G2" phase requires only one passenger excluding family members and is void if a full-licensed 25 year old is in the car. Thus, though you're stuck with one passenger, there are other considerations given, especially for large families.

As well, it prohibits alcohol consumption to the amount of 0.00. When we graduate to full license, which can be done around the age of 18, then the limit moves to infinite passengers and 0.05 (implemented this fall.)
QUOTE]


Unless you're talking about changes that will be implemented in fall 2010, in BC now, the graduated licencing program actually lasts 2.5 - 3 years (12 months with the red L, and 18 - 24 months with the green N) depending on whether you enroll in driving school or not, and a 0.00 BAC is required at all times.

Incidentally, this lines the legal drinking age (19) up roughly with the time most people are eligible for their full licence (class 5).

[Body By Balco]

I agree with you BBB.. good post..

to add to this... last week I was out golfing for the first time of the year, and in the golf cart (on private property) there was a sign saying "if you're holding an alcoholic beverage while driving this cart you can be charged with impaired driving"... I'm all for being responsible.. but seems ridiculous... I can't sip on one beer on my day off while driving an electric cart about 10km/hour?? and on private property?? Not to mention how hard it's been for golf courses to make a profit after the recession and par dollar with the US.. let's just make it even tougher by making golf not as much fun..



I know more than 1 person who has been charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle while cutting their grass and holding a beer. The holding of the beer was what made the cop stop in the first place.

[Body By Balco]

I wonder what happens to the Amish and the Mennonites who drive a horse and buggy?? There a plenty of communities in southern Ontario that have Amish and Mennonites. I would love to see one of those stopped at a ride program. LOL!

(It's a semi serious question)??

[natenator]

I know more than 1 person who has been charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle while cutting their grass and holding a beer. The holding of the beer was what made the cop stop in the first place.

Gotta love rednecks....

[Body By Balco]

Gotta love rednecks....


They were cutting the grass with a riding lawn mower, not some RedGreen chopped up Chevy powered grass eating machine.

I cut my grass drinking a beer frequently.


pffft...city boy!

[gicantor]

Don't see a problem with it, I think it should be zero tolerance for everyone right across the board and right across the country.

Letting there be a .05 to a .08 limit gives people the chance to try and push that limit, IMO.


I agree with the law, just because you have had one or two drinks doesn't mean that there is no level of impairment in your system. You may not be able to take that curve as fast, or were just a moment too slow in braking. Why take the chance when you are already dealing with drivers who have very little experience already?

How many "designated drivers" are picked because they had the LEAST amount to drink in the group?

You guys must not have much of a social life. This law doesn't apply to me and I think it's the most retarded thing ever.So now a couple going on a date can't even have glass of wine with their meal?! I'm mean where the f*ck do you draw the line? Just another example of the "babysitter" type government we have in ontario, punishing everyone because of a few bad apples. But these little bullshit laws they impose makes it look like they're doing their job instead of tackling real issues.

[natenator]

I'm sure anyone that has had a loved one killed by an impaired driver (noticed I said impaired and not drunk?) has no problems with such a law.

I am not sure I have a problem with this law or not. What I do know is that maybe, just maybe if some people got nailed in their younger years maybe that would have been enough to smarten themselves up for future ones.

I broke my neck speeding heavily and that wreck ended athletic aspirations that I had and that were looking quite achievable for myself. Do I speed still? Yes I do but I don't do extreme speeding that I used to and it's quite often pointed out by friends that my driving resembles that of a "grandpa". I recognize what past mistakes cost me and more importantly what it COULD have cost me (my life) and try not to put myself in such positions these days.

So for me, my past actions has had a direct cause and effect on future actions.

[Body By Balco]

Just another example of the "babysitter" type government we have in ontario, punishing everyone because of a few bad apples.


This is the REAL issue as I see it. Those who are caught should be educated, in a way that licence suspension fails to accomplish. Maybe a week of autopsy viewing or something. Leave the rest of us who are within the limits of the law ALONE!

Obviously the reduction in alcohol tolerance limits is failing...this government repeatedly lowers the limits.

Alcohol is a legal product that is heavily marketed in Canada, and very socially acceptable...look at any dinner table next time you dine out. These people for the most part are socially responsible...leave them alone. Target the idiots once you catch them. Placing the limits at zero across the board for everyone isn't going to stop the idiots and is not the answer in my esteemed opinion.

Driving is inherently dangerous (with or without impaired drivers) and the mere fact that many of us do it daily does not make it less so. Somehow we neglect to view it as such... I don't need alcohol to speed, miss a stop sign or otherwise collide with another vehicle.

[steve_d]

I don't have a problem with this rule (partly because I am not 21). But I would argue that this will have an effect for anyone under 22. To say that it won't change behaviors is wrong. Think of how many people try to guess how many drinks they can have and be under the limit. I am sure tuns of people who used to drink a few beers knowing they would likely be under will simply have none, knowing the new rules. It might even save a bunch of people who mistakingly thought they would be under but were not.

Personally I think the rule should be 0.0 for everyone, all ages. I know that my driving is quite impaired even under 0.08.

[gicantor]

I'm sure anyone that has had a loved one killed by an impaired driver (noticed I said impaired and not drunk?) has no problems with such a law.




I see your point but this is where people need to wake up and open their eyes. If your loved one is killed by an "impaired" driver, then they should be charged with murder. Plain and simple.But no that would make to much sense. Never mind these mickey mouse bullshit laws that do nothing. You want to wake someone up throw a murder charge at them.

My point is the government needs to stop holding peoples hands like they are children. You can't keep punishing people for something they haven't done.

Actually you know what? Let's ban everything dangerous. That way nobody will ever get hurt again.

Sooo lets start with:

-alcohol
-cars with over 350hp
-pitbulls( oh wait they did that already i feel safe now)
-power tools( i might chop my hand off)
-needles
-riding lawnmowers
-firearms
-skydiving
-sex
-talking on cell phones while driving( oops they did that those smart bastards)


^^lol that was just for fun but I'm serious about the murder charges.

[gicantor]

This is the REAL issue as I see it. Those who are caught should be educated, in a way that licence suspension fails to accomplish. Maybe a week of autopsy viewing or something. Leave the rest of us who are within the limits of the law ALONE!

Obviously the reduction in alcohol tolerance limits is failing...this government repeatedly lowers the limits.
Alcohol is a legal product that is heavily marketed in Canada, and very socially acceptable...look at any dinner table next time you dine out. These people for the most part are socially responsible...leave them alone. Target the idiots once you catch them. Placing the limits at zero across the board for everyone isn't going to stop the idiots and is not the answer in my esteemed opinion.


Exactly! That's what I'm trying to say. This is the kind of thinking we need in office.

[wrought]

I think this is a great idea, it'll get more kids smoking weed!! :p

[Body By Balco]

OK all you zero tolerance lovers riddle me this. Saturday afternoon I am home and have 3 beers (zero tolerance is the law now) which are finished by 4PM. At what time Saturday night can I drive? 7PM..8PM??? Remember ZERO tolerance. I am a hard working tax paying dude who can loose my livelihood if I cannot drive to work. I had better get my alcohol level right or I'm ****ed.

OR would you zero tolerance lovers have it that because of varying body sizes and metabolic rates, anyone who decides to consume alcohol should stay put for the entire day and night.




I find this zero tolerance argument nearly preposterous.

[turboturist]

I'm sure anyone that has had a loved one killed by an impaired driver (noticed I said impaired and not drunk?) has no problems with such a law.

I am not sure I have a problem with this law or not. What I do know is that maybe, just maybe if some people got nailed in their younger years maybe that would have been enough to smarten themselves up for future ones.

I broke my neck speeding heavily and that wreck ended athletic aspirations that I had and that were looking quite achievable for myself. Do I speed still? Yes I do but I don't do extreme speeding that I used to and it's quite often pointed out by friends that my driving resembles that of a "grandpa". I recognize what past mistakes cost me and more importantly what it COULD have cost me (my life) and try not to put myself in such positions these days.

So for me, my past actions has had a direct cause and effect on future actions.

If you took a picture of my grad class in grade 6 approx half of them are dead. The majority of them due to some kind of traffic incident with alcohol involved.

I was no angel when it came to drinking/drugs and driving in my late teens right up to my late 20's so my opinions are hypocritical but now having kids, one at 19, I dont think there is anything wrong with a zero tolerance across the board for everyone. I dont agree with the new drivers being singled out.

And as Nate says if you learn the lesson early on maybe it will stick with you.


You guys must not have much of a social life. This law doesn't apply to me and I think it's the most retarded thing ever.So now a couple going on a date can't even have glass of wine with their meal?! I'm mean where the f*ck do you draw the line? Just another example of the "babysitter" type government we have in ontario, punishing everyone because of a few bad apples. But these little bullshit laws they impose makes it look like they're doing their job instead of tackling real issues.

What the hell does having a social life and drinking and driving have to do with one another? Arrange another ride or take some other mode of transportation. No reason you cant go out on a date and have a few drinks an still get home without getting behind the wheel. And if you want to nail the chick on the way home in the car just call me, i'll DD.

[turboturist]

OK all you zero tolerance lovers riddle me this. Saturday afternoon I am home and have 3 beers (zero tolerance is the law now) which are finished by 4PM. At what time Saturday night can I drive? 7PM..8PM??? Remember ZERO tolerance. I am a hard working tax paying dude who can loose my livelihood if I cannot drive to work. I had better get my alcohol level right or I'm ****ed.

OR would you zero tolerance lovers have it that because of varying body sizes and metabolic rates, anyone who decides to consume alcohol should stay put for the entire day and night.




I find this zero tolerance argument nearly preposterous.

If you know your going to work later in the day or need to go somewhere don't drink, it's pretty simple.

[Body By Balco]

If you know your going to work later in the day or need to go somewhere don't drink, it's pretty simple.


In one scenario perhaps it is simple...if you know you have to go somewhere.

I am playing devils advocate here..or trying (its hard to keep my personal opinion quashed...lol) .


At some point Saturday evening I will be once again legal to drive...I would like to know when that is. So that I can resume a legal activity...just like the legal activity I participated in earlier in the afternoon of consuming a moderate amount of alcohol in my own private residence.

[ironwill]

I wonder what happens to the Amish and the Mennonites who drive a horse and buggy?? There a plenty of communities in southern Ontario that have Amish and Mennonites. I would love to see one of those stopped at a ride program. LOL!

(It's a semi serious question)??

A fellow i know first hand, not a friend of a friend got drunk in a public place driving his horse and buggy home from the bar one night.....LOL, no impaired as it wasnt a motor vehicle, but he did get a drunk in public place charge....:o

[LonelyBedouin]

I agree with everyone saying that it should be zero tolerance for all.


OK all you zero tolerance lovers riddle me this. Saturday afternoon I am home and have 3 beers (zero tolerance is the law now) which are finished by 4PM. At what time Saturday night can I drive? 7PM..8PM??? Remember ZERO tolerance. I am a hard working tax paying dude who can loose my livelihood if I cannot drive to work. I had better get my alcohol level right or I'm ****ed.

OR would you zero tolerance lovers have it that because of varying body sizes and metabolic rates, anyone who decides to consume alcohol should stay put for the entire day and night.




I find this zero tolerance argument nearly preposterous.

If you choose to drink call a cab if your unsure of what blood alcohol level your at.

[Body By Balco]

I agree with everyone saying that it should be zero tolerance for all.



If you choose to drink call a cab if your unsure of what blood alcohol level your at.



What taxi services exist for the vast majority of the province in RURAL Ontario. Rural Ontarians are obliged to follow the same laws as the rest of the province.

[LonelyBedouin]

Thats fine, as Ive been up north plenty of times in rural Ontario and have been able to get a cab just fine. And if theres no cab then we what what we call a DESIGNATED DRIVER. You dont have to drink so I dont see what the problem is.

[japh]

I guess as a society we're all going to have to carry our own breathalyzers with us from now on. lol

This topic strikes a chord with me. Last summer I drank 2 beers with lunch and recieved a 24 hour. It was always my understanding that a person my size (220 at the time) could drink 3 and NOT blow over .8 I don't trust breathalyzers now! I got in my car immediatley after lunch and proceeded to drive home. Considering my past I thought this was no big deal. lol Long story short I had been pursuing a dream of becoming a firefighter and now because of a 24 hr that is probably NOT going to happen. I had a clean driver record (miracle) and no criminal record (again miracle). I invested a lot of money and time into turning my life around and doing something good for society and myself. Because I drank 2 beers and drove I am now currently pursuing psychiatric nursing instead where I want to work in the field of mental health and addictions. What a joke imo.

[macka]

In my big berg, we organised a dd rotation at the legion. 99% of us can walk home anyways, unless a certain cop takes a shine to us in which case we get a ride one way or another.
I think all Ontarians should vote McGuinty out this time round, if not Northern Ontario should apply for status as a province. I'm tired of the Southern Jackasses in Moron Central telling us how to live. From stopping a 500 million dollar tourist industry, to telling us how many times we have to jump through hoops to get grants for improvement to the region. They feel free to tax us to the nuts, tell us guns are bad and try to take them away, tell us how to raise our kids, basically tell us what underwear to wear on thursday. It ****ing irks me to no end some dumb ass city **** can tell me that I should wait for the police who are 40 minutes away to shoot the bear coming into my house right now. Not that I'm bitter.:rolleyes:

[#8]

How anyone votes liberal federally or provincially I will NEVER understand.

This law is a ****ing joke. No drinking and driving laws have ever stopped drunk drivers, nor will they. This law will only result in the criminilization of people who are probably not doing anything wrong.

****. More court time and tax dollars wasted. Keep it up Ontario....

[rated_rko]

there just trying to make extra money for ontarios debt

[clicker666]

Last summer I drank 2 beers with lunch and recieved a 24 hour. It was always my understanding that a person my size (220 at the time) could drink 3 and NOT blow over .8 I don't trust breathalyzers now!

One day after fighting a fire I had two beers in the hall before heading home. (volunteer) I drove this route a million times, and felt totally sober. Needless to say I was surprised when I almost ended up in the ditch trying to take a corner at a speed I could have negotiated much faster when in optimal shape. My blood alcohol level might have even been under .08, who knows.

My dad won't drive anywhere for at least an hour after having just ONE drink. His logic is simple. If he kills someone on the way, he doesn't want it to be the result of drinking and driving. He doesn't want to have to live with that for the rest of his life.

[Forever]

I agree with all who say it should be 0.0% for everyone across the country. Is alcohol that important in your life that you can't go out for dinner or enjoy a social function without it, really? I'm 26 so this law doesn't affect me, but regardless I have had my license since I was 16 and if I plan on going anywhere I don't have a beer, I have water. Its just that easy!

If I am playing designated driver, I drink water or diet coke and I don't understand why you would drink a beer or two, you are supposed to be the SOBER person! If a beer or two at the bar helps you loosen up, its also impairing your ability to drive your friend home safe.



This law is a ****ing joke. No drinking and driving laws have ever stopped drunk drivers, nor will they.
Locks don't stop burglars either but we all have them. The same as a lock on your front door (which wont stop a brick through the window) its meant as a deterrent.

[#8]

^^ Does someone walk behind you reminding you to inhale and exhale so you dont die?

I guess we should just all be fingerprinted at birth too, and have a chip implanted in our skin in case we ever break the law so the gov't can find us much more easily and deal with us accordingly.

I drive a ****ing bike for christs sakes and I dont agree with this law. People will drink and drive no matter what and this law wont prevent or deter ANY drunk driving AT ALL.

[Big D]

I couldn't care less about these stupid laws, everytime i drink there's always someone that's willing to drive even tho they had a few.

[Spyder122]

I have friends that can drive better half in the bag than some who are completely sober. Like a 17 year old girl singing along with Britney Spears in her car, not paying attention to the road and rear ending someone at a Red light. LOL, happend to a buddy of mine. The song was still playing when he approached the car.

[Forever]

I drive a ****ing bike for christs sakes and I dont agree with this law. People will drink and drive no matter what and this law wont prevent or deter ANY drunk driving AT ALL.
I have to disagree. This will remove the variable and guesswork when someone tries to decide if they should drive home or not. Everyone knows that after a few drinks people's inhibitions and reasoning skills are reduced, which leads to a lot of people doing the "well I had 5 drinks in 2 hours so I should be legal because I had coffee and...." thing.

Your right in that if someone is determined to drink and drive they still will, but I think most people try to follow the law, especially laws with harsh punishments such as drinking and driving in Ontario.

Also most people under 22 are still in the "I'm invincible" or "it wont happen to me" stage of life where they haven't had enough life experience or known enough people who were killed to realize that yea it could be them that gets drunk, drives and gets in an accident, and yea it could be them that dies or kills someone else.

@Spyder122: I'm not sure that girl should have her license in the first place and I certainly wouldn't be comparing my friends impaired driving skills to hers as a justification for driving impaired.

[Joe_Ripped]

I'm no expert here.. but I have something against this mostly as the increasing laws/regulations never seem to be ending.. and my taxes keep going up... am I just paying some shmuck to sit there and keep making new regs. to keep their job? makes me wonder... don't these seem like "politically correct" laws rather than using facts??

Is there any real research showing this will change anything??

If it is lowered to 0.00 for everyone.. does the punishment fit the crime? am I guilty on the spot like the 12 hour suspensions for what was previously ok? did that change anything?

Ie. here's some info , although bit old on speeding... fines keep going up for speeding (at least in ontario)... yet lots of research showing having speed limits actually increases fatalities..

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

just seems like a whack load of politically correct laws... babysitting.. yet when shit hits the fan the government can't save us anyway...

anyway that's the end of my rant...

[massmachine]

(zero tolerance is the law now)

No it is not. One can still have between .00 and .49mg of alcohol in their blood. Suspensions start at .50 and up. I'm talking a regular G driver here...

[#8]

^^ whoa.

i hope you mean 0.05

and thats only for now. thats kinda the topic of this thread....

[massmachine]

^^ whoa.

i hope you mean 0.05

and thats only for now. thats kinda the topic of this thread....

You sir are correct. I for one don't pay much attention to laws. My bad...

[japh]

Forever makes some good points. At least there will be no gray area now.

The gray area is what got me. lol What I learned from my incident before they ever changed the law is that I CAN NO LONGER DRINK ANYTHING and drive.

It just simplifies things for the goverment from a legal standpoint thats all. It does make sense from their pesrpective.

I'm still not saying I agree with it but from the sense of policing society on a whole it does make things easier for them. lol I think it will deter some people too. At least they'll know what their doing now even if they have 2 beers and drive like I did.

[O-Train]

On the radio they were saying that scientific research has concluded that 0.02 starts to effect your brain. Apparently in Sweden thats what they've set the legal limit at. It seems low but I think it's a lot smarter than our laws. At least it's based on something.

[macka]

On the radio they were saying that scientific research has concluded that 0.02 starts to effect your brain. Apparently in Sweden thats what they've set the legal limit at. It seems low but I think it's a lot smarter than our laws. At least it's based on something.

Sweden is considered one of the leading "nanny" states

[O-Train]

Sweden is considered one of the leading "nanny" states

Personally I don't have a problem with a law that attempts to deter people from driving while intoxicated. I understand what you're talking about though.

[Spyder122]

@Spyder122: I'm not sure that girl should have her license in the first place and I certainly wouldn't be comparing my friends impaired driving skills to hers as a justification for driving impaired.

By no means am I justifying reasons for my friends to be driving impaired. Definitely not an excuse. It was more a "Just saying" kinda deal.

[macka]

Personally I don't have a problem with a law that attempts to deter people from driving while intoxicated. I understand what you're talking about though.

Yea its like the gun registry was supposed to stop gun crime. I guess someone forgot to tell the criminals to register their ill gotten handguns.

[RagingRandy]

Somebody is in court today fighting this legislation. I wish them well.http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/843521--alcohol-ban-for-young-drivers-faces-charter-challenge?bn=1