On September 21st, 2010, I reported on the fact that the Province of British Columbia had enacted tough new provincial regulations in regard to drinking and driving. In effect, BC has lowered the maximum BAC level to 0.05  when penalties kick in. You can read that post here to see what the new penalties are and how it might affect you.

Now, according to the Vancouver Sun, Marita Maas who is a board member of Vancouver’s MADD is reported as saying,

“MADD has never been prohibitionists. We don’t have a problem with social drinking. The problem is when people drink to excess.”

MADD is apparently responding to critics of BC’s new provincial laws, suggesting that social drinkers who enjoy one or two drinks have nothing to fear from the new regulations.

The problem however is that no one really knows on an individual basis how many drinks it will take to reach any Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC). There are so many variables that even include body temperature, the temperature of the air in the lungs, menstrual cycles, circadian rhythms, and metabolic rates, just to name a few.

As well, there is the issue of giving the Police judicial powers to impound vehicles and hand out license suspensions before the allegations are even proven in court. One thing that very well may become an issue in BC’s new laws are how accurately the true BAC was measured. In criminal investigations, it is required in Canada that an Intoxilyzer breath test be administered twice, the second about 20 minutes later after the first one.

One of the reasons for this is to account for any “mouth alcohol” that may be present during the first intoxilyzer test that may overstate the Blood Alcohol Concentration.

In a roadside administered test, will the Police be asking the motorist to provide a second sample 20 minutes later in order to discount mouth alcohol present during the first test?

If a driver goes into a pub and has a shot of whiskey, leaves the pub and three minutes later is asked to blow into a roadside screening device by police in British Columbia, will there be any appeals allowed by the driver to have a second test administered 20 minutes later if the driver happens to blow 0.06?

I don’t have the answers to that question, but as serious as drinking and driving or driving under the influence is, I am also very uncomfortable with giving police officers what amounts to judicial powers where a legal defense cannot be mounted before punishment is meted out.  Drivers will not be able to seek a defense and demand to see calibration records for the roadside breath testing device, and it is very possible that the equipment may not be calibrated, or is damaged, or some other circumstance such as mouth alcohol that is not accounted for.

As much as it is a great idea to have roads where drivers are not impaired, legal punishment and penalties before a fair trial before an impartial judge and/or jury can hear a case and make judgement is a very slippery slope.

HT: Mr. DUI

RELATED:

British Columbia Introduces Stricter Alcohol Penalties