0.008lowme

From MacLeans.com:

"Kevin Wiener, a 20-year-old student at the University of Western Ontario, has filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to challenge anti-drunk-driving legislation that he says discriminates based on age. The new legislation requires Ontarians under 22 years old to have no alcohol in their blood while driving. The law is in addition to laws already on the books that punish drivers of all ages whose roadside blood-alcohol content is above 0.05. Wiener says the rules, which allow for 24-hour roadside suspensions, plus fines of up to $500 and 30-day suspensions, violate the Canadian Carter [sic] of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against age discrimination. Ontario’s Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne said the law is necessary because drivers aged 19-21 who are involved in crashes are 1.5 times more likely to have some level of alcohol in their blood."

Hoo-fucking-RAY! I'm so glad someone finally called this as what it is - discriminatory bullshit. If black people were statistically more likely to get in accidents would we ban them from having alcohol in their blood? How about if it was boys more than girls (and insurance companies believe that statistically, it is)? Discriminatory laws based on anything - age, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc. - are just that. Discriminatory. No matter what group is targeted.

Plus, if the limit right now is 0.08, and the people who are out driving drunkenly and irresponsibly are over this limit, why would a lower limit stop them? People who drink to excess and drive already know they're doing something wrong. This law doesn't discourage irresponsible behaviour, it just puts limits on the people who stay within the allowed 0.08 blood alcohol level... you know, the ones more likely to be the designated drivers. This is just so counter intuitive. How about just making it a zero alcohol policy for new drivers with less than 5 years experience? Or how about targetting other distractions while driving - like big goddamn billboards with near-naked women on them? The vast majority of DWIs are repeat offenders, so how about better rehabilitation programs for people who are caught driving impaired? Or why not insist that anyone charged with a DWI must have zero blood-alcohol from that point forward? It'd be a deterrant, at least.

Besides this, only 30% of DWIs are people under 22 - so what about that other 70%? Or do we divide that into groups as well so that it doesn't look so bad? This is where the logic of "21 and under" fails me. You can bend statistics to look however you want them to by expanding and contracting your sample group (for example, I could say that 30% of DWIs are from people 21 and under, and I could say that 70% are 22 and over, OR if I wanted to create a bullshit discriminatory law, I could use a control group of 30 and under to make my percentage look bigger. Or I could divide the remainder into smaller groups like 22-25, 25-30, 30-25, etc. so that it looks like their percentages are less.) A lot of people are being punished with this new law, and a lot of them haven't done a thing wrong. If the government is so concerned with drunk driving and saving lives then how about this: instead of pussy-footing around the issue, make it a ZERO BLOOD ALCOHOL POLICY FOR EVERYONE. That way, you're not discriminating and you're actually doing something to save lives instead of just making it look like you are. Just because one "group" has "more" DWIs than another, doesn't mean that the second group has none. If we agree that driving under the influence is bad for people under 22, then maybe we should agree that it's universally bad for everybody.

'Smoking Man' on the MacLeans website comments section also brings up an excellent point - that this law is a thinly disguised money grab by insurance companies. If someone gets pulled over and their car suspended because their blood alcohol was 0.0001 their insurance will skyrocket because this is an 'alcohol related offense'. Sick.