Felony Charges in Flathead Lake Crash

[jdoe71]

This anti-drinking crap is just taking the joy right out of life and I'm bloody sick of hearing it. In this province, the Nanny state of Canada, you can't even go out for dinner and enjoy a glass of wine without fear of the local cops rousting you in one of their intrusive random roadblocks and running you in at .05 even though the federal law says .08 is the legal limit. Some of us are actually adults and can quite well control our drinking. Just because some people abuse it do not take away the right for responsible people to enjoy simple pleasures. I spent 22 years carrying the badge of a cop and it sickens me to see our rights being stripped away daily.

[DaveOnCudjoe]

Alcohol is a bad drug, it's unwelcome on my boat and destroys the life of many. It is,however, tolerated by society and controled. Due process will allow the Senator a day in court to argue his case. Public opinion is swinging, but slowly, away from tolerance as we are seeing in this thread. I think the public will benefit ultimately and the degree of tolerance will fall somewhere between the extremes, as it should. Dave

[gettinthere]

swinging away from the tolerance of drinking or of drunk driving?

[Chief Engineer]

In Maryland a there is a time window that a breathalyzer must be given.

Originally Posted by Blue Stocking

Drinking after the accident, but before the police arrive. Hmmmm-- interesting defense. What say you?? Probably not appropriate in this instance

We have become such a nanny state....heck a cub scout was suspended from school for 45 days for bringing a campsite eating utensil to school.

And I agree with the comment about MADD....it is very similar to the so-called environmental groups that are nothing but money machines for the "environmentalists". Some how these groups morph into profit centers depending on the contributions from members.....The members would be better off planting their own trees and cleaning up their own backyards.

Take nothing but pictures...leave nothing but footprints

[CSY Man]

For pilots, the FAA rule is 12 hours.."Bottle to throttle". This seems sensible to me so long as he is not hungover or was not binge drinking 12 hours ago.

Not so fast there..

The FAA says 8 hours between bottle and throttle, but it does not mean you can drink unlimited the whole day, then cut off 8 hours before flying and be legal and "good to go", there is still a blood alcohol level limit you have to meet regardless of the 8 hour rule...Good thought however

As for boating and drinking....Can't outlaw stupidity..An IQ test should be required instead.

[Palarran]

Drinking after the accident is a theory that was brought up on this board, not by the defense. In the article they state no alcohol was on the boat. Most likely he was drinking the wine more then anyone saw him.

Regardless, he was reckless causing an accident. 45 mph in an area he didn't know with no spot light. Purely stupid imo. Most speedboats plane out around 2000 rpm, or 20 mph, which would have been plenty fast enough to get from point A to B in the night. He probably sits down behind the windshield when he drives also, instead of standing and focusing his attention straight ahead.

[DaveOnCudjoe]

Sorry Gettinthere, I see the trend moving away from tolerance of drinking, especially when it endangers others. Except in the case of my ex wife who is cute and blonde and gets away with murder, figuratively of course. Dave

[Chief Engineer]

Ya gotta love Canada....If you ever have any alchohol offense in the past...you can't get in. I had a friend who got arrested 20 years ago...couldn't get in.

Hasn't been in any other trouble PFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTT

[TaoJones]

The last time Pat Schulte (of Bumfuzzle fame) entered Canada, they pulled up an old beef from college involving a fistfight. Wouldn't let him in until he paid them $200.

TaoJones

[CalebD]

I have read about the Canada DWI thingy. They kind of did that after the draconian rules imposed by the good ol' US of A after 9/11/01.
This whole legal situation can be pretty scary after the Dinius debacle. If you are in sight of your home port and decide to have a drink or two you can be found liable as partially contributing to a crash if a motor yacht on auto pilot runs over you. The same is true if you are driving an automobile.
Judging by the lack of tolerance over on the 'smoking sailors' thread and this one I can only say that in this age of multicultural tolerance that we are in full back peddling mode.
Zero tolerance is the new mantra. I suppose that real estate may still be cheap in Alaska except that it is cold enough in the northeast of the US for me.
Canadian trucker fined for smoking in his cab: Trucker in his rig fined for smoking - Â*News - MSN CA
So where does it end??? At least he wasn't drinking as far as we know.
If I always succumbed to my most base fears I would never go out sailing as it is too dangerous for many reasons.
People still drive and walk around my small city (NYC) while talking on cell phones. Perhaps that should be legislated too; well, it already is and is largely unenforced.
I am not advocating smoking, drinking or adhering to the Queens English but I DO object to those who claim to be 'holier then thou' in one regard or another.
Can George Orwell's classic 'Animal Farm' be forgotten where 'some are more equal then others'?
The pigs had the upper hand in the Dinius case as predicted by Orwell. The Blue Line closed around him/them. It was really more like the other classic "Lord of the Flies". Same difference in this discussion. It is really a form of xenophobia.
Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.

[gettinthere]

Originally Posted by DaveOnCudjoe

Sorry Gettinthere, I see the trend moving away from tolerance of drinking, especially when it endangers others. Except in the case of my ex wife who is cute and blonde and gets away with murder, figuratively of course. Dave

You're confusing the issue when you say 'especially'.

I'm asking about two different issues.

One, drinking of any kind whatsoever
Two, driving while drunk

Vast majority of people have little tolerance for number two.
You seem to be saying there is growing intolerance for number one.

[Minggat]

Originally Posted by DaveOnCudjoe

Alcohol is a bad drug, it's unwelcome on my boat and destroys the life of many.

I don't know how you can sidestep the above quote.
I also run a dry boat. I tried compromise with crew once. It didn't work.

I like to avoid the subject because I have found that I am sometimes ridiculed for my abstinence. Some without intent to ridicule have said "it's too bad you don't drink anymore". So I have learned to try and make it clear that I have not given up drinking. It never was a part of my life. So "anymore" does not fit.

"....prohibition, which in turn became the springboard for organized crime in the United States...."

Can't argue that. "Responsible adults" broke the law and organized crime exploited it. It's a loose -loose situation. I don't see the failure of prohibition as an argument that can support any idea that alcohol as anything other than "alcohol is a bad drug".

Many more deaths are cause by alcohol related "accidents" than the thugs of prohibition ever caused. But those deaths were more newsworthy and were able to rally political support of the repeal of prohibition.

"Mothers Against Drunk Driving" is an organization of people who have lost loved ones to people who considered themselves "responsible adults". You wants facts and figures of alcohol related death statistics, check with them. The thought of an "explosion of binge drinking", " where undergraduates were suddenly FORCED underground with their parties", is one of those lines of logic that removes the responsibility from the violator to the lawmakers. Another Loose-Loose situation.

I expect a backlash from this post. But before you backlash too hard, I will say that one of my more prized lessons in life is that EVERYONE is clueless about SOMETHING. That includes ME and YOU. I have many true friends who drink. I do not fault, debate with them or judge them for it. A lot of good people drink. Some good people who don't drink profit from those who do (farmer growing hops fr example). That does not diminish from "alcohol is a bad drug".

It's about CHOICE. Not all of my choices have been good ones. And even some that were good did not work out.

Before I dropped the docklines, a dockmate and I were talking about cruising budgets. His comment that many cruisers budgets included a pretty good chunk of change for booze. I would imagine that some here might take offense at that and some will agree. It's just math.

I would like to think that the "right" to drink would stop where my rights start. That I can get away with no impact on my life from alcohol consumption. Too late. There's taxes to pay for enforcement, traffic "accidents", confinement... and many other cost that I can't even imagine. "Ruined lives" are far reaching. And I have not lost a loved one.

There is a philosophy out there that goes something like this. If we can set things up so that all of us have the same guidelines as the weakest amongst us, everybody has healthy guidelines.

I am not dreaming. I am a realist. Alcohol has been around for a long time and it's not going to go away because I write this and you read it. But my life is full enough without alcohol and I have more cruising kitty than I would otherwise. I don't have to "police" myself and I don't care for soooooo many I see that do not know how to police themselves. I realize that drink is a part of what makes boating enjoyable for many of us. I like it better my way

[bewitched]

I don't drink when I'm sailing offshore
I rarely drink when I am sailing in unfamiliar waters, but it can happen.
I regularly drink when I'm sailing in waters that I'm familiar with.

This is my life, and these are the choices I have made. Up until reading this thread I was quite happy with them.

However, it seems that alcohol consumption, along with with tobacco smoking and recreational drugs, does seem to create some very intollerant and extreme views. I would be interested to understand the logic behind the argument that sailing a boat at 5-10 knots in open water requires the same level of attention as piloting a plane, driving a car or a high speed craft.

After a couple of beers, am I really such a danger to others? Or is this just another liberty that is slowly been eeked away by an ever increasingly intollerent society?

Next, you'll be telling me that I can only sail for 6 hours before I need to take a break as my judgement will be impared......

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Chief Engineer

Ya gotta love Canada....If you ever have any alchohol offense in the past...you can't get in. I had a friend who got arrested 20 years ago...couldn't get in.
Hasn't been in any other trouble PFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTT

Originally Posted by CalebD

I have read about the Canada DWI thingy. They kind of did that after the draconian rules imposed by the good ol' US of A after 9/11/01...

A criminal conviction need not permanently keep you out of Canada. You can be “rehabilitated”, under Canadian law, within 3, 5, or 10 years.

If you were convicted of or committed a criminal offence outside Canada, you may overcome this criminal inadmissibility

* by applying for rehabilitation, or
* you may be deemed to have been rehabilitated if at least ten years have passed since you completed the sentence imposed upon you, or since you committed the offence, if the offence is one that would, in Canada, be an indictable offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years.

If the offence is one that would, in Canada, be prosecuted summarily and if you were convicted for two (2) or more such offences, that period is at least five (5) years after the sentences imposed were served or to be served.

If you have a criminal conviction in Canada, you must seek a pardon from the National Parole Board of Canada before you will be admissible to Canada.
In order to be considered for a pardon under the Criminal Records Act, a specified period of time must pass after the end of the sentence imposed. The sentence may have been payment of a fine, period of probation, or imprisonment. The usual waiting period for offences:

* if prosecuted by indictment is five (5) years.
* if punishable on summary conviction is three (3) years.

More ➥ Rehabilitation For Persons Who Are Inadmissible to Canada Because of Past Criminal Activity

[jdoe71]

My right to enjoy a glass of wine with dinner or a cold beer on a hot day never clashes with someone elses right to safety. Most people are responsible adults, the very few people that cause carnage on the highways from being drunk drivers are not responsible adults. Do not confuse the two groups. Hard core drunk drivers are very easy to profile and well known. But no real effort is ever expended on dealing with them because it generates no shower of publicity until AFTER they have killed someone. Law enforcement by TV news byte is the order of the day.

Unfortunately, some people have bought into the lie that drinking and driving is on the rise, it is not. It, as with crime in general, has been greatly decreasing for 25 years, at least in this country. But few people are aware of this.

There is an agenda at work out there, among government, law enforcement and safety organizations who depend on keeping people stupid about reality in order to survive. If you want to continue giving up your rights to kowtow to this agenda be my guest, but I have no desire to see our rights, whether to a glass of wine with dinner or to due process, continue to be eroded.

We have even lost the right to a trial in this country, a cop on the side of the road can seize your car and impose a very significant penalty on you and you never get a day in court, therefore there is nothing to appeal, no due process is involved, ever. Does that sound like a democratic "free" society? Not to me it doesn't.

The recent issue with the smoking truck driver is a perfect example of where we are heading in this country and it is more than slightly scary.

If you want a perfect world were there are perfect people and there is zero risk to you of ever being involved in some bad thing, it's not on this planet. You think all this noise about drinking and driving is useful? Consider that we licence people to drive (and operate boats) with the flimsiest of testing, and once licenced we never require a subsequent re-test. Imagine, we spend at least 6 months of the year driving in conditions that can be like driving on a hockey rink but no one ever has to take skid control school to get a drivers' licence. The inability to drive on slippery roads kills more people in a year in Canada than drunk drivers do and yet we do nothing about that.

There are many more useful things that could be done to improve safety than the constant bleating and chest pounding about drinking, but they are being ignored because they don't produce the desired result among the populace, that being a general paranoia about an issue which increases their reliance on government, law enforcement, special interest groups.

Drunk drivers are bad, responsible adults who enjoy alcohol safely and in moderation are not. If you choose not to imbibe, my kudos to you, but please respect my right to enjoy life in a manner that poses zero risk to you. BTW, my alcohol intake in a normal week would be 2 beers and 4 glasses of wine. My bad for being a dangerous drunk.