DRINKING AND DRIVING
Re “Cops say drivers still aren’t getting drunk-driving message” (Kevin Connor, Dec. 3): The numbers will never become zero as long as they keep the impaired number so low that it is impossible for society to keep it. It is much like the speed limit on the 400-series highways: 100 km is far too low a speed, some people obey it, but most don’t. 0.05 for a warning and 0.08 for impaired is far too low if they cared about drunk driving. Drinking and driving is not illegal, if it were, the limit would be zero and if that is what society wants, then put the limit there. But society wants to be able to have a wine with dinner out – the problem is when society has two. Now two beers does not make someone impaired, but it will be over the legal limit. Let’s raise the limit to 0.15 with zero tolerance and an automatic five years in jail. Keep the limit as it is for drivers involved in a vehicular accident if at fault for the accident. That would give people the ability to have two or three beers, which is plenty without the fear of penalty, and target actual drunk drivers.
(Raising the limit will likely never be an option, even if there were changes made to the penalties)
I’m sure this isn’t going to be a popular comment, but do you think people aren’t getting the message about drunk driving because they’re tired of constantly being told what to do and of the government obsession with control on every aspect of our lives?
(Perhaps, but that isn’t a good excuse)
I like to compare Trudeau’s carbon tax to a restaurant. Sorry, price on pollution. Go back in time if you will and remember when smoking was allowed in bars and restaurants. The three largest emitters are China, the United States and India. Consider these three as owners of a restaurant while Canada owns a few select tables in this establishment. The restaurant allows patrons to smoke within while the few Canadian tables are smoke free. Get the picture? Paying a premium to eat here is not worth it as the surrounding tables continue to smoke, thus blowing it in your face. Sorry, prime minister, I don’t buy into your logic. Oh, I use the term logic loosely.
(And if you disagree with the Liberals, like so many of Canada’s premiers do on the carbon tax, they call you a climate change denier and all sorts of other names to scare Canadians into the Liberal “logic” that a tax is the only solution)
Re “Canada’s leaders infected with climate hysteria” (Lorrie Goldstein, Nov. 29): I just have one question in all of this: Where is all the hype and attention from the UN and most media when it comes to China, India or others that make Canada and other western economies look like amateurs in the world of industrial greenhouse gas emissions? Do they not know that even if Canada had zero emissions it would not even really register as a drop globally? Percentage-wise and by way of global airstreams that affect us all. Right?
(That doesn’t matter to them. They have a tax and a narrative they want to push at any cost)
Source:: Toronto Sun – Movies