« Stuck in neutral | Main | Incoming »
August 02, 2006
When are you going to hire a new ad agency?
The Ambler links to three unintentionally hilarious ICBC ads wherein sanctimonious idiots get their asses handed to them by or as a result of drunk drivers. The most trenchant observation:
Besides, how stupid does a (non-drunk) female have to be to get in a car driven by a drunk driver and then proceed to bait him ceaselessly?
Look, you shouldn't drive drunk. But the insufferable MADD and the organizations that support it have taken it miles too far. As a direct result of their efforts it is now expressly illegal in Ontario to paddle a canoe while intoxicated, which is totally unnecessary at the absolute least. Says MADD:
It may well be as a matter of policy some people believe the act is too broadly framed. But I think that's a detail and misses the central thrust of the legislation.
Here's a central thrust for you: MADD are prohibitionists. This was never more effectively illustrated than by this quote from national spokesmother against drunk driving Robert Solomon, which still astonishes me seven-and-a-half months after I linked to it:
It's absolutely appalling that we continue to have this mythology that alcohol is okay as long as you aren't driving.
No, what's absolutely appalling is MADD's quest to turn thousands of otherwise law-abiding Canadians who occasionally drive cautiously home with a .081 blood alcohol level into enemies of society. As Kevin Grace says: "MADD should drop the pretence, ignore the middleman (the drinking driver) and go back to busting up saloons and chopping down apple trees."
[UPDATE August 3: The preceding text is about 90 percent bollocks, as Bob Tarantino helpfully points out in the comments. But I still really hate MADD.]
Posted by Chris Selley at August 2, 2006 11:49 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/467
Comments
Blood alcohol levels are useless at determining one's ability to drive.
Arbitrary numbers are silly.
Posted by: Ian Scott at August 3, 2006 12:39 AM
A couple of points which the Maclean's correspondent you cite might want to take into account:
(a) it has been illegal to "paddle a canoe" while intoxicated for, oh, at least the last forty years or so; and for those worried about creeping authoritarianism in Ontario, they may want to consider that this prohibition has applied *across the country* for that entire time; MADD had nothing to do with it - hell, the organization didn't even exist at the time the law was passed (the law has been on the books, based on a quick bit of research, since at least the late 1960s);
(b) it is not "expressly" illegal to paddle a canoe while intoxicated (and, as mentioned above, this is not a new offence) - interested parties are invited to read section 253 of the Criminal Code (which creates the offence), and section 214 which defines "vessel";
(c) the only thing which the new Ontario legislation (introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MPP David Zimmer - Zimmer's bill can be found here) accomplishes is that it extends the application of section 41 of the Highway Traffic Act (Ontario) to include boating while drunk - which means that the only effect of the new legislation is that if you're caught boating while drunk, your license will be suspended; all the other punishments (fines, jail, etc.) have always been available for boating while drunk and continue to be; anyways, at least according to the CTV story on the new law, MADD had nothing to do with the new bill (though they support it), to say nothing of it arising "as a direct result of their efforts";
(d) you'll note that neither the Maclean's story nor any subsequent story has actually involved any who was operating a non-motorized vessel while intoxicated being charged with the offence - probably because the police realize it's nonsensical to charge someone with the offence and that a judge would likely laugh it out of court; could the legislation stand some clarification to ensure that it doesn't apply to canoes? Obviously. But of all the defects in our criminal law, is this the most obnoxious?
Posted by: Bob Tarantino at August 3, 2006 10:35 AM
I feel so much better knowing that this has been illegal for 40 years! Next time I crack open a cold one I'll be sure have a printout of the Criminal Code handy for quick reference - that or Tarantino's cell number...
Posted by: Jay Jardine at August 3, 2006 10:10 PM
Careful, Ian. I'm sure MADD would gladly provide you with a very unarbitrary alternative number.
Posted by: Chris Selley at August 4, 2006 03:01 PM