'Two beer' defence not good enough, SCC says

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck a blow against the so-called "two-beer" defence, in which defendants accused of drinking and driving claim that they did not consume enough to be drunk, despite failing a breathalyzer test.

In the 7-2 split decision, the court decided to uphold the breathalyzer results in the separate cases of a Nova Scotia man and an Alberta man.

In each case, the men used toxicology experts to estimate the amount of the alcohol in their system, saying that they actually "straddled" the 80 mg limit on blood alcohol levels.

It is a common defence tactic to have experts testify that because of the accused's personal alcohol absorption rate, combined with other variables, such as length of drinking time or amount of food consumed, that the person was not as drunk as the breathalyzer results suggested.

But the court's ruling says that there are too many variables involved in how the body metabolizes alcohol and that the breathalyzer's result should be considered the legal standard.

"Because it is scientifically undisputed that absorption and elimination rates can vary from time to time, nothing is really gained by post-offence testing of an accused's elimination rate," Justice Louise Charron said on the behalf of the majority judges in the ruling.

"The breathalyzer test provides legal proof that the accused 'consumed alcohol in such a quantity' that it put him or her over 80 mg contrary to s. 253 of the Criminal Code."

Jonathan Rosenthal, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in defending those charged with drinking and driving, said under the current rules the court can look at other factors in addition to the breathalyzer reading, and doesn't have to consider whether the device was working properly or not.

But the new ruling assumes that the breathalyzer is always right -- a dangerous presumption, he suggests, noting that there are also many variables in how a machine functions and how it is operated.

"(Right now) the judge takes a look at the evidence as judges do every day. They hear what the accused has to say, they hear what some of the witnesses have to say and if there's reasonable doubt that he or she would be under the legal limit, you're entitled to an acquittal," Rosenthal said.

But in future, he added: "you will have to go much further and show the machine wasn't working properly or it wasn't operated properly."

Rosenthal said the decision is a sign of an increasingly less tolerant attitude towards drinking and driving.

"It's a strong indication the courts, along with the legislation, are trying as hard as they can to come down hard on drunk drivers," he said, adding that the ruling neglects the presumption of innocence.

The ruling said that to admit the "two-beer offence" -- so-called because of the common defendant claim that they could not be drunk because they only had two beers -- would "obviously fly in the face" of government efforts to control drinking and driving.

"Straddle evidence merely confirms that the accused falls into the category of drivers targeted by Parliament -- namely, those who drive having consumed enough alcohol to reach a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg," the decision read.

Comments are now closed for this story

Brent
said

People concerned about their level of intoxication should test themselves on a day they aren't driving.
Have 2 or 3 alcoholic beverages then test yourself with a local bar's breathalyzer equivalent or purchase a home kit. Test yourself again in 1 hour to see roughly how fast you metabolize.
An ounce of prevention...

Hmmmer
said

Hey Zero Tolerance, Madd Girl, Sad girl.

I am sorry to hear of your loss and the loss felt by others on this site.

I have a personal "absolute zero tolerance" ritual self imposed.

I have two beautiful talented daughters and often gaze upon them with pride and adoration when they visit and chatter away.

I could never look them in the eye again if I ever hurt someone by being so callous as to drink and drive.

This two beer defense is for cheap lawyers and stupid judges.

Once convicted how does the con say anything against the drunk driver who hurts him or his loved one? They don't! They can't!

If some jerk hurts my loved one while driving impaired, I'll just fire one warning shot, through his head.

Hmmmer. Things that make ya go, hmmm?

Andrew in BC
said

There was a time that I thought that driving with a couple beer in my system was no big deal...then I bought a streetbike and realized how wrong I was. If you don't know, riding a superbike, or any motorized bike for that matter, takes a hell of a lot more concentration than a car or truck. It was at that moment when I almost did not make a corner which I had driven in my car for years that I realized that even one beer makes a difference in all of our reflexes. Don't get me wrong, I have had a few big drunks in my time and I know when I am drunk or when I am not.

If an officer, who is on the streets looking for impaired drivers on a regular basis, believes that a driver is impaired enough to warrant a breathalyzer, then that driver is,in most probability,impaired somewhat.

This is no longer the 80s, or even the 90's, and enough people have died or been affected for life in another way. It is well past the time that drunk drivers should no longer be looked at as a "good ol' boy" just making a mistake and the many defences should be shut down in the name of common sense; this one is just another step in the right direction.

N Smith
said

I lived in Holland for 2 years and NO ONE drinks and drives, not one drink, not one sip. Absolutely no alcohol if you are driving. This is because there I think the tolerance for impaired driving is about .04 instead of .08, I think that the courts have to be fair to make sure the police do calibrate the machines properly and do follow procedures. Everyone is entitled to their day in court and a fair trial.

Brett
said

If you think that the government is being too tough here, think again. Drinking and driving is illegal because it kills people. Governments make laws that protect the citizens, regardless of how much liberty is taken away. If you want to drink, find another way home or make plans to stay overnight somewhere. If you want to go out and have fun, that's fine, just don't put other people in danger.

Carl Bainbridge
said

i disagree strongly with drinking and driving and always have

my reasoning is simple when i was younger in the heat of summer i had a beer and went home

due to the heat and the one beer i felt so out of control i had to get off the road. now i am an average sized person in very good shape at the time and it was a feeling i never wanted to deal with again so i developped a simple rule one drink no drive

i have over the years of watching repeat offenders kill innocent people developped very strong feelings regarding this

my rules

if you are going out to a bar you know you are likely to drink you make this concious choice

if you take your car to the bar you know you are likely to drive

if you make both of these decisions you know you could kill someone because of your impaired state.

1st offence simple drunk driving should equal attempted FIRST DEGREE MURDER (premeditated) as you knew the risks and took them anyway

1st offence drunk driving causing death FIRST DEGREE MURDER (premeditated) as you knew the risks and took them anyway

sentences for both offences allow up to 25 years in prison

end result the roads would be far safer for the rest of us then we could deal with the other problems like cell phones overtired etc

impaired driving due to drugs is testable and can be charged as with drunk driving anyway

and as far as i am concerned those who disagree with me including judges and prosecuting attorneys are probably worried that they would end up subject to the charges themselves.

basically the main reason these charges are not laid and appropriate sentences given is simply because of to many drunks in positions of power

Garry
said

A few years ago, I had a house party and asked a friend of mine (an RCMP Officer) to bring his breathalyzer equipment. The reason being, to show my guests how quickly one can go over the .08. As for myself, I am 5 feet 10 inches tall and weigh 170 lbs. After two beers, I was over .08. Personally, I would like to see an absolute zero tolerance. In other words, if you have .01, your nailed.

Patrick
said

To JC....you must have been half in the bag when you wrote that foolish statement. I'd be more than happy to demonstrate the Intoxilyzer to you to show that it doesn't give you 'false positives' like you wrongly suggested. And no, drinking two beers will NOT give you readings over .08 unless you weigh less than 100lbs and haven't eaten anything for quite a while, and even then it's doubtful.

As for your comment on a blood test, sure, there's nothing better. It will be higher than the breath test as the Intoxilyzer analyzes breath on a 2300:1 ratio rather than blood at a 2100:1 ratio, thus the blood test will give a more true but higher result than the breath. You'd be hanging yourself without any help. Obviously you don't know of what you speak...

Fireman
said

As a Fire Fighter I have seen the effects of Drinking and Driving. You are not only putting your self at risk. You are putting our lives at risk as well. If you want to be a idiot do so on your own time and I still have nightmares from seeing this accidents. Look at what just happend in Montreal the other day. A man killed his wife in a head on collision. He was in one car and she was in the other. There should have always been a zero tolerance for any one that drinks and drives.

Congrats to SCC
said

I completely agree with Darrin L. Unfortunately, if the police were to do that the licensed establishments would then cry harassment and claim that the police are eroding their business. They already do this if they feel that RIDE checks are set up too close to their establishments.

I recall a few years ago when I left a restaurant after having a three-course meal accompanied by ONE glass of wine. Hubbie drove because he hadn't consumed anything, but I remarked that I felt impaired and KNEW that I shouldn't operate a motor vehicle at that time, despite certainly being UNDER the legal limit. Hubbie is a police officer, so we drove to his office and tried the ASD just for fun ("road side test")...I blew a 0.024, more than half the legal limit, and yet I was, with no doubt, impaired.

Essentially, it comes down to personal responsibility, and sadly, those who lack it are the type who try to rationalize their immaturity here by claiming "police state" or "as bad as cellphone driving", etc.

Society requires rules to function, and the police are tasked with administering and enforcing those rules. If you don't like it, find a new society to join that does not have impaired driving regulations (good luck there).

Phil
said

It is understandable since everybody is different which includes metabolism the law should have been reinforced other than being used for a convenient ploy for the current status of the law abiding joe public. No way though, more likely bar serving glasses will be fitted all with alcohol volume detectors with a reading directly on the glass before consumption.

It would prove that any drink with driving and among other things, should be at zero tolerance for everybody. Stop the field day that Lawyers are having with this.

Brandon
said

Yes, if you recently drank alcohol you can fail a roadside test because it's on your breath. Even mouthwash will cause you to blow like a 2.5 if recently used. BUT, that's why the police ask if you recently drank, and will wait 20 minutes and give you another test.

And so what if cell phone talking could be just as dangerous? Just because it isn't illegal (yet) doesn't make drunk driving right.

George Johnson
said

Zero tolerance? That is a pretty big extreme, that means you cannot have a beer after work with some wings and drive anywhere? Do you know how much revenue bars and restaurants will lose based on a zero tolerance policy? Use your heads people, just don't get drunk and drive! A couple beers is fine!

Fergie
said

It is far too easy to simplistically say if you drink anything then don't drive. If that is what you want then you should be pushing for 0.00 as the legal limit. However that would be devastating to the restaurant industry and would result in people being laid off en masse. I have a problem with drunk drivers but I don't think the guy who had two beers over a 90 minute meal is the real problem here. It's the guy that had 5 martinis at happy hour or the college kid getting blottoed at a party.

The real problem is that everyone is being held accountable to a law that you don't really know if you're breaking or not. Imagine a world where the speed limit was 80 km/hr but no one had speedometers but the police had radar detectors.

I believe there should be an effort to install breathalyzers at bars or the ability to have personal affordable ones so you would know whether your legal or not.

Of course some will argue that any impairment, even 0.01 is too much. To that I would say driving with a cell-phone, a child, music playing, sleepy, another passenger talking should all be criminalized. Perhaps we should encase the driver in a sound proof isolation booth so they concentrate on what they're doing.

darcy
said

Drinking and driving should never happen; that being said...you can fail a breathalyzer test after using listerine (mouth wash). If you don't believe me, try it out for yourself at home. You can purchase an instrument for less than $50 online. It's not an useful indicator of impairment.

Dominator
said

Quote Ed Hawco
It's a misconception that beers like Coors Lite have less alcohol than our Canadian standards. They have the same amount of alcohol. What makes them "lite" and watery is that they lack flavour!

BTW, the Coors Lite (and Budweiser, etc.) that you drink in Canada is MADE in Canada by Molsons, Labatts, etc. under license from Coors, etc.

They ARE less alcohol but don't get fooled. Coors Light is about 3.9% while "normal" beer is 5%. They will still make you drunk.

D J
said

Good move by the SCC.

If you drink, don't drive.

There are only two factors (combined) that reduce your BAC: time and water.

stones and glass houses
said

you'd be amazed at how little it takes to be over the limit or even get you just close.

by the standards currently in place I would argue anyone that has had one drink or more and then driven (depending on elapsed time between) can likely be accused of drinking and driving.

the part I have a problem with is the complete lack of discretion given to the courts in dealing with convictions on this matter. it's a set, life and career altering sentence where there are far worse crimes that seem to generate less significant punishments.

Sam Crawford
said

There needs to be an element of personal responsibility, too.

By saying "I only had (one, two, ten) drinks" you are admitting that you DID drink and then drive.

As the saying goes: if you drink, don't drive.

Darrin L.
said

When is the common sense applicable to all aspect sof life and living going to apply to Alcohol? I mean, really, can anyone make a reasoned and logical argument for there to be *any* parking spaces at any bar or club? I mean really, think about it. It has almost always been illegal to drive while drunk. Period.

So, if you drink anything alcoholic, you have to assume that you have a chance of a breathalyzer reading the alcohol. Period. I mean, if I were to walk down the middle of the road, is it not reasonable to assume that there is some chance I will be hit by a car. And if it were to happen, do I really have any argument to make against the driver that struck me? No.

Yet, we (society) allow for parking in licensed establishments. Why police simply don't park outside of a bar parking lot and breathalyze every vehicle leaving is beyond me. When are we going to stop coddling liberty at the expense of the greater good?

MADD GIRL
said

ZERO TOLERANCE
I am with you
I lost my boyfriend to drinking and driving
Its just that simple
IF YOU DRINK DONT DRIVE
What is it going to take for people to wake up how many more people have to die due to stupidity

Sad Girl affected by drinking and driving
said

why this was ever allowed is beyond my comprehension. Its as simple as this...If you drink, you DONT drive
Why can't people just get this through their heads, how many more deaths is it going to take, How many people have been affected by drinking and driving???
If you drink, take a cab, call a friend or family member, its just that simple.

Perspective
said

"40% of traffic fatalities are "alcohol related"....?

I would have guessed that more than 40% of folks on the road at any given time have been drinking.

Marlin
said

Ed,

You better read beer labels. Corrs light is 4%, Corona 4.6%, Alexander Keith 5%.

JC
said

Some of you are completely wrong. Anyone can drink two beers and fail the test under the right circumstances but it does not mean you are illegally impaired! If the law says that a certain % blood alcohol limit is the standard, it cannot be just and fair to admit a test that is often wrong instead of a blood test.

I say they should always reject the test result if there is any objection by the defendant, UNLESS the defendant refuses to take a followup blood test if/when they fail the breathalyzer test.

In short, many of you are mindlessly advocating a test that gives false positives. It is as though anyone can walk up to you and falsely convict YOU TOO of something you have not done. Having a drink or two is not a crime, many people do so all of their lives responsibly. Our family does every night, though wine not beer, and no I don't mean childern.

Marlin
said

Canada is a Nation of far to many laws and far to little personal responsibility.

I could care less if a family member is hurt or killed by an impaired driver, speeder, or otherwise distracted driver.

The end result to my family member and survivors is the same.

In only one instance would it seem that our society is willing to hold someone accountable.

Patrick
said

To J.Smith who says that .08 isn't drunk...I'd like you to get to .08 under controlled conditions and tell me that you would drive at that level. Everyone that I have ever done this with admitted they would never drive and they were below the .08. And yes,.08 doesn't give an absolute level at which a person is drunk, it can be much less.

I can only imagine that you would be the first person to yell out when it is someone that you know that is injured or killed as a result of a drunk driver.

Let me ask you this; if you were sober and got into a taxi with a driver that had a blood/alcohol limit in excess of .08, would you feel safe?

The 'Carter defence' was absolutely idiotic. How could a judge take the word of a couple of the accused's friends over the Intoxilyzer then convict the accused in the next case with the same Intoxilyzer but the second accused didn't raise 'Carter'? Did the Intoxilyzer miraculously become accurate in the Judge's eyes?

Our problem is with the Judicial System, not the law. If it was applied equally with common sense, we would be well on our way to safer roadways for all.

Now to 'Marc'...I will absolutely guarantee that one Coors will not put you over .08 on the Intoxilyzer nor the Alcotest roadside tester unless you blew into them as you just finished your drink. That is why officers wait 15 minutes between the time of your last drink and the time of the first test.

If you're going to drink, make plans prior to drinking on how you're going to get home and by all means enjoy yourself and stay safe.

Politically incorrect
said

I did some home statistical analysis, dispute it if you like.

39% of traffic fatalities are "alcohol related".

Speed is a factor in %30 of fatal crashes.

Speeding 15 km over limit;
$89.00

Speeding 50 km over limit;
$351.00

Driving after two beers;
Priceless.

(over $10,000.00, including legal fees and fines)

ZERO TOLERANCE
said

IF YOU DRINK THEN STAY AWAY FROM ANY VEHICLE.... CAR BOAT, SEADOO, SKIDOO, ETC...

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH...???

I lost my wife to an ignorant dummy who thought it was ok to drink and drive. He was coming home from entertaining clients at his advertising firm. He was also a volunteer who taught teens to drive - can you believe it - great example he was. Few months later he was in another serious accident!

Some dummies never learn regretably.

kelvin rutten
said

Marc, I question the sincerity of your comment. The current instruments used by police measure the amount of alcohol present in the "deep lung air" of the alveoli of your lungs. They DO NOT measue alcohol eminating from your mouth. The instruments are designed to test only this "deep lung air". This air has been scientifically proven to contain alcohol in a ratio consistent with that of your blood. Therefore the blood has to contain the alcohol before it will be present in the alveolar air. Translation, you HAD to have had at least 80mg of alcohol per 100mL blood to have failed the test and therefore to have violated S. 253 of the Criminal Code. I would suggest this would take more than 1 regular sized beer unless you weight about 60 pounds.

Ed Hawco
said

It's a misconception that beers like Coors Lite have less alcohol than our Canadian standards. They have the same amount of alcohol. What makes them "lite" and watery is that they lack flavour!

BTW, the Coors Lite (and Budweiser, etc.) that you drink in Canada is MADE in Canada by Molsons, Labatts, etc. under license from Coors, etc.

Phil
said

I agree with J Smith. All these other causes of poor driving should carry the same penalty. With luck, the result would be a major reduction in the number of people driving alone on the road instead of carpooling. The up-side: fewer cars, fewer accidents and a lot less GHG's.

joey
said

You can so fail a breathalizer after just one coors lite, like Marc said it just measures the alcohol on your breath, so if you just drank the beer you can fail it for sure.

Slow down
said

I find the statistical analysis in relation to other driving offenses and the comparisons of consequences profound.

According to www.alcoholalert.com, 40% of traffic fatalities are "alcohol related". And...

"A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or NON-OCCUPANT (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' DOES NOT indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

Consequently, more than 60% of fatalities are related to speeding, tailgating, passing when unsafe, talking on a cell phone, bad road conditions (your driving is impaired), blowing stop signs....you get the drift.

All avoidable.

All illegal.

All preventable.

A simple court appearance without a lawyer can often have a non-alcohol related traffic violation overturned.

What's the difference between being killed by someone that has been drinking or someone that was speeding?

NMD
said

I guess we have to live with an arbitrary standard for now, but you tell me that honestly think the person who reads 0.0799 is safe to drive when the person who reads 0.08 is not... The real problem is that there are many ways a person can become impaired enough that they should not be driving (I'll list a few: medication, over tired, talking on a cell phone, eating a hamburger, cruising the hot body walking down the road, and so on), and only one of them involves alcohol. What we need is NOT a test for alcohol, what we really need is a test for impairment (or probably equally valid, a test for good judgement (and thus a likelihood to not drive in stupid ways/situations.)

Steve.
said

One thing more than anything else that was wrong with this defence was that it relied on the accused to say how much he/she drank. I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that most people facing a criminal conviction for impaired driving would not hesitate to lie about their alcohol comsuption.

As for cabs not being available in all areas, that is not society's problem. If you want to drink, it is up to you to have a safe way home. If that is not available, then you don't drink. Drinking is not a right and the onus of finding transportation is that of the individual.

keth
said

Until there is such a device measured or foolproof test that can measure impairment as opposed to the chemical level of alchohol in a persons body this is a good move.

And while it is possible to be over .08 after just two drinks how many people do that after work every day across the country? Probably more than most people would realize.

JW
said

Fine lines are necessary. Grey ones complicate matters too much. This is simple. Its funny we all accept specific measures of performance, but we rarely hear people claim that their not as stupid as a test makes them out to be. Go figure. This defense was just down right idiotic. Even more so that we need the SCC to say it so.

Scotty
said

Too much government and not enough common sense. Let people drink anytime and we will see that nature takes its course and solves the problem. Eliminate all these Machiavellian laws once and for all that are causing all the problems to begin with.

Colonel Blimp
said

It is about time this defence got thrown out of court. Simple rules people, if you drink don't drive, it isn't rocket science.

gord
said

Why don't we start arresting people for talking on cell phones while driving? I'm sure a person's reaction time is much slower when they are gabbing on the phone as well... throw'em jail too!

Vernon
said

.08 means .08. It doesn't matter whether you drank 10 beer or just sniffed your wife's perfume. If you tested over.08 and were driving, then you are breaking the law. There has to be some finality in this life, and we need to move on to more important issues.

Ken Reid
said

A blood test should be the only acceptable proof of intoxication, but what do we expect in a country (Ont most definitely) that allows the police to issue license suspensions without benefit of trial? I do not in any way condone drinking and driving, but this is yet another example of how people's civil rights are slowly being eroded. No democracy should ever allow the police to determine guilt of innocence and issue sentence. Every time we allow this type of infringement on our rights we are extablishing a precedent in other areas of the law. Allowing breathalyzer tests to emphatically determine the level intoxication is unacceptable.

Bernard Romanycia
said

The Supreme Court is drunk on power.

Steve
said

One cannot fail an Intoxilyzer test on one beer unless the tests are invalidated by "mouth alcohol" such as that generated by a burp. The readings get all messed up which is why two readings are taken and they have to match within a specified range. And just in case someone is thinking of burping everytime they get in front of the device, that would then be a "fail to provide sample" charge which is easier to prove!

Truenorth
said

Marc,

I almost find it inconceivable that anyone could fail a breathalizer after 1 Coors Lite. Considering it's American beer you should probably have to drink a whole 12 pack for it to even register.

Doye de Lauw
said

Hey Marc,

I guess one Coors light was one too many. The idea is not to drink anything and drive, one two, fifty, it doesn't matter,not only is it risky for the driver, it's very risky for me as a member of the travelling public. DON"T DO IT AT ALL!! That's the whole point.

J. Smith
said

.08 is a silly limit. It has nothing to to with being drunk. It has everything to do with knee jerk reaction to excessive consumption in generations past.
Studies show there are many things that affect your driving, that are equal to or worse than 2 beer. Lack of sleep, Prescription drugs, emotional trauma, marijuana and cell phones. We don't give people a criminal record for these ofences. The only thing that singles alcohol out is that it is easily detected. We waste too much money and send too many people to jail for "drunk driving", when they are not drunk.

Myles
said

Marc;

There is no way you failed a breathalyzer after drinking one beer. You may have failed a Roadside Screening Device. There is a major difference between the two machines.

Congrats to the judges for a sound and overdue decision.

Clarke
said

This is a step in the right direction...nice to see the courts serving its purpose. I would also like to see stiffer penalties for drunk drivers. Something like two strikes and you're out. Driving is a huge responsibility and not a right and should be treated as such. People who can't handle that responsibility should have their liscences taken away.

Nathan
said

Jason:

Sometimes catching a cab isn't an option when you live outside of a city. It's not just as easy as catching a cab at 2 in the morning. I do not endorse drinking and driving in any way, but you should be aware of this.

James
said

just don't drink and drive!!! Problem solved.

Steve
said

The two beer defense has never made sense to me and I'm glad to see it finally gone. Alcohol is a factor in over 1,000 vehicular deaths every year in this country and it is the number one 100% preventable cause of death. This is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step. Now if we could just get the DUI sentences up to the level that the general public is now demanding.

Two beers and a phone call
said

Recent studies concluded that driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving over the legal alcohol limit.

If so, can we expect the same consequences to be implemented;

1)Immediate three month license suspension when charged before trial.

2)Upon conviction, one year suspension, first offense and three years second offense.

3)Doubling of insurance.

4)Criminal record.

5) Mandatory driving school before reinstatement.

It leaves the question;

Is cell phone driving AS dangerous as driving after "two beers" or...is driving after "two beers" AS dangerous as driving on your cell phone? or......

Andy in Cambridge
said

good move SCC

Marc
said

I failed a breathalyzer after consuming 1 Coors lite reguler size bottle. Breathalyzers measure alcohol on breath, not blood alcohol content. If I was going to be charged rather then only given 24 hour suspension, I would have requested a blood sample be taken.

Stuart Dunnill
said

We wouldn't have any contradictions if we had a zero tolerance level. Maybe Canada should step up to the plate and make the move.

Ex 33826
said

Judges created this problem by admitting the "two beer" to begin with, nice to see they actually listen to common sense for a change.

FSN
said

I've never heard of the "two beer" defence.

This shows how ignorant some people are. We need a line in the sand regardless of how each person's body deals with the alcohol. If that wasn't the case, we'd also have to measure what the reaction time is for each of us drivers when we need to react quickly to something. Everyone of us has difference reaction times.

What we should ALL do is make it our responsibility to not drink and drive AT ALL. If the limite was not .08 but was .09 many people would push it up to there.

PLEASE DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. IT MAY BE YOUR LOVED ONE THAT YOU MAY END UP KILLING.

Happy
said

It's about time the Supreme Court of Canada gets rid of this ...defence. This defence was also known as the "Carter Defence" Many of drivers got off on this defence. The Intoxilyzer instruments in today's day and age do not lie.

Michael
said

Yeah... but how big were those beer bottles?

Jason H.
said

Tough but fair. If you absolutely have to drink, take a cab or catch a ride. If you have to drive, and can't go without drinks for a night, you might have a problem.