Drinking and Driving: A Tradition of Albertan Stupid

            I have to say, I kinda like this new premier. Maybe not the “red Tory” I supported the most in the PC leadership race, but I approve of Alison Redford. She sure has her work cut out for her, though. She’s a woman with power in one of the most conservative (read: redneck) parts of the country. She believes in funding and supporting education and health care—two issues her predecessors couldn’t see around the front side of Big Oil’s hips to have a look at. She made election promises and has already kept a few (just like the feds, only without the horror).

            The one that has grabbed my full-on support, as well as made me think about how I live my own life, is Bill 26, which looks to “give teeth” to Alberta’s laws fighting drinking and (as opposed to strictly “drunk”) driving. This won’t just see people punished for blowing over the legal limit. If passed, the bill we see penalties for blowing between .05 and .08, including vehicle seizures of up to a month.

            Rage, outcry. I imagined a bunch of stumbly, flannel-clad redeyes standing in Edmonton with “Occ-hicc-uppy the Legishlatshure” scrolled on the inside of beer cases.

            This feels like me swimming upstream again, but I’m all for Bill 26. I don’t see the logic in opposing something that’s designed to make us more responsible and as a result save lives.

            You shouldn’t drink AT ALL and then operate a motor vehicle, you just shouldn’t.

            First thing that comes up is the issue of how inebriated a person can be after one, or two, or if they’ve eaten, or over a few hours. I’ll admit to being prone to this type of thinking myself in the past. Recently, I’ve been educating myself on how little alcohol we need to dramatically affect our inhibitions, reaction times and judgment. It’s frightening what I thought I knew. Too many social drinkers base whether they can drive on how they feel, in a state of mind where the first thing to go is their ability to competently judge how they feel. That is some scary stuff.

            Bill 26 would be a good change. As transportation minister Ray Danyluk has said, “It is designed to change behavior,” and we need it, fundamentally.

            Impaired driving is such a masochistic, macho-istic matter of pride that those who choose to do it in a serious state of drunkenness should lose the right to both, driving AND drinking. Can you imagine, a punishment that doesn’t just take away repeat offenders’ right to drive, but their right to drink? “Sorry, sir, we can’t serve you here. You’ve nearly killed people.” Treat ‘em like sex offenders, watch ‘em smarten up.

            Those who oppose Bill 26—much like those who oppose the Long Gun Registry—grasp at straws of tradition and police bias and a cluttered judicial system or the old chestnut of “personal freedom.” I think what always offends my libertarian friends is my belief that if your behavior puts others at risk, the government should have the right and the power to control your behavior. Opponents of the bill moan and wail and basically ignore the common sense of this: if you drink—at all—you should not drive.

            The argument coming from restaurant and pub owners is that this will hurt their business—which makes them look like pariahs, I must say. Your bottom line is worth more than people’s lives? How Albertan.

            The sensible thing would be for proprietors to EMBRACE a designated driver program. Saskatchewan has (or once had) a program where the DD would wear a green wristband and get free Coke or coffee. (I am NOT saying SK has a better approach to drinking and driving. It’s much worse there, and Alison Redford is showing she’s far more progressive than Brad Wall). Kick it up a notch, Albertan-providers-of-spirits: offer DDs a 15% discount on appetizers, or give them a coupon for a free drink on their next visit when they’re not the DD. Get the drivers to support you, to bring their drinking friends, to encourage everyone to pit in and spend money so they can enjoy their hot wings. You will NOT operate at a loss in these conditions.

            The issue of alternative forms of transportation is a valid argument, sadly. In Calgary especially, the sprawl has outstripped a pathetic public transportation system, and even a short cab ride is over $20. Here as well, I think the watering holes should get on at the ground floor. Purchase taxi vouchers that give a 30% discount on a ride to tables spending over $50 (call the taxi yourself, of course). At $8 a pint in Calgary, you can be sure no one will be at serious risk of alcohol poisoning with those numbers.

            This bill is logical. If you’re gonna drive, don’t drink. Any argument to the contrary is a hair-splitting attempt made to avoid doing the right thing. I applaud the Redford Government for Bill 26, and I sincerely hope it passes. Regardless, I intend to modify my own behavior to suit it.

           

           

The Mock-uppation Movement

                You’re standing in line for a coffee. The guy at the front of the line is told that one cup will run $8.

                “What?” he says. “Why so much?”

                The clerk just shrugs and smiles a little.

                “What about people who can’t afford $8. They just can’t have any?”

                The clerk just shrugs again.

                “Is there a reason you’re charging so much?”

                The clerk indicates the long line behind the man.

                The complainant turns and looks at the people behind him. “Don’t you all feel this is a little much? $8 for a coffee.”

                Another person further down the line starts yelling and shaking his fist. He agrees with the man at the front. He knocks over a magazine stand and utters a few profanities.

                Most of the rest of those in line roll their eyes, study their shoes, mutter something about “whackos and whiners.” A few insist on getting the line moving because they can afford an $8 coffee, and to hell with anyone who can’t—that’s their problem.

                The guy at the front tries to talk to some of the others, to tell them they should be asking why it’s so much, to refuse to buy it until prices lower, but mostly, they shift past him, pay the full price, and take pride in the fact that they’re on their way to work and not wasting time complaining.

                “There was this nutcase at the cafe,” one says to his coworkers in the cubicle jungle. He means the guy who knocked over the magazine stand, not the guy who was at the front of the line.

               

                I’ve been very glad to see how much press the Occupy Movement has received, because at least it’s getting out there. Sure, it took mainstream media a long time to get on board, and the vast amount of what reporting I have heard has not been able to hide its bias—or outright criticism—but at least the critical thinker can make a decision on the messages he or she hears.

                Sadly, I’ve seen far too many people treating the Movement with apathy or open hostility. I’ve found it that much more frustrating because many of those criticising it claim to support many of its messages. Obviously the Movement has come to be about the individuals in it rather than the group intent—too bad.

                Everyone has a right to free speech, which is okay when you’re spouting your opinions about hockey teams or sexy superstars on online media, but not if it’s addressing an issue that might make you squirm when you think about how you live your life. Good messages make us uncomfortable, but the immature person avoids the message and focuses on the little criticism he has for the behaviour of a select few. Concentrating all of his focus on this, he can say things like, “I get what they’re trying to say, but this one guy downtown was [insert criticism of distracting behaviour here] so I’ve found a reason to say the whole Movement is flawed.”

                The Right (especially its media) gets openly hostile, calling the protesters lazy, spoiled Arts students who just don’t have the gumption to get a real job and make real money. These people are the most forgivable, really, because they live in that sad, sad existence I’ve spoken of before where the pursuit of money for its own sake is considered a reasonable existence. Pity them. Their minds aren’t going to be changed.

                The 1% is of course muddying the issue by focusing on “demands.”

                “What do you people want? What is the result of this you’d like to see?” The 1%, used to dealing with labour unions, want to know what cheque they can write to end this little dilemma, or what single idea they can ridicule. They don’t get that the Occupiers are seeking to educate, to gather the strength of the remaining voices that want to be heard and make one last push against greed.

                The remaining media always view protests that don’t involve striking workers as quaint. “Oh look, they’re singing.” There’s always some panel that discusses the matter and at some point, someone asks why they’re protesting if things are good.

                Things are not good, and they’re at risk of getting very, very bad. These folks are attempting to highlight that which you are trying to ignore: we can’t go on like this, politically, economically, ecologically. You need to stop trusting the people who are getting rich off of your failure to care.

                Those who mock the protesters—or who find the little examples they can criticize so they needn’t listen to the overall messages—are doing so to deal with their 9-5 “go to work, buy stuff, go home, watch stuff” lifestyle. By criticizing those who care—the people, not the message—they can justify not caring. Fighting for the need to remain lazy and uncaring is starting to make you look like sheep.

                 I like hockey—I don’t write it off altogether because I think Don Cherry should be taken off the air. I like movies—I don’t write off Hollywood because they make sequels to bad flicks. I like coffee—I don’t write off the drink just because I don’t like Starbucks’ business model. We can choose what aspects of the message apply to us. I have friends in the camps and friends in the towers and I can see things I disagree with in both. I have chosen what I want to think based on what I’ve heard. I have not decided the whole group—either group—is a wash because of one representative.  

                It appears that those who claim to care are so very desperate to find a way to hate the Movement, you’ve got to question if they DO care. Basing your whole understanding of a movement on the actions of one person is like judging the whole of literature by Danielle Steele.

                Capitalism is and always has been a faulty system. The desperation of those in the 1% to get us to keep buying and to keep ignoring the facts and to keep thinking we haven’t got any sort of power to threaten their spot at the top of the pyramid is sad. You do not have to take part, you do not have to care. But you sure as hell should think for a second about the greater objectives at hand when you don’t like the look of the kid who got in the way of your latte purchase.