Here in Ireland, outside of Dublin and other cities, it just doesn’t seem to be considered that big a deal, or at least wasn’t until very recently. It’s way less common than it used to, but that’s because of enforcement. I don’t think the act itself is taboo if you don’t get caught.
This brings up this question:
A 200 pound man stops at a bar, drinks 2 regular beers, and drives home.
Same guy doesn’t stop for 2 beers but instead drinks 1 light beer while driving home.
Scenario #1 is legal in most places and scenario #2 is illegal in most places. But which is actually more ethical for him to do?
Long whining discussion…
http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=13911
http://www.justanswer.com/canada-law/51a0d-given-ticket-open-liquor-vehicle-during.html
(Even an empty plastic cup)
The Manitoba law is more specific: open liquor | Discussions | eBrandon - Brandon, Manitoba's Online Community
(a) if the bottle, vessel, or package containing the liquor has not been opened since it was lawfully purchased in Manitoba, or lawfully brought into the province as provided in section 58; or
Of course, in most provinces, even open liquor in public (even the brown paper bag) is illegal, as is consuming it. No surprise that the law is hard on alcohol in cars. Note the passenger could get the ticket if they are the one apparently in possession. Whether “unsealed” means a bottle out of the cardboard container or an open bottle - I guess you can argue that with the judge.
The logic is simple - whether the driver has taken a drink yet or not, if the alcohol is readily available to him, if the passenger could hand it to him, etc. - the law does not want to play games, “ha ha I haven’t taken a swig yet!”. If there’s a possibility the driver can get it readily, then a law has been broken. Remarkably, this was the law even back in the days when drunk driving was considered a minor infraction.
Scenario 1, if the guy drinks 6 beers, he can still call a cab and break no laws.
Scenario 2, the guy is driving down the road and has another and another, and it’s easy to be breaking the law at some point.
There’s always the Gordon Lightfoot defence. Pulled over for failing to turn on his headlights, the famous folksinger in Toronto was taken to the station where he failed the breathalyzer. The judge (musta bin a big fan) bought the lawyer’s argument that just because his BAC reached over 0.08 by the time he did the test, did not mean it was over while he was driving. Needless to say, that got tossed out on appeal.
There are a hundred scenarios where a driver can drink before or even during driving without being impaired. So of course you can attack a “no open container” law on the basis of how this can be done safely by responsible people. If I’m stopped at a red light and don’t see anyone coming, I could go through it safely, but that doesn’t mean that stopping for red lights is a bad law.
I won’t respond to the “safe” scenarios by describing an equal number of hypothetical situations where it could be dangerous, but in general our laws err on the side of saving lives rather than allowing any possible act in the name of personal freedom.
Don’t get me wrong, laws can too far. I’m more concerned about laws against Big Gulps than laws that prohibit drinking while driving.
In Dallas County of Texas, back in the 1950s and 1960s, there were any number of places that offered curb service; people would sit in one place and the carhop would bring all the beer you wanted. There were even a few drive through places that sold hard liquor as well as beer.
I hope those places are out of business by now but I don’t know.
Anecdote /= data and all that, and also this being outside of the US…
Family friends went to a golf tournament. Wives picked up the hubbies and were driving them home.
two hubbies in the back seat sharing a 12-pack, wives in the front.
Car gets stopped at a random breath check point.
Wife (naturally, as not drinking) passes the test.
Copper sees the chaps in the back drinking, just tells them to buckle up and the trip continues.
Everything is as it should be.
Open container laws are crap.
Does the statute have a definitions part because I think you may be misinterpreting the word “package”.
My question on the ethics of drinking 1 beer while driving vs drinking 2 beers before driving was what it was. Period. Adding what the guy could do is not part of my original dilemma and was uninvited.
If we read a little further into the law, it says:
Odd.
But like I said, Canada is strange enough to have this.
Back in 2000 or so, my girlfriend’s parents would go out for a drive most every evening with a cocktail in their hand. I don’t know if they were just lucky or what but I never heard of them getting stopped or having an accident.
Like I said, I was puilled over in 1978 on a motorcycle, and the cop looked at the cardboard 12-pack of beer my passenger was carrying -even checked to underside to see if it was opened. I assume that was because he could give one of us a ticket for open liquor if the case was ripped open. Really, two guys with helmets on, in the open air, it would have been pretty obvious if we were actually drinking (we were not). He had no other reason to stop us.
This is a current story from Wentzville MO. Seems some of the lawmakers really are on the ball…Not wanting to ticket those who travel from St Louis to the ZOU.
MIZ…ZOU!
No, the logic is more… logical. Stuff like open liquor laws hould be state-wide; having laws that vary in detail from between counties and minor municipalities is a recipie for chaos.
Say one city allows open cardboard six-packs, the other does not. Yet another considers a case of empties “open liquor”, while a fourth will allow limo passengers to drink and a fifth has their own 0.04BAC limit because the mayor owns the towing company…
You think it’s complicated when one of these threads is answered with “there are 50 different answers to your question…”; wait until you have to say “ther are 10,000 different answers to the question, depending on which freeway exit you are near, and the only easy way to find out is to get caught.”
That really didn’t answer the hypothetical that was posited. In Scenario 2, the driver is taking a chance of becoming DUI at some point, but if he is enjoying his 1 light beer as in the scenario, he is harming nobody. Why should it be a police matter?
It’s even more absurd to prohibit a passenger from drinking. He can get blind drunk and not affect the driving abilities of the driver. (Unless you want to argue that his drunken horseplay would affect the driver’s abilities as the wife argued. That would presumably outlaw all designated driver programs, taxis, and limos.)