Law Canadian police can now give you a breathalyzer test at home or in a bar or anywhere without reason.

[Andy Capp]

In the article
-----
When introducing the bill, federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said the law would help crack down on people who consume large quantities of alcohol in a short period, then drive or boat, hoping to get home before the alcohol is fully absorbed into their systems.
...
"Its primary purpose is to eliminate risky behaviour associated with bolus drinking, sometimes referred to as drinking and dashing" Wilson-Raybould told Parliament.
-------


Is this even a thing? It makes no sense. I've never heard of anyone ever doing that.

to pass such a far reaching law with that as the primary reason smells like a load of BS and a poor excuse.

LMAO you're right that's complete BS made up to sound pretty in front of parliament
"drinking and dashing" means drinking your booze quickly and leaving the bar without paying your tab

not many people are slamming booze then rushing home before they get drunk. they are at the bar to get drunk and socialize

The concerns about this phenomenon are not unfounded,
Bolus drinking: How a Sudbury man's last few drinks helped him beat a drunk driving charge

However, the judge ruled there was strong evidence the man had consumed quite of bit of alcohol minutes before the crash. Under legal precedent, this raised doubt about whether he was impaired at the time of the crash, since it takes some time for alcohol to be absorbed.

To get around this problem, the judge said the Crown could have called in an expert to testify about what the man's blood alcohol level was at the time of the accident, as has happened in other cases where bolus drinking was used as a defence.

“However, this was not done in this case,” the judge wrote. “Given the court’s concerns about the reliability of the expert’s opinion in this regard, the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (the suspect) had over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of his blood at the time he had the care or control of his motor vehicle. (He) is found not guilty of this offence.”

Having said that, I think it's very uncommon and whether the legislation was well-intended or not, it seems pretty clearly a case of over-reach and it will be struck down in due course. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[Andy Capp]

Further reading regarding the above,
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/mtpcc-mdccmt/5.html
Even a three hour time limit could also cause difficulties in some cases particularly those involving an accident. It is settled science that:

If alcohol is consumed on an empty stomach, the blood concentration will usually reach, or be within 20 milligrams per 100 millilitres of, a maximum within approximately 30 minutes, have a variable plateau period, usually within a range of approximately 30 - 60 minutes, and will then decline at a rate generally of 10 to 20 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood per hour.6

There is no reason to incur the expense to call a toxicologist to calculate what is well known science. It is therefore proposed that, if the tests are taken beyond the two hour period, which is well beyond the 30-60 minute plateau period, 5 mg be added to the BAC at time of testing for each completed half hour to determine the BAC at the time of driving. This calculation gives the benefit to the accused because most people eliminate at a rate close to 10 mg per half hour.

Your views are sought on eliminating the time limit for the presumption of identity by specifying that where the test is beyond two hours, 5 mg will be added to the BAC for each completed half-hour.

Bolus or intervening drinking defences:
It is currently a defence for a person to raise a reasonable doubt that their BAC was over 80 at the time of driving by adducing evidence of consumption that is compatible with both the BAC at the time of testing and with a BAC of 80 or less at the time of driving. The defence has been used in the "bolus drinking" scenario where the accused claims to have guzzled several drinks just before getting into their car so the alcohol was still being absorbed and, consequently, their BAC was under 80 at the time of driving. It has also been used where the driver has consumed alcohol after being stopped by the police or after a collision, supposedly to calm his nerves. It is then argued that this "intervening drink" raised the BAC post-driving and that the driver was actually under 80 at the time of driving.

 

[TJH Exitium]

The concerns about this phenomenon are not unfounded,
Bolus drinking: How a Sudbury man's last few drinks helped him beat a drunk driving charge

Having said that, I think it's very uncommon and whether the legislation was well-intended or not, it seems pretty clearly a case of over-reach and it will be struck down in due course. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Indeed 'bolus drinking' is used as a defense (ridiculous precedent imo) by people with crafty lawyers when they are caught drinking and driving, but it's not as if there is a large population of people out there power drinking and then immediately rushing home as if it's a popular trend.

It's just a bs legal defense, not a popular new method of drinking

 

[Clippy]

lmao @ this 3rd world country.

lol at countries who's governments are shut down

 

[Andy Capp]

Indeed 'bolus drinking' is used as a defense (ridiculous precedent imo) by people with crafty lawyers when they are caught drinking and driving, but it's not as if there is a large population of people out there power drinking and then immediately rushing home as if it's a popular trend.

It's just a bs legal defense, not a popular new method of drinking

No, I don't believe it's a huge issue, but dismissing it as though it doesn't exist is disingenuous. I understand the need to close the loophole. It's something, had I even known it was a thing, that I could have easily exploited myself since I live in a fairly small place. My father used to do that all the time, drop into the Legion after work, pound back 3 or 4 beers, and take off home.

At the same time, a remedy exists already to combat it as a defense so the new law is still wrong, IMO.