Cruising Norwegian Cruise Line with a Misdemeanor

[AZDuck]

1 hour ago, Urban trekker said:

What about many Canadians who smoked a little weed back in the 60's and 70's and were caught and can't enter the US even to this day legally without applying for an pardon.

 

That's dumb too. But that's not the topic of this thread unless you're goal is to  turn this into USA vs. Canada post, in which case I'm out. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Dereknadz

[Heidi13]

12 hours ago, Dereknadz said:

That's dumb too. 

 

I also have no desires to debate US v's Canadian Laws, but do take exception to your reference to Canada restricting access to those convicted of Impaired Driving, as "Dumb". We consider Impaired Driving a serious criminal offense.

 

You may not like or agree with our laws; however, you should respect them. You posted having a serious criminal conviction (Impaired Driving), so if you consider yourself rehabilitated, there is a legal framework available to have that conviction pardoned, which will remove any restrictions on entering Canada and a number of other countries. Yes, Canada is not the only country to prohibit access to those convicted of Impaired Driving.

 

 

[donaldsc]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

 

I also have no desires to debate US v's Canadian Laws, but do take exception to your reference to Canada restricting access to those convicted of Impaired Driving, as "Dumb". We consider Impaired Driving a serious criminal offense.

 

You may not like or agree with our laws; however, you should respect them. You posted having a serious criminal conviction (Impaired Driving), so if you consider yourself rehabilitated, there is a legal framework available to have that conviction pardoned, which will remove any restrictions on entering Canada and a number of other countries. Yes, Canada is not the only country to prohibit access to those convicted of Impaired Driving.

 

 

 

 

Good for Canada!!  The US is way too lenient in how we handle people who drive drunk.  Witness the number of people who have multiple DUI convictions on their record.  It would be very easy to force people who have a DUI conviction to install devices on their cars to make it much more difficult for them to drive after drinking.  It would not eliminate the problem but it would significantly reduce it.

 

DON

[Heidi13]

41 minutes ago, donaldsc said:

 

 

Good for Canada!!  The US is way too lenient in how we handle people who drive drunk.  Witness the number of people who have multiple DUI convictions on their record.  It would be very easy to force people who have a DUI conviction to install devices on their cars to make it much more difficult for them to drive after drinking.  It would not eliminate the problem but it would significantly reduce it.

 

DON

 

Don - they introduced that device here as well, including making it easier for the police to get a conviction, but the "bleeding hearts" got it overturned. SIL is RCMP and it is very time consuming to get a conviction.

 

I won't comment on the US Laws, but personally, I believe our laws are still too lenient on Impaired Drivers.

[CruiserBruce]

4 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

I also have no desires to debate US v's Canadian Laws, but do take exception to your reference to Canada restricting access to those convicted of Impaired Driving, as "Dumb". We consider Impaired Driving a serious criminal offense.

 

You may not like or agree with our laws; however, you should respect them. You posted having a serious criminal conviction (Impaired Driving), so if you consider yourself rehabilitated, there is a legal framework available to have that conviction pardoned, which will remove any restrictions on entering Canada and a number of other countries. Yes, Canada is not the only country to prohibit access to those convicted of Impaired Driving.

 

 

As you know I am sure, some people don't think they need to abide by US laws they consider dumb, either. Part of the reason people are having trouble getting into Canada!

[GTJ]

5 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

I won't comment on the US Laws, but personally, I believe our laws are still too lenient on Impaired Drivers.

Yes, impaired driving places innocent people at risk of serious injury or death, and is often treated too lightly in the United States, and perhaps Canada, too. Where I have difficulty is when the authorities focus on the definitions of the crime, rather than the actual societal risk, and prosecute individuals for impaired "driving" for, say, as an intoxicated paraplegic using.a motorized wheelchair, something that would impose little, if any, risk on society. Let's focus the impaired driving enforcement efforts on the motorists who can maim or kill people, locking them up so that they cannot do so, and not prosecute the dumb things that might technically be deemed to be "driving."

[donaldsc]

3 hours ago, GTJ said:

Yes, impaired driving places innocent people at risk of serious injury or death, and is often treated too lightly in the United States, and perhaps Canada, too. Where I have difficulty is when the authorities focus on the definitions of the crime, rather than the actual societal risk, and prosecute individuals for impaired "driving" for, say, as an intoxicated paraplegic using.a motorized wheelchair, something that would impose little, if any, risk on society. Let's focus the impaired driving enforcement efforts on the motorists who can maim or kill people, locking them up so that they cannot do so, and not prosecute the dumb things that might technically be deemed to be "driving."

 

How often does this occur as compared to the many many people who should be taken off the road forever but aren't. 

 

BTW - if you are a paraplegic and intoxicated you still shouldn't be driving your chair.  If you do something stupid while driving your chair and I hit you that can and does cause long term psychological problems to the person who hit the paraplegic.  I would not want to have to carry that guilt long term even if the injury or death was not my problem.  

 

DON

Edited September 12, 2023 by donaldsc

[GTJ]

4 minutes ago, donaldsc said:

How often does this occur as compared to the many many people who should be taken off the road forever but aren't.

A quick search online will turn up many stories of non-motorists being cited. A collection that also includes people riding horses and other animals, bicycles, buggies, and similar situations. I have read at least one court opinion discussing whether a horse met the legal definition of a motor vehicle. For example, take a look at the article here. The purpose of the laws regulating impaired driving arise out of the dangers imposed upon others by heavy heavy vehicles traveling at high enough speeds sufficient to maim or kill. Then periodically they are applied in ridiculous situations--out of some sort of supposed "fairness" that the laws not be applied only to motorists--even though both though the motivation for the law and the dangers come from motor vehicles. Enough already with going after drunkards on horseback. Instead, lock up the people driving cars and trucks while intoxicated! And if Canada wants to keep those motorists who are a menace to society out of their country, so be it.

 

18 minutes ago, donaldsc said:

BTW - if you are a paraplegic and intoxicated you still shouldn't be driving your chair.

It is not against the law for a person to be intoxicated. Nor is it against the law for an intoxicated person to walk. How should the law be applied to people with disabilities? Are we concerned that there is a serious risk of disabled persons using motorized wheelchairs while impaired to maim or kill other persons? Should disabled people who decide to get drunk be compelled to pull themselves on the ground without their wheelchair? Do we tell wheelchair users that, unlike ambulatory people, they're not allowed to get drunk? Take a look at the article here. I think it is important that the civil liberties of people with disabilities be respected without discrimination. And again, this type of enforcement of impaired driving laws goes beyond the intent of those laws and is pedantic. Hopefully Canada will exercise common sense and not be exercising its discretion to keep out of its country convicted wheelchair users.

[Heidi13]

15 hours ago, GTJ said:

Yes, impaired driving places innocent people at risk of serious injury or death, and is often treated too lightly in the United States, and perhaps Canada, too. Where I have difficulty is when the authorities focus on the definitions of the crime, rather than the actual societal risk, and prosecute individuals for impaired "driving" for, say, as an intoxicated paraplegic using.a motorized wheelchair, something that would impose little, if any, risk on society. Let's focus the impaired driving enforcement efforts on the motorists who can maim or kill people, locking them up so that they cannot do so, and not prosecute the dumb things that might technically be deemed to be "driving."

 

With my understanding of the system, I believe this is how our "Crown Prosecution" operates. Even if the police lay charges, the Crown will only proceed if they have a reasonable chance of success and it is sufficiently serious.

 

I can't imagine my SIL or any of his colleagues writing up charges against a first time motorised wheelchair user. It would require serious consequences or multiple repeats. Even with impaired driving, when they are barely over the limit with no other issues, they are usually given a 24 hrs roadside suspension, having to leave the car at the roadside and find other means to get home - no record other than the roadside suspension. 

 

Therefore, I'll suggest our RCMP and Crown Prosecution do focus on risk, as you suggest.

[AZDuck]

On 9/11/2023 at 9:11 AM, Heidi13 said:

 

I also have no desires to debate US v's Canadian Laws, but do take exception to your reference to Canada restricting access to those convicted of Impaired Driving, as "Dumb". We consider Impaired Driving a serious criminal offense.

 

You may not like or agree with our laws; however, you should respect them. You posted having a serious criminal conviction (Impaired Driving), so if you consider yourself rehabilitated, there is a legal framework available to have that conviction pardoned, which will remove any restrictions on entering Canada and a number of other countries. Yes, Canada is not the only country to prohibit access to those convicted of Impaired Driving.

 

 

I apologize for my poor choice of words in the heat of the moment. I meant no disrespect and certainly am not making light of impaired driving. I respect the Canadian rule of law, but I'm also a firm believer in redemption and second chances for those that have demonstrated they are worthy. To me, the passage of 20 plus years without infractions is a good indication of being low risk and I tend to think most judicious CBSA agents feel the same way or we'd be hearing a lot more stories of people being denied entry with one decades old DUI. But the law is what it is and I intend to apply and be approved for rehabilitation so that this isn't a worry for me moving forward. The forms and procedures are clearly spelled out on the Canadian immigration website. No need to hire an attorney. I don't drink anymore (14 years) and haven't had as much as a traffic ticket in over 20 years. I've flown to Vancouver BC twice in the past few years and CBSA didn't even bat an eye at me so this is probably a lot of fuss and worry over nothing. But I'm going to deal with it anyway just to be safe.

Peace and Love

[sambamama]

I am a lawyer. Some of this information is wrong. It does not just apply to DUI, it applies to just about all misdemeanors. If you have anything, you need to get it expunged in your state or hire a Canadian lawyer who deals with this stuff. They take it very, very seriously. It won't be funny when you get detained and held and lose your vacation, or your family goes home without you. 

[sambamama]

Do you want to take a chance? The word is most. The law is the law. Don't risk it!!! This is legal advice from a lawyer who has looked at the law.