[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Impairment starts with the first drink. Who are these people unaffected by alcohol and why do they bother drinking?
[/quote]
I just wanted to congratulate you for this argument Sir.
[quote]mcnasty13 wrote:
oooo you can’t drink for a year…
pussy!!!
try spending that year locked up with nothing: no friends,no family, no nothing.
shut the F up, suck it it up.
Or as my wife says “grow a set”[/quote]
Could I grow one, to see if I like it and then grow the other one?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
How would it be? I don’t know what this has to do with your previous post? You mean a lower impairment [.05 BAL] but a lesser penalty for this is what some states are already doing? And a greater penalty for higher amounts?[/quote]
Yes.
There is no way to know that without trying. In my younger days, I believe it would have worked for me.
[quote]blah wrote:
Impairment starts with the first drink. Who are these people unaffected by alcohol and why do they bother drinking?
I just wanted to congratulate you for this argument Sir.[/quote]
Technically, we might call them alcoholics. As with most drugs, the more you consume, the more tolerant you become of it. An alcoholic at .08 is significantly less affected than a normal-drinker at .08. I won’t argue that we should allow alcoholics more lenience or anything stupid like that, but that’s just how drugs work.
I wasn’t bragging about my thesis. It’s just school stuff that I found interesting and which pertained to the topic. I get the impression you have a chip on your shoulder about education. I was just sharing the results of my research project.
The problem is that most of the information people have about the drunk driving situation is inaccurate. Drinking and driving is stupid, I agree, but the statistics people are constantly being bombarded with are incorrect and specifically tailored to get a knee jerk response. Nobody believes most of the crap government agencies tell them anyways, so why would you believe this?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why should we try to cure cancer when people die of heart attacks?
Just because other things may be as bad as drunk driving does not mean we should give drunk drivers a pass.
[/quote]
I didn’t say we should give drunk drivers a pass. We shouldn’t. I asked why everyone else is getting a pass and drunk drivers are being demonized when, statistically, they are equally dangerous.
[quote]larryb wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
How would it be? I don’t know what this has to do with your previous post? You mean a lower impairment [.05 BAL] but a lesser penalty for this is what some states are already doing? And a greater penalty for higher amounts?
Yes.
I’m still not sure it’s a good thing. The fact that it’s law doesn’t make it so. There are plenty of shitty laws.
There is no way to know that without trying. In my younger days, I believe it would have worked for me.[/quote]
Well, I suppose it does have the effect of separating people out who miscalculated a little and drank slightly too much or didn’t wait long enough before driving and those who were just trashed and didn’t give a shit about getting behind the wheel. My concern would be that it would increase the number of people who’d assume they were ok to drive because they only had ‘a little.’
[quote]hedgrinder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why should we try to cure cancer when people die of heart attacks?
Just because other things may be as bad as drunk driving does not mean we should give drunk drivers a pass.
I didn’t say we should give drunk drivers a pass. We shouldn’t. I asked why everyone else is getting a pass and drunk drivers are being demonized when, statistically, they are equally dangerous. [/quote]
Who’s getting a pass?
Injuring or killing someone could have affected your lifestyle (and theirs) much more severely. Be am man and deal with the consequences of your actions.
[quote]Josie wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
OK, OK all you judgemental fucks, who among you has NEVER driven drunk?
[/quote]
I havent. I know plenty of people who are responsible enough to drink and never drive drunk in their life.
And way to go, justify driving drunk because other people do it. I guess you could go shoot someone too, since thats happened before.
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
Josie wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
OK, OK all you judgemental fucks, who among you has NEVER driven drunk?
I havent. I know plenty of people who are responsible enough to drink and never drive drunk in their life.
And way to go, justify driving drunk because other people do it. I guess you could go shoot someone too, since thats happened before.[/quote]
I have done that but it was only a ricochet.
[quote]orion wrote:
Kratos wrote:
The only people that penalties are an effective deterrent for are people who have a modicum of sense to begin with. People KNOW they are likely to get addicted and waste a bunch of money, and lung tissue, but they still CHOOSE to smoke. Meth, coke, heroin, whatever, everyone knows that shit is bad, yet that doesn’t stop them. People know what they are doing is wrong, they usually just don’t care. Maybe AFTER suffering penalties, SOME of them will.
That is sweet, we punish people that only hurt themselves because we care…
Combine that with the idea that some things are privileges (privileges handed out by the government , no less!) not rights that need to be a little regulated and you can start a collection of brown shirts, they will be very “in”, very soon…[/quote]
OK, fist off, I never said anything about anybody getting punished because someone gave a damn about them, just that they would have to suffer some consequences for their actions. They know this, and yet they still take part in whatever bufoonery gets them into trouble. The laws are supposed to be deterrents, but I’m not going to reastate the obvious. It’s been covered.
Now, make it clear to me how driving is a [i]right[/i]. Here, you have to go through some sort of training/education, and then pass a driving test(which is ridiculously easy), and THEN you get to drive. Sounds like a privilege to me. You also have to have a car. Is that a "right" as well?
Funny how we ridicule people who display virtue…
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
ThatGirl77 wrote:
Sunshine, my hand is still up. Not only do I not drink and drive, I also don’t get in a car w/ anyone who’s been drinking.
Wow, you’re the greatest. Do want a medal or a chest to pin it on?[/quote]
[quote]Charles Staley wrote:
Funny how we ridicule people who display virtue…
simon-hecubus wrote:
ThatGirl77 wrote:
Sunshine, my hand is still up. Not only do I not drink and drive, I also don’t get in a car w/ anyone who’s been drinking.
Wow, you’re the greatest. Do want a medal or a chest to pin it on?
[/quote]
Depends on how and why they display it…
Not that I think she fits in the holier than thou category, drunk driving IS mindboggingly stupid…
Still, nobody gets a cookie for NOT being criminally careless and stupid…
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I didn’t say we should give drunk drivers a pass. We shouldn’t. I asked why everyone else is getting a pass and drunk drivers are being demonized when, statistically, they are equally dangerous.
Who’s getting a pass?
[/quote]
Those who use cell phones while driving, those who eat while driving, old people with tunnel vision, people who drive tired (I suppose a tiredness test would be difficult though), habitual tailgaters (tailgating is mighty dangerous and is barely enforced), people who constantly turn around and yell at their kids while driving, people who bend down and fish around for a CD while driving, women who put on makeup while driving.
here in texas DWI “Driving While Intoxicated” is when you blow above .008. DUI “Driving Under the Influence” is when you blow under .008. Different penalties. if you get a DWI here, you are screw for life b/c it will stay in your record forever and if you get caught again in a 10 yrs period they will enhance it to a Misdemeanor A