I just don’t understand drinking and driving

How about showing some mercy to the brave people of Cuba? End the blockade.

What is "brave" about them?? Living as communist slaves??????

Living in slavery is ignominious.

I 'd be ashamed of THAT.





David

You seem to have learned a new term "ad hominem" and, like everything else you do, you are using it compulsively, in post after post, and not using it entirely accurately to boot.

When used in an abusive way, an ad hominem attack can point out a genuine character flaw in the other person--it's simply irrelevant to an argument, but it can be quite accurate in describing the other person, as is the case when I call you an idiot, or others call you an asshole, or a creep, or a moron.

And you use abusive ad hominem attacks on others, particularly me, all the time. One of your favorites is to call me "dishonest" because you can't refute what I've said, or, in some instances, even comprehend what I've said.

Well, it's a little hard to decipher the meaning of that statement, given its lack of coherency, but I think I can safely say that I am more than capable of making an argument that can hold up on its own merits, without having to insult you as a way to defend my point of view or discredit yours. I insult you because I find you offensive. Plain and simple.

You get insulted, quite regularly, by a good number of people at A2K, and it is not because it is a way of trying to advance an argument. You get insulted because your often boorish behavior invites insult. You ask for it. And, you, quite honestly, deserve it.

You are surely smoother then some who do Ad hominem attacks however you are still the queen of doing so.

You know it is amazing that by your statements here anyone who does not think that a .08 is a correct set point and should be higher must be a drunk who wish to drive under the influence of alcohol and one can therefore assume by that "logic" that the founder of MADD who started the organation after having a child killed by a drunk driver must in fact be a secret drunk driver herself.

Then anyone who think that the federal sentencing guide lines for CP is too harsh must be a collector of such materials including it would seems by poll the majority of sitting Federal judges.

Oh then you come up with the idea that anyone who have top level security on thier computers must also be a CP collector including my wife!!!!!!!

You are a piece of work Firefly and that is not a statement attacking you as a holder of arguments for the correct limit for DUI BAC or the correct punishments for having CP but as someone who have a long and almost boring history of charging people who you do not agree with as being moral failures and secret criminals.

As far as you being dishonest you had proven over and over that you had been willing to be dishonest.

Your editing my sarcastic statement that I trade CP materials with Federal judges, leaving out the part that contain the Federal judges comment and then try to claimed I was admitting to be a CP trader is one of the very outstanding examples of you being a dishonest piece of work.

I suggest you stop holding up Candace Lightner, the founder of MADD, as being supportive of your views regarding increasing the legal BAC beyond .08, unless you can post a direct quote from her where she advocates increasing the legal BAC beyond where it is now.

As far as I can determine, Ms. Lightner has never said she favored an increase in the current legal BAC limit.

In addition, you seem to have missed more recent shifts in Ms. Lightner's attitude toward MADD and its aims--she now supports them.


Ms. Lightner also opposes lowering the drinking age in the military.

I don't really think she's on your side.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about that graph you keep posting.

She sure is not on your side and she is agreeing that the focus should not be on the .08 drivers and the lowering of the limit to .08 was not helpful.

So by your history you should be assuming she is a secret drunk driver like you love to charge I am.

Let repost her statement once more.........

From a 1994 article below Candy Lightner lobby against states putting in a .08 limit in the first place of course then the Federal government overrule the states judgment on the issue.

An like you love to do she was subjected to personal attacks for taking that position.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-26/news/vw-15591_1_candy-lightner

She will lobby state legislatures to reject laws that lower the legal standard for driving under the influence to .08% blood-alcohol level because she agrees with the restaurant industry's position that these are not the dangerous drivers and it is counterproductive to waste law enforcement resources on them. Only a few states, including California, have .08% laws. Most use .10%.

"Lowering the level accomplishes nothing. I think we should target the repeat offenders--they are the real danger on our roads," says Lightner, recalling that the man who killed her daughter had a long record of DUI arrests and had just been bailed out on a hit-and-run drunk-driving charge.



http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-26/news/vw-15591_1_candy-lightner

To the same level as talking on a cell phone so the word significant is kind of in question to say least.............

...because people never change in 18 years....

Damn that's a scary video. It's like straight up from those final destination movies. I never plan to drink and drive but this has given me another reason not to do it.
Australians seem to not censor as much as they do with commercials here in America.

Damn my bandwidth is not up to showing this video at the moment but I am looking forward to seeing it.

If however you wish to see another scary video that is the classical of all times look up the 1930s reefer madness film on youtube.

You never smoke a joint either...........

Apart from the fact that you are ignoring a much more recent quote by Ms Lightner, where she clearly is now supporting MADD and it's aims, I don't think you are accurately interpreting that old, really out-dated, quote of hers that you keep posting.

She did not say that she disagreed with lowering the BAC level to .08 in that quote--but rather that it was not a solution to the alcohol problem, and I'd agree with that, and that she didn't agree with the emphasis on the DUI laws--which means she wanted the emphasis on drunk driving awareness, and education, and prevention, and enforcement, placed elsewhere, like maybe on the more general problem of binge drinking, or alcohol abuse, and the social acceptability of excessive drinking, rather than just reminding people of the legal limit and how much they can drink to get there.

If this lady supports ignition interlock devices for repeat DUI offenders, or for those arrested with high BAC levels, she wants to make sure that chronic excessive drinkers don't drink any alcohol before they get behind the wheel. If she opposes lowering the drinking age in the military, it's because she doesn't feel drinking at a younger age should be encouraged. She's clearly concerned with drinking habits, and the ability of people to control their drinking and the extent of their drinking, and seeing drunk driving as essentially reflecting a problem with alcohol, particularly for repeat DUI offenders. The last thing she'd likely advocate today is raising the legal BAC level back up, above .08.

I haven't heard her say anything that disagrees with keeping the legal limit where it is. Until she does, she's on my side.

I also don't see the point in continuing to talk about this particular woman, you're fixated on her, I'm not. And she now supports MADD and their aims, her views have changed since those 1994 quotes of hers you keep posting, and you have nothing good to say about MADD.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about that graph you keep posting.

You do know she was a lobbyist for years fighting the lowering of the limit to .08?

That sound like she disagree with that limit unless you wish to claim she was a dishonest woman doing it for the money alone.

She always feel that the efforts should go toward the hard core drunk drivers that are mostly repeat offenders that are the killers on the road not someone that is at .08.

When MADD went toward lower BAC limit drinkers instead she parted ways with them.

And she now agrees with them, and their aims.

So, today, she is not supporting your views. She is not saying--as you are--that the legal BAC level should be raised.

And there really is no point in your continuing to talk about views she once espoused in 1994.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about that graph you keep posting.

OH? an interesting claim....................and it can not be for her support for keeping hardcore high BAC drivers off the road as that had always been her position.

That position have nothing to do with going after low risk low BAC drivers with road blocks and taking away manpower from looking for hammer drivers who are the real killers on the road.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about that graph you keep posting.

You used that graph as the main support of your argument to raise the legal BAC. You should be willing, and able, to answer questions about it.

So tell me, since you are so fond of that graph, what does "relative crash risk" mean? How was "relative crash risk" determined for that particular graph? Is "relative crash risk" the same for all age groups over age 18? The same for both genders? Or are you, as I suspect, posting a graph you yourself really can't correctly interpret because you are unaware of the data it was drawn from and based on?

The graph is the graph and the facts is the slope is mild and fairly linear at the lower end.

Getting one high end BAC driver off the road by that graph is 20 to 40 times or so more useful that getting someone at .08 off the road.

To spend manpower and resources design to detect .08 drivers instead of to maxim the detecting and stopping of the higher BAC drivers is a money cow for the state but it is likely costing many lives.

http://www.motorists.org/dui/flawed-solutions

Proposed Solutions & Their Flaws
Let's look at some of the proposed solutions to the DUI/DWI problem:

Lower the Legal BAC

Historically, the BAC for automatic categorization as "drunk driving" was .15%. This was, and is, the level where impairment is usually readily discernable. Most fatal and serious accidents involving alcohol continue to reflect .15% or higher BACs.

The current .08% BAC, now employed in all states, represents a lowest common denominator approach. It was adopted to expedite the arrest and conviction of drivers who do not necessarily exhibit visible levels of impairment. It is the DUI equivalent of the 55 mph speed limit. Lowering the legal BAC to this level is little more than an example of pandering to neoprohibitionists.

Lowered BAC levels serve to intimidate casual and social drinkers and give the police unbridled discretion to test and arrest almost anyone who has been drinking. Meanwhile, true drunk drivers floating along with .25% BACs continue to wreak havoc on the highways. A law enforcement officer cannot be looking for swerving, careening drunks if he is tied up with the processing of some miscreant who had four beers at the church picnic and blew a .08% BAC, after a traffic stop for a burned out license plate bulb.

Roadblocks (Sobriety Checkpoints)

Sobriety checkpoints are police roadblocks and that is what we will call them, police roadblocks.

Police roadblocks are symbolic and characteristic of police states. They should be anathema to any person with an historical perspective of how authoritarian governments exercise control over their citizens. Roadblocks are meant to intimidate and restrict the movement of people, goods, and ideas. No free society should tolerate any precedent that rationalizes the use of roadblocks.

When the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of roadblocks for DUI enforcement, they opened a Pandora's box of abuses. The Court addressed the issue solely from the DUI perspective. Police agencies have interpreted this decision as a license to set up roadblocks for any purpose they choose.

Currently roadblocks are used for vehicle safety inspections, seatbelt use, driver's license possession, mandated insurance coverage requirements, and even to restrict the movement of people from one neighborhood to another neighborhood, on public streets!

Severe Penalties

The notion that severe penalties can deter drunk drivers has some validity. However, that deterrence often lasts no longer than the length of the punishment.

The individuals who personify the public's image of a drunk driver are not typically swayed by "get tough" laws. However, a responsible, social drinker, apprehended in a "sobriety checkpoint," could well find himself facing license revocation, jail time, five years of horrendous insurance surcharges, and possibly the loss of his job. It happens every single day to people who have hurt no one and who are not a threat to anyone's well-being.

Draconian penalties are promoted by persons who are primarily interested in an overall assault on the use of alcohol, or are motivated by revenge. Developing solutions to the complicated problem of drunk driving and the resulting tragedies is not one of their priorities.

Administrative License Suspension

Because the consequences of a DUI conviction can be so severe, many defendants have taken their cases to trial (one of the unintended consequences of harsh penalties). This, in turn, clogged the courts and lead to long delays before the final judgment, usually "guilty," was rendered and the errant driver was ordered from the road.

The promoted solution to this problem has been to take the defendant's driver's license before the trial. In other words, apply the punishment first and worry about guilt or innocence at some later date. In almost any other context, this would be viewed as a ludicrous system of justice, but not DUI.

To avoid constitutional challenges, the proponents of A.L.S. (administrative license suspension) always offer the opportunity for a perfunctory or superficial administrative hearing. These are kangaroo courts designed to process defendants as quickly and cheaply as possible. Any similarity to a fair trial is illusory.

Just as with roadblocks, the danger of A.L.S. is the precedent it expands. (The word "expands" is used because the right to a fair trial for many traffic violations has already been severely eroded to the point of being invisible.)

Do we just continue to limit access to the courts because the system cannot handle the flood of new "criminals"?

Keep in mind that although the vast majority of DUI defendants have not been involved in an accident nor have they hurt anyone, the penalties they face are extremely harsh, in fact, more harsh than the punishment for many crimes against property and persons. However, some states, and the U.S. Supreme Court, do not believe that the DUI defendant is even entitled to a jury trial (unless the penalty includes over six months in jail).