@hawkeye10,
Quote:I get a lot of benefit out of drinking and then driving...
That really says it all, Hawkeye. This is yet another thread about your narcissistic sense of entitlement.
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Quote:I get a lot of benefit out of drinking and then driving...
That really says it all, Hawkeye. This is yet another thread about your narcissistic sense of entitlement.
nope...common sense approaches to facilitating a healthy collective and how this aint that is what this is about.
@hawkeye10,
I saw that , in Canada, the reduction of the "DUI" theshold to 0.05 has resulted in a 7.9% reduction of accidents amng folks under 30 and 5.5% reduction for those over 30.
Looks like this is gonna be another Hawkee page turner.Im going to bed
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
that is not a valid comparison because I get a lot of benefit out of drinking and then driving but none out of disease
BEfore I finished laughing at FF's comment about your extreme narcissism, I had to respond that the point of issue was the strict percentages, you were implying that there was no appreciable difference in outcomes for driving while only "a little" fucked up and those of sober people. Remember its by metric of time driving. Besides even a difference of 2.9% is almost 30000 DUI related accidents per million driver units.
@farmerman,
Quote:I saw that , in Canada, the reduction of the "DUI" theshold to 0.05 has resulted in a 7.9% reduction of accidents amng folks under 30 and 5.5% reduction for those over 30.
was that little "gain" worth all of the fun and socialization that was lost? civilization is always fragile, and our societal glue is currently very weak by historical standards, this is no time to weaken it still more at the hands of the joyless authoritarian new puritans.
No one needs to drink and then drive. It's simple enough to be provident and assure a safe ride, or to drink either at home or somewhere where it is convenient to sleep it off. The problem with Whackeye here is that he wants to link drinking and driving when there is no plausible reason to do so. The no-nonsense phrase used in radio advertising here is: "It's simple--if you drink, don't drive." No one needs to drive after drinking. If they have been drinking and want to go somewhere, with the only option being to drive themselves, they have already proven irresponsible.
I"ll bet, as Butterfly pointed out, dram shop law is sticking in Whackeye's craw.
In Ontario, you can lose your license on the spot for from three to thirty days--and that's just a starter. A first-time conviction for driving impaired carries a minimum fine of $20,000. That pretty well shut down that drinking and driving **** right away.
Wackeye has yet to explain why anyone needs to drink and then drive. If you know you will have to drive yourself, don't drink. But more to the point, don't whine to me about it.
@Setanta,
Quote: No one needs to drive after drinking
or skydive
or ski
or tan
or own a gun
or drink soda
or eat 80 grams of fat at dinner
or....
need is not the correct yardstick to use when evaluating our rights, or what the right thing to do is.
@Setanta,
Quote:In Ontario, you can lose your license on the spot for from three to thirty days--and that's just a starter. A first-time conviction for driving impaired carries a minimum fine of $20,000
not according to the Ministry of Transportation website.....show your work
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/penalties.shtml
@hawkeye10,
Yeah? So what's your point? Skydiving, skiing, tanning, owning a gun, drinking a soda and eating 80 grams of fat at dinner to not have a high potential of endangering the public. You really have a problem with logical thought.
@hawkeye10,
I was repeating what they say in the radio ad--so sue me. The fact remains that after the implementation of the new DUI laws, arrests and convictions dropped dramatically.
And, of course, you haven't show how anyone absolutely must drive after drinking.
@Setanta,
Quote:The fact remains that after the implementation of the new DUI laws, arrests and convictions dropped dramatically.
in 08 when the law passed the rate was 145/100,000 population and in 2011 it was 130......you apparently have an odd sense of what "dramatically" means.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11739/c-g/desc/desc04-eng.htm
The population of Ontario is more than 13 million. A drop of 15 per 100,000 population means a decrease of 1950. I consider that dramatic. I can see, though, that with your irrationally inflated sense both of the dramatic and of your own importance, that you would not see it that way. Getting nearly 2000 drunks off the road is sufficiently dramatic for my tastes, and could only be improved by getting all of the selfish, irresponsible bastards off the road.
You still have not made any claim about the need to drink and then drive.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Getting nearly 2000 drunks off the road is sufficiently dramatic for my tastes, and could only be improved by getting all of the selfish, irresponsible bastards off the road.
You still have not made any claim about the need to drink and then drive.
Says the man who used to go for a drink in his youth and always drove back down the freeway in the wrong direction... so you've reported in the past!!! Correct?
@igm,
Yes, thats correct, although, in fact, i was not driving. That was almost 40 years ago. If you think people don't learn and don't change, then you're even more of a fool than i had previously taken you for. I have good reason to want to see drunks taken off the road--i know intimately just what a danger they can be.
@Setanta,
Quote:You still have not made any claim about the need to drink and then drive.
I need civilization to continue and alcohol use has always and continues to facilitate that, all moves to use government force to cut joyful socialization is a threat to the collective and to me. possibly saving a few hundred lives a year out of a population of 312 million is not just cause for lowering the BAC limit from .08 to .05, with the resulting loss of joy and positive social experience.
@Setanta,
Fair enough... that make all the difference... especially as a feel good anecdote... told the other week
@hawkeye10,
Quote: possibly saving a few hundred lives a year out of a population of 312 million is not just cause for lowering the BAC limit from .08 to .05, with the resulting loss of joy and positive social experience
Unless it were your life?
@hawkeye10,
Oh yeah, the joy and positive social experience of funerals--especially for parents burying their children. You badly need to grow up.
@igm,
It wasn't told as "a feel good anecdote," it was a thread about dumb **** we did when were young . . . you sanctimonious little bitch. Tell me again that you only follow me because there might be interesting threads . . . liar.
