The Long Expected Next Phase In DUI Law Is HERE

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

kinda reinforcing the point, aren't you?

now all I need to do is become a REPUBLICAN! to get my reservation in Hell confirmed....

0 Replies

Oh, I don't think you need to worry about your reservations, Hawkeye. They're pretty much ironclad already. Becoming a Republican does let you move to the front of the line, however.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

Let me guess....you have a liquor license and serve liquor in your restaurant and this will cut into your profits.

yes but I was hostile towards DUI law before that....in the Berry/Thom thread I said that the .08 limit is already not justified based upon science and thus is barely tolerable, and that the next phase of depriving us of pleasure and freedom must be put down with vigor.

Freedom? Freedom to drink and drive?

You are making arguments based on your own faulty premise.

2 Replies

@JeffreyEqualityNewma,

in PA we have a debate going on about privatizing liquor sales. The biggest group against privatizing is the Union of Alcohol Bevergage Sales Reps. They claim that they are only interested in keeping alcoholism from becoming a Social Pandemic (Sort of like it is in Maryland and Delaware I suppose). Hawkees argument reminds me of the argument made by these liquor union folks. Their concern is more global and based on concern for the people, just as is HAwkees.

On a clams rump

1 Reply

@farmerman,

the solution is obvious: evaluate individual claims on the evidence, and resist the urge to let emotions and personalities cloud your judgement. you are a scientist for ****'s sake....please try to remember that this is supposed to mean something

1 Reply

@JeffreyEqualityNewma,

Quote:

Freedom? Freedom to drink and drive?

You are making arguments based on your own faulty premise

wrong...the deal is that you let me indulge in my proclivities and vices and in return I will let you indulge in yours. if this does not work for you then your alternative option is to live as the East Germans did....which I might point out according to almost all accounts sucked ass.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Whatever you base your own emotional view on
is totally non compelling. The data surrounding impairment thresholds IS scientific and it is in the arena of projection statistics. Trying low level name calling doesnt help your shaky argument.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

wrong...the deal is that you let me indulge in my proclivities and vices and in return I will let you indulge in yours

I like to walk around randomly firing my 222 at low angles into the air

0 Replies

Why is MADD among critics of lower alcohol limit?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

because over-reach by the state in the long term hurts their agenda.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

...the deal is that you let me indulge in my proclivities and vices and in return I will let you indulge in yours.

that's not how a collective works

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
...the deal is that you let me indulge in my proclivities and vices and in return I will let you indulge in yours.

that's not how a collective works

that is exactly how it works, because the only other way to keep the social glue together is through the force of the police state.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You're not much on the social sciences eh. Collectives do not run based on the desires of individuals.

The collective is not going to let you indulge in your proclivities - at least not without letting you know what the consequences will be. That's what the deal is when you choose to live in the U.S.

The past few decades of Republican governments have grown Big Brother control to a marvellous degree in the U.S. No individual proclivities for you.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

You're not much on the social sciences eh. Collectives do not run based on the desires of individuals

collectives run based upon what is in the best interest of the collective, and letting individuals live as much as possible according to their free will is a iron clad requirement if the police state is to be avoided. refusal to do this installs a culture of disrespect for the individual which over time will always tear the collective apart.

Pro police state liberals best get their brains around the fact that their actions undermine (are directly opposed to actually) what they claim that they are fighting for, that being a sedate society of free people.

0 Replies

I think Hawkeye is more concerned about losing some alcohol sales that anything else. Putting drunks on the road is good business.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

I think Hawkeye is more concerned about losing some alcohol sales that anything else. Putting drunks on the road is good business.

you are aware that I in many places argue that the government is too large and is overly oppressive.......

how about you trying to argue the point rather than thumbing your nose at the other speakers??

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You do realize you could be held responsible if you allow someone to leave your establishment intoxicated?

The whole Thom, Barry case might be over with due to Mr. Swift’s death but the legal issues are not over for the bar that served him cocktails for six straight hours.

1 Reply

@JeffreyEqualityNewma,

sure, and I also know that in our litigious society .05 BAC laws will severly ramp up my industries costs of doing business, even for my fellow responsible operators.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

In a previous thread you said you don't think that 'defective people' like my intellectually disabled son should be allowed out in public if they inconvenience others. Why exactly is your right to enjoy yourself and knowingly go out on the road and risk the lives of totally innocent people more important than my son's right to go to a shop to buy food and unintentionally risk slowing down the queue (the example you gave) ?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

All states have general police powers. In the exercise of those general police powers, state legislatures define crimes and establish punishments. States do not have unlimited power to define crimes and establish punishments, there are constitutional limits.

However the state has a legitimate interest in protecting human life and that includes punishing those that drink and drive.

1 Reply

The Long Expected Next Phase In DUI Law Is HERE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know