The Long Expected Next Phase In DUI Law Is HERE

@Pearlylustre,

Quote:

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) ?

everything we do includes risk, so the question is how much risk is acceptable to add to driving to facilitate social drinking. In my opinion alcohol is a great benefit to quality of individual life as well as collective life so the answer is a fair amount.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

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.

But, if .05 BAC limits will significantly lower the number of automobile accidents, and injuries, and deaths, they may help to lower the costs of automobile insurance premiums for all responsible drivers.

All drivers wind up footing part of the bill for the damages and injuries and deaths caused by drunk drivers, or other irresponsible drivers. My insurance premiums aren't just based on my own excellent driving record, they're also based on what the other drivers are doing, and costing the insurance companies.

1 Reply

@JeffreyEqualityNewma,

Quote:

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

the state has a more profound interest in its own survival, so care should be taken to not over-reach as it uses force to limit personal freedom.

0 Replies

@Pearlylustre,

I don't recall that dialog, but you do make a good point.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

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

dont count on the greedy insurance companies to let you save enough to cover your business insurance inflated restaurant bill, much less your share of the tax burden of the safety net for the newly unemployed former restaurant workers.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Because the govt trying to keep impaired drivers off the highway does not need a defense. Drunk driving is not freedom, it is irresponsible.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

What about unemployed restaurant owners? Your motivations are crystal clear.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
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) ?

everything we do includes risk, so the question is how much risk is acceptable to add to driving to facilitate social drinking. In my opinion alcohol is a great benefit to quality of individual life as well as collective life so the answer is a fair amount.

You know you didn't answer my question. Why is the risk that my son might inconvenience you ( in the pursuit of his 'quality of individual life' on the most basic level) not acceptable when the risk of you killing or maiming someone in the pursuit of your 'quality of individual life' is a 'right'?
I guess the ultimate irony would be if you were to suffer a disability as the result of a drunk driver. Then you might learn something about what 'the quality of individual life' actually means.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Because the govt trying to keep impaired drivers off the highway does not need a defense. Drunk driving is not freedom, it is irresponsible.

so is jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with a parachute and eating a double whopper meal with Coke....but the state in a free society does not have the right to criminalize all irresponsibility, only outrageous irresponsibility. In my opinion lower than .07 BAC does not make the grade.

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

What about unemployed restaurant owners? Your motivations are crystal clear.

even if you are right that is not an argument that nullifies my points. truth is truth no matter who speaks it, and so are lies. you are evading the debate, do you not have any arguments?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

so the question is how much risk is acceptable to add to driving to facilitate social drinking

And my answer would be none. I'm not interested in facilitating social drinking, nor am I personally interested in inhibiting it, and I see the whole issue of drinking as quite apart from the matter of what public behaviors individuals should be allowed to engage in when in an impaired state--public behaviors that affect other people.
I don't think we should actively enable any avoidable risks when it comes to driving. People are free to drink as much as they want--and they also have the responsibility of arranging alternate transportation if they drink over the legal limit.

Quote:

In my opinion alcohol is a great benefit to quality of individual life as well as collective life so the answer is a fair amount.

Let me know when you're ready to let a neurosurgeon, with a .08, or .10 BAC level operate on your brain or spinal cord. Or let a school bus driver with a .08 or .10 BAC ferry children back and forth.

You're more concerned with drinking, and being able to drink excessively, than you are with anything to do with responsible driving, or with trying to reduce the number the number of alcohol-related auto accidents, injuries, and deaths. That's why you can't rationally consider the benefits, to the "collective", of reducing the legal BAC to .05.

And not everyone needs to consume alcohol in large amounts in order to be able to socialize. If you have to anesthetize yourself with booze to enjoy being around others, and alcohol is a form of anesthesia, I'd hardly see that as a boon to the social cohesion of "the collective" or something to be facilitated by "the collective".

1 Reply

@Pearlylustre,

Quote:

Why is the risk that my son might inconvenience you (

it is not a risk, it is a 100% probability. have some class and show some consideration for everyone who is not your son.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

so is jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with a parachute and eating a double whopper meal with Coke

If you would notice, were you not so selfish, in the above activities you are not endangering innocent bystanders or motorists

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
so is jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with a parachute and eating a double whopper meal with Coke
If you would notice, were you not so selfish, in the above activities you are not endangering innocent bystanders or motorists

oh, so that is the test then....in that case since cars endanger innocent walking humans at cross walks we had better get on outlawing the use of cars anywhere humans are likely to be on the road.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

And my answer would be none.

so you lied when Bill and I said that you will not be happy till the law says 0.00 BAC and you claimed to be fine with .07.

that is par for you....

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Yes, class and consideration are obviously your strong points - just behind your astonishing ability for empathy. We can all learn so much from you. You're an absolute inspiration.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

so you lied when Bill and I said that you will not be happy till the law says 0.00 BAC and you claimed to be fine with .07.

No, you're the one who's lying, and being deceitful, by trying to deliberately distort what I said.

Unless you're too "socially lubricated" Drunk

to be able to accurately understand what I wrote.

I'm not interested in facilitating social drinking, or inhibiting it either. I'm interested in promoting responsible driving, and I think that would be better accomplished with a legal BAC of .05, rather than a limit of .08. I have no particular interest in promoting a national standard of absolute abstinence before driving a car.

On the other hand, you're promoting excessive alcohol consumption, period. You've got the right to rot your liver and pickle your brain, if that's what you want to do. You just have no right to drive drunk. Arrange for alternate transportation, if you want to indulge your need to consume excessive amounts of alcohol.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Neither one of those things endangers other innocent people. With your argument, should there be speed limits?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

oh, so that is the test then....in that case since cars endanger innocent walking humans at cross walks we had better get on outlawing the use of cars anywhere humans are likely to be on the road.

Once gain you miss the significance of your own post, something which two others have subsequently pointed out.
Work on your analogies more, you leave big holes in any attempt at making a logical statement.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Neither one of those things endangers other innocent people.

every part of life endangers innocent and not so innocent people. the smart people know the risks and the dumb ones dont. i dont happen to think that we should increase the risk of revolution...the risk of this collective blowing up, for the small gain in making roads safer by going from .08 to .05. this plan does not pan out well in risk/benefit analysis.

Quote:

With your argument, should there be speed limits?

within reason. they are often too low, sometimes outrageously low, which is government over reach which at the end of the day will not be good for government...or any of us.

1 Reply

The Long Expected Next Phase In DUI Law Is HERE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know