The Long Expected Next Phase In DUI Law Is HERE

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Don't try to drag me into you lame and predictably failed attempts to argue logically.

alleged facts not in evidence....

@hawkeye10,

When you start your rants, no evidence is ever in evidence.

0 Replies

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130522160259.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fhealth_medicine+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Health+%26+Medicine+News%29

1 Reply

Japan has a zero blood alcohol level and its drunk driving fatality RATE (not numbers, but rate), is one third ours. Apparently it still has assholes who drink and drive and kill people but substantially less than we do. Assholes, unfortunately, never completely go away, but inhibiting their assholery is worthwhile.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

I am not aware of any doubt that lower BAC limits in law would mean that fewer people would die on the road. for your next act are you going to inform us that the sky is blue?

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

if we like japan had almost all of our people in cities with top notch public transit I would be pushing for .03 BAC laws. but we are not japan.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am not aware of any doubt that lower BAC limits in law would mean that fewer people would die on the road. for your next act are you going to inform us that the sky is blue?

I have no answer to your dismissive response.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

if we like japan had almost all of our people in cities with top notch public transit I would be pushing for .03 BAC laws. but we are not japan.

So, why do we need to drink and drive? Is it possible that drinking to any degree is just an addiction, that many are able to control? You do know that the altered state of consciousness that drinking affords is not our natural state. Why does one find it enjoyable? Our society is too inhibited? Many can't enjoy life without a drink or two? As an old ranger might have said, "There's gold in them thar unhappy sober folk."

1 Reply

hawkeye says:

Quote:

I am not aware of any doubt that lower BAC limits in law would mean that fewer people would die on the road. for your next act are you going to inform us that the sky is blue?

Yes, hawkeye, the sky is in fact blue. Now you don't need to look up. In fact, if you'
ve been drinking, DON'T look up, because your coordination and attention span are impaired enough already without taking your eyes off the road too.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

why dont you talk about your implication that the state should try to save lives at any costs, to include individual freedom? how about talking about what is clearly your assumption that all good people will agree with your value judgement here?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

I am addicted to food and air, so I dont have an problem with people being addicted. I also dont agree that government has a free pass to regulate addictions. calling drinking an addiction means nothing to this debate on DUI law so far as I am concerned.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I am not aware of any doubt that lower BAC limits in law would mean that fewer people would die on the road...

That's what makes your rant about it, and your posting of charts to try to disprove it, so illogical and idiotic.

You're more concerned with drinking, and being able to drink, than you are with responsible driving.

You're more concerned with the "inconvenience", to you, of arranging for alternate transportation, when you have been drinking, than you are with safety on the roads.

As usual, you're more selfishly concerned with yourself, and your own personal interests, than you are with the general welfare of everyone else.

Driving is not a private matter--once you get behind the wheel, your behaviors affect everyone else on the road, and anything your car could come in contact with. "The collective" has a vested interest in trying to make sure you are not impaired when driving. And lower legal BAC levels--like .05--would help to save more people from dying on the road--as you just admitted.

You're just saying that human lives have less value, and a lower priority for you, than other things do. And that's not a rational argument against lowering the legal BAC level for driving. It's simply an ego-centric view of the issue.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

why dont you talk about your implication that the state should try to save lives at any costs, to include individual freedom? how about talking about what is clearly your assumption that all good people will agree with your value judgement here?

Well, I would substitute "good people" with the words "people educated by liberal standards."

Your concern about "individual freedom" might be a bit archaic. That's why "spare the rod and spoil the child" is not an accepted concept in all locales, and many a social worker has to discern whether there is child abuse by an over zealous parent. Perhaps, you are voicing your locale's popular culture concept of what is our right (aka, our rights/freedoms). However, out east those rights/freedoms have changed over the last century.

This being a big country, 3,000 miles wide, and is not one homogeneous culture. So, you can continue to have your beliefs/positions; however, you should accept that they are your subjective beliefs/positions, and not objective ones, even if history proves your beliefs/positions were valid for a prior era.

I do not mind if you are alienated from my beliefs/positions, but please realize that they are my subjective beliefs/positions, and not objective; nor in this thread are your beliefs/positions objective truths, in my opinion. I can live with that, just like I can live with the fact that many in your locale might live in a culture that believes that the only major religious holiday in December is Christmas. We all don't live in the same world, in place and time.

However, the changing laws relating to DUI might show where the culture is evolving. Your thinking or mine?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

... I also dont agree that government has a free pass to regulate addictions. calling drinking an addiction means nothing to this debate on DUI law so far as I am concerned.

You have the freedom to have "subjective" positions/opinions. Enjoy your freedom of opinion.

Your using the term "free pass" above might be misconstrued that the government makes whimsical regulations. Actually, it all comes down to the dollar. Less car accidents, less costly Obama care. The government is just a big business, no different than any other smaller business. Sorry, if the big business might be stepping on the toes of smaller businesses. In the world of business, small businesses are not on the top of the food chain, so to speak.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

working to prevent the society from melting down by allowing relatively cheap pressure release mechanisms is the cost effective choice from an economists point of view. dont assume that science agrees with your puritanism.....

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

working to prevent the society from melting down by allowing relatively cheap pressure release mechanisms is the cost effective choice

There are considerably better, and healthier, and even cheaper, "pressure release mechanisms" than getting drunk. Maybe you should try to acquire them.

Chicken Little, society is not going "to melt down" if the legal BAC level for driving is lowered to .05. Try to get your hysteria under control. Laughing

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am not aware of any doubt that lower BAC limits in law would mean that fewer people would die on the road. for your next act are you going to inform us that the sky is blue?

I have no answer to your dismissive response.

I have one.

"Hawkeye, for your next act are you going to inform us that you're a selfish asshole?"

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DUI law is not about me.

Are you out of things to say about DUI law?

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
working to prevent the society from melting down by allowing relatively cheap pressure release mechanisms is the cost effective choice

There are considerably better, and healthier, and even cheaper, "pressure release mechanisms" than getting drunk. Maybe you should try to acquire them.

Chicken Little, society is not going "to melt down" if the legal BAC level for driving is lowered to .05. Try to get your hysteria under control.

alcohol has been one of the main go to's for thousands of years...it is hard to argue with its record. the history of prohibition is but a few logs on the fire.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

alcohol has been one of the main go to's for thousands of years...

But it doesn't mix well with driving. It impairs driving and accident avoidance abilities.

If you're going to drive, either don't drink, or arrange for alternate transportation.

If you can't socialize without drinking, or you have no "pressure release mechanisms" other than drinking, you've really got problems. But your personal problems do not justify drinking and driving, nor do they constitute a valid, or rational, argument against a .05 legal BAC limit for driving.

1 Reply

The Long Expected Next Phase In DUI Law Is HERE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know