There may be studies, but I am not buying it. I watched many a golfer score just fine, well over .05 BAC...if golf isn't a coordination game, I don't know what is.
MadMooner:
I get where you are coming from, but zero tolerance isn't practical in most instances. If one really wanted to stop auto deaths, just outlaw cars, then no one dies from them. Obviously not going to happen. There needs to be balance, and IMHO, .05 BAC being a DUI is not balanced. For you, 0.0 sounds like a good idea.
I appreciate hillestadj's post...
Freedom and personal responsibility, let the government and do gooders stay out of it.
True, but she's been amended 17 times - we're all good with it if they decided we go ahead and repeal it for the general good? No more endangering others through negligent handling, accidental discharges, etc...
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
We have a constitutional right to own and bare arms. We don't have the same for endangering others by driving intoxicated. That be the difference.
Originally Posted by hillestadj
"Lower legal BAC to .05%"
Campfire: "'Bout time - damn drunks are everywhere. No responsible person can handle more than a two beers and get behind the wheel, absolutely selfish and irresponsible. Far as I'm concerned it should be 0 drinks and zero tolerance!"
"Gun control/Open Carry/Concealed Carry/Mag Restrictions/Ammo Shipping et al"
Campfire: "JESUS CHRIST - these libs just don't get it. If I want a this that and the other its none of their business!!! If they outlaw them criminals will just get them anyway. Government needs to stay out. Its a right."
Summary: If its something I don't care about or doesn't affect my world view - FUGGIT, bring on the legislation. Everyone else get focked and take your medicine. Something I care about or affects me - GOV'T NEEDS TO STAY THE FUGG OUT!!! Anyone don't like it, fugg'em.
Not what I was saying, not advocating for more laws. Simply not to cherry pick. Impaired driving is impaired driving. It's pretty cool to say there should be a .00000001 BAC for DUI, but my how that sentiment would change if actual driving ability were factored in. Meaning DUI should apply to all brain affecting drugs, and distractions.
Definitely a racket. I mean really - what's a couple thousand crippled kids got to do with it.....
Won't downplay crippled kids but if you think it's more about them than the $$$$ then explain the glaring public safety issue (and imminent threat of child paralysis) justifying DUI's being issued to people on bicycles, horses, recreational vehicles (on private ground), sitting in a car without keys in the ignition, etc.
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.
Nice try but you're really reaching now. I never he he should be able to decide for himself, did I?
What I said was, someone who has a financial interest in keeping him in the program should not be the one making the decision to keep him in the program.
Are you going to argue that point?
Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system? You have the offender, the treatment folks and the judge. If you think it's fugged up, what's better? I know the experience, it's just as you explained it... You are in there paying them through the ass for sessions you think are bullchit. Checking chit off the list of things you have to do in the time frame you have to. Sessions, victims panels, group deals, urine tests.... That keeps you from having a conviction for something you are guilty of. You are guilty of it. It's simple. Yes sir, no mam, thank you, please, yes I phucqked up and then you move on. The reason there are DUI laws are not to make money. That was my original objection and was related to something someone else posted. The reason we have the system is to keep guilty folks from killing someone or at reducing that likelihood. Folks like I was or your son, they're in the system because of their own actions. What's better? A simple conviction then? So? Who's going to be deciding if it ain't the treatment folks? In my experience the treatment folks had no need for more business, they were swamped because DUI is soooo prevalent.
To me the part that had any lasting effect were the victims panels. Don't remember the sessions at all. Should I have been given that second chance at a driver's license? I don't know. First time I just learned that I shouldn't get caught. Ultimately some time after the third chance I learned more about my condition and a year of bicycling helped get it through my thick skull that booze and me were not a good fit regardless of driving. Nobody should forget, if they are in diversion it is because they were guilty of a crime that screws up thousands of lives. Goodtimes.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
Last, maybe I'm interpreting your post wrong, but did you just say "who gives a [bleep] about the poor slack piece of chit that got a ticket," and then follow that up with "I got the ticket twice??" YES, Second chance put me out there for many years drinking and driving. I did not deserve that chance to potentially ruin other people's lives. Drinking and driving is inexcusable and needs to be put to an end. I did not learn this in diversion BTW. I'm absolutely living on borrowed time. I drove blacked out hundreds of times after that second chance. None since the third though... Though it means nothing, I am not aware of causing any accidents, but how would I know... I was 0.23 five hours after drinking....
So because you can't control your impulses and choose to drive while plastered with a .23 BAC five hours after drinking you want to turn someone who has two beers with dinner and is sober by any realistic measure into a criminal with a ridiculous .05 BAC thus ruining his life?
That's a profound lack of judgement and reasoning. The two scenarios are completely different. In your case you were a threat and should have been locked up. The guy that had two beers with dinner isn't a threat at all but this ridiculous proposal would have him treated the same. Someone already mentioned the roughly $10,000 cost to defend a DUI, plus I know that in my line of work it would cost me my job, not to mention packing the jails with people that are no threat to society.
It's the mentality of one guy schits himself and everybody's got to wear diapers. Some thug robs a convenience store so we need to confiscate guns from everyone. Someone drives plastered and gets into a wreck so let's make it illegal for someone to drive after two beers even though they're not statistically any more dangerous than someone that has a 0.0 BAC. It makes the soccer moms feel better so why not? Group think at it's best.
It's threads like this that make me realize how we end up with someone like Obama as our president. Everyone wants the government in the other's guys business. It doesn't matter if he's actually doing anything harmful to society, he's doing something I don't like so I want you to use the power of government to screw with him.
I was going to post my own reply until I read this one and it totally summed it up for me. .05 is utter and complete bullshit and anybody that denies that is either someone who has never drank or someone who is now holier than thou, because they did drink...too much.
Last edited by Rooster7; 01/18/18.
The deer hunter does not notice the mountains
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - Isoroku Yamamoto
There sure are a lot of America haters that want to live here...
Definitely a racket. I mean really - what's a couple thousand crippled kids got to do with it.....
Won't downplay crippled kids but if you think it's more about them than the $$$$ then explain the glaring public safety issue (and imminent threat of child paralysis) justifying DUI's being issued to people on bicycles, horses, recreational vehicles (on private ground), sitting in a car without keys in the ignition, etc.
I don't argue with those points, much. My first, I was asleep in my car.... Oh it was running and there weren't bottles strewn all around. I was guilty.
Drunk bicycling can definitely cause meham but surely ain't related to one's driver's license. I'll leave the drunk horse riding to others but figure the same. Still I think that's more over-dogooding than some. gov money scam.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
Last, maybe I'm interpreting your post wrong, but did you just say "who gives a [bleep] about the poor slack piece of chit that got a ticket," and then follow that up with "I got the ticket twice??" YES, Second chance put me out there for many years drinking and driving. I did not deserve that chance to potentially ruin other people's lives. Drinking and driving is inexcusable and needs to be put to an end. I did not learn this in diversion BTW. I'm absolutely living on borrowed time. I drove blacked out hundreds of times after that second chance. None since the third though... Though it means nothing, I am not aware of causing any accidents, but how would I know... I was 0.23 five hours after drinking....
So because you can't control your impulses and choose to drive while plastered with a .23 BAC five hours after drinking you want to turn someone who has two beers with dinner and is sober by any realistic measure into a criminal with a ridiculous .05 BAC thus ruining his life?
That's a profound lack of judgement and reasoning. The two scenarios are completely different. In your case you were a threat and should have been locked up. The guy that had two beers with dinner isn't a threat at all but this ridiculous proposal would have him treated the same. Someone already mentioned the roughly $10,000 cost to defend a DUI, plus I know that in my line of work it would cost me my job, not to mention packing the jails with people that are no threat to society.
It's the mentality of one guy schits himself and everybody's got to wear diapers. Some thug robs a convenience store so we need to confiscate guns from everyone. Someone drives plastered and gets into a wreck so let's make it illegal for someone to drive after two beers even though they're not statistically any more dangerous than someone that has a 0.0 BAC. It makes the soccer moms feel better so why not? Group think at it's best.
It's threads like this that make me realize how we end up with someone like Obama as our president. Everyone wants the government in the other's guys business. It doesn't matter if he's actually doing anything harmful to society, he's doing something I don't like so I want you to use the power of government to screw with him.
I was going to post my own reply until I read this one and it totally summed it up for me. .05 is utter and complete bullshit and anybody that denies that is either someone who has never drank or someone who is now holier than though, because they did drink...too much.
Holier than though..... LOL. Love it.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.
Nice try but you're really reaching now. I never he he should be able to decide for himself, did I?
What I said was, someone who has a financial interest in keeping him in the program should not be the one making the decision to keep him in the program.
Are you going to argue that point?
Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system? You have the offender, the treatment folks and the judge. If you think it's fugged up, what's better? I know the experience, it's just as you explained it... You are in there paying them through the ass for sessions you think are bullchit. Checking chit off the list of things you have to do in the time frame you have to. Sessions, victims panels, group deals, urine tests.... That keeps you from having a conviction for something you are guilty of. You are guilty of it. It's simple. Yes sir, no mam, thank you, please, yes I phucqked up and then you move on. The reason there are DUI laws are not to make money. That was my original objection and was related to something someone else posted. The reason we have the system is to keep guilty folks from killing someone or at reducing that likelihood. Folks like I was or your son, they're in the system because of their own actions. What's better? A simple conviction then? So? Who's going to be deciding if it ain't the treatment folks? In my experience the treatment folks had no need for more business, they were swamped because DUI is soooo prevalent.
To me the part that had any lasting effect were the victims panels. Don't remember the sessions at all. Should I have been given that second chance at a driver's license? I don't know. First time I just learned that I shouldn't get caught. Ultimately some time after the third chance I learned more about my condition and a year of bicycling helped get it through my thick skull that booze and me were not a good fit regardless of driving. Nobody should forget, if they are in diversion it is because they were guilty of a crime that screws up thousands of lives. Goodtimes.
Victim's panels? Most DUI offenders have no victims, that's the point. If you had victims you deserved all you got.
FACE FACTS. This "push" for a lowered BAL to .05 is about MONEY & NOTHING more than MONEY. (Are you really NAIVE enough to believe that the government bureaucrats CARE about traffic accidents??)
Btw, I drink about ONE beer a month & have never driven "under the influence" BUT I was a peace officer for 3 plus decades & I know that laws like "speed limits" are ONLY about MORE MONEY for the government jurisdictions. (Even the National Safety Council admits that speed limits are a REVENUE SOURCE & have little or nothing to do with traffi/public safety.)
yours, tex
"VICTORY OR DEATH"
William Barrett Travis, Lt.Col., comdt. Fortress of The Alamo, Bejar F'by 24, 1836
DUI enforcement is mostly about the revenue stream. This looks like a move to assist that. Very few laws are actually designed to enhance public safety.
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.
Nice try but you're really reaching now. I never he he should be able to decide for himself, did I?
What I said was, someone who has a financial interest in keeping him in the program should not be the one making the decision to keep him in the program.
Are you going to argue that point?
Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system? You have the offender, the treatment folks and the judge. If you think it's fugged up, what's better? I know the experience, it's just as you explained it... You are in there paying them through the ass for sessions you think are bullchit. Checking chit off the list of things you have to do in the time frame you have to. Sessions, victims panels, group deals, urine tests.... That keeps you from having a conviction for something you are guilty of. You are guilty of it. It's simple. Yes sir, no mam, thank you, please, yes I phucqked up and then you move on. The reason there are DUI laws are not to make money. That was my original objection and was related to something someone else posted. The reason we have the system is to keep guilty folks from killing someone or at reducing that likelihood. Folks like I was or your son, they're in the system because of their own actions. What's better? A simple conviction then? So? Who's going to be deciding if it ain't the treatment folks? In my experience the treatment folks had no need for more business, they were swamped because DUI is soooo prevalent.
To me the part that had any lasting effect were the victims panels. Don't remember the sessions at all. Should I have been given that second chance at a driver's license? I don't know. First time I just learned that I shouldn't get caught. Ultimately some time after the third chance I learned more about my condition and a year of bicycling helped get it through my thick skull that booze and me were not a good fit regardless of driving. Nobody should forget, if they are in diversion it is because they were guilty of a crime that screws up thousands of lives. Goodtimes.
Victim's panels? Most DUI offenders have no victims, that's the point. If you had victims you deserved all you got.
Actually not sure what your point is so adding this.... And speaking figuratively... If you are guilty and the system lets you off by diversion then you should be thankful for the system as a conviction would be 10X severe.
Victims panels are folks that did have victims. Or were victims. Or had family members or friends that were victims. Like folks that lost their daughter, wife, friend, father to someone who was mixing their substance use and driving or the driver that caused such.... Or some poor para or quad wheeled in. Or kids with missing limbs. Chit like that. Real bad chit resulting from real DUI occurrences. You know, as an attempt to get you to understand the seriousness and not do it anymore... To wise the hell up. Because it's damned serious chit. Seems a lot of folks, generally speaking and not directly, here have not seen the consequences or realize how common or widespread the negative effects of DUI are. Seriously, i hope folks will think about it and maybe just have those couple of beers at home. It is that easy to avoid 100%... Mine were 15 and 25 years ago. I'm comfortable with it now. Had I killed someone the next time out, or the myriad of other possibilities had occurred, it'd be damned different....
Last edited by MtnBoomer; 01/18/18. Reason: .more words and changed words
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
OK. Say, you're living in a rural environment. Your closest neighbor is a mile away and has a party. You and your wife are drinking/socializing and having fun.
The time comes to go home.
Do you:
A) drive the mile home with a beer between your legs on a lonesome gravel road talking about much fun you had? B) Make it totally awkward and say we have to stay here because there was alcohol involved? C) We better wake someone up, don't know who yet, but they should come and get us because we had a few beers? D)Well, sorry neighbors. We're just gonna call the cops on this party and maybe they will give us a ride home.
See what I mean? There are a TON of different scenarios to this topic. It's not an easy one by any means.
The deer hunter does not notice the mountains
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - Isoroku Yamamoto
There sure are a lot of America haters that want to live here...
OK. Say, you're living in a rural environment. Your closest neighbor is a mile away and has a party. You and your wife are drinking/socializing and having fun.
The time comes to go home.
Do you:
A) drive the mile home with a beer between your legs on a lonesome gravel road talking about much fun you had? B) Make it totally awkward and say we have to stay here because there was alcohol involved? C) We better wake someone up, don't know who yet, but they should come and get us because we had a few beers? D)Well, sorry neighbors. We're just gonna call the cops on this party and maybe will give us a ride home.
See what I mean? There are a TON of different scenarios to this topic. It's not an easy one by any means.
DUI is an industry, ARD classes, ignition interlock breathalyzers, dedicated DUI courts. This all isn’t going to just go away because the majority of people are obeying the law and staying under the legal limit.
There may be studies, but I am not buying it. I watched many a golfer score just fine, well over .05 BAC...if golf isn't a coordination game, I don't know what is.
They would have scored measurably higher against their own score without the alcohol. That is demonstrated in every study that ever gets done.
Heck, play a video game for score. Drink a couple beers, wait 15 minutes, and play the same game again. It's not hard to prove it to yourself.
To argue against alcohol as an intoxicant at any BAC-level is simply denial of reality due to the chemistry of our bodies. There's no way around it.
Now, whether the govt should be involved in regulating that intoxication is a whole other question.
Dakota: ata There may be studies, but I am not buying it. I watched many a golfer score just fine, well over .05 BAC...if golf isn't a coordination game, I don't know what is.
They would have scored measurably higher against their own score without the alcohol. That is demonstrated in every study that ever gets done.
Heck, play a video game for score. Drink a couple beers, wait 15 minutes, and play the same game again. It's not hard to prove it to yourself.
To argue against alcohol as an intoxicant at any BAC-level is simply denial of reality due to the chemistry of our bodies. There's no way around it.
Now, whether the govt should be involved in regulating that intoxication is a whole other question.
Not trying to argue that alcohol is not an intoxicant at low levels, just trying to argue that it doesn't seriously impact driving ability at .05. By seriously, I mean there is a meaningful statistical difference in that person's chances of driving without an accident.
And no, the golfers would not have scored measurably better. FWIW, I don't drink while playing, but have played with and against many that do (both while they are sober or have had a couple)...at some point the game degenerates, but it takes more than a couple of beers to do it (at least for those guys that like to drink and play). I won't argue video games, but neither driving nor golf happen at video game speeds.
On the government side, I have watched a state get ruined by BAC .05=DUI kind of thinking, and that is why I posted.
