On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote:

This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.

Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue.

Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober?

A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well
and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you
take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of
society as a whole.

As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk
driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271
times under the influence prior to being arrested.

That is behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real
drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI
driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has
gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first
arrest.

Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm
as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats
present.

With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a
standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic
license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same
amount of time.

With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my
situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away
the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems
to work.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote:

This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.

Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue.

Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober?

A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well
and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you
take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of
society as a whole.

As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk
driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271
times under the influence prior to being arrested.

That is behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real
drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI
driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has
gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first
arrest.

Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm
as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats
present.

With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a
standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic
license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same
amount of time.

With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my
situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away
the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems
to work.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am
for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get.
And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The
body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol
provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in
the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a
problem.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote:

This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.

Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue.

Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober?

A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well
and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you
take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of
society as a whole.

As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk
driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271
times under the influence prior to being arrested.

That is behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real
drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI
driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has
gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a
first
arrest.

Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm
as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats
present.

With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a
standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic
license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same
amount of time.

With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my
situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away
the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems
to work.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am
for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get.
And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The
body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol
provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in
the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a
problem.



What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference between
having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote:

This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.

Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue.

Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober?

A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well
and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you
take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of
society as a whole.

As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk
driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271
times under the influence prior to being arrested.

That is behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The
real
drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI
driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he
has
gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a
first
arrest.

Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm
as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats
present.

With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a
standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic
license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same
amount of time.

With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my
situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away
the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems
to work.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am
for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you
get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0.
The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the
alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get
going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect,
you have a problem.



What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference between
having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Google the studies.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote:

This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.

Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue.

Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober?

A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well
and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why
you
take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of
society as a whole.

As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk
driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271
times under the influence prior to being arrested.

That is behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The
real
drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI
driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he
has
gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a
first
arrest.

Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm
as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats
present.

With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a
standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic
license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same
amount of time.

With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my
situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away
the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems
to work.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I
am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you
get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a
0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the
alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to
get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little
effect, you have a problem.



What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference between
having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Google the studies.



So, basically you have no citation.


--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote:

This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.

Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the
issue.

Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober?

A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well
and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why
you
take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of
society as a whole.

As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk
driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271
times under the influence prior to being arrested.

That is behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The
real
drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI
driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he
has
gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a
first
arrest.

Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm
as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats
present.

With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a
standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic
license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same
amount of time.

With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my
situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away
the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems
to work.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I
am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a
you get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at
a 0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that
the alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink
to get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little
effect, you have a problem.



What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference
between having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Google the studies.



So, basically you have no citation.


--
Nom=de=Plume


So basically you are lazy.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote:

This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.

Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the
issue.

Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober?

A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well
and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why
you
take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of
society as a whole.

As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk
driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271
times under the influence prior to being arrested.

That is behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The
real
drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a
DUI
driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he
has
gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a
first
arrest.

Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm
as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the
stats
present.

With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a
standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is
automatic
license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same
amount of time.

With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know
my
situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing
away
the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems
to work.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I
am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a
you get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at
a 0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that
the alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink
to get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show
little effect, you have a problem.



What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference
between having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Google the studies.



So, basically you have no citation.


--
Nom=de=Plume


So basically you are lazy.



So, basically you can't support your claims.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:52:14 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am
for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get.
And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The
body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol
provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in
the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a
problem

Well, you say that, but it's not true. You may not show the effects,
but they are there. And I know - believe me, I know. You're talking
to somebody who once drank a bottle of Aqua Velva to get rid of the
shakes enough to drive to the convience store to get a bottle of
Boone's Farm to be able to get to the package store for a case of beer
and a quart of Valu-Rite bourbon. :)

It was shortly after that that I understood that I had a problem - so
to speak. :)

And I'm sorry, but it's just not true that a drunk can drive better at
..1 than .0 - they may not show the effects as readily, but they are
blitzed. Very few people metabolize alcohol efficiently enough to
avoid the effects - something like 1 out of every 15 million or so I'm
given to believe.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:52:14 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am
for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get.
And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The
body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol
provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in
the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a
problem

Well, you say that, but it's not true. You may not show the effects,
but they are there. And I know - believe me, I know. You're talking
to somebody who once drank a bottle of Aqua Velva to get rid of the
shakes enough to drive to the convience store to get a bottle of
Boone's Farm to be able to get to the package store for a case of beer
and a quart of Valu-Rite bourbon. :)

It was shortly after that that I understood that I had a problem - so
to speak. :)

And I'm sorry, but it's just not true that a drunk can drive better at
.1 than .0 - they may not show the effects as readily, but they are
blitzed. Very few people metabolize alcohol efficiently enough to
avoid the effects - something like 1 out of every 15 million or so I'm
given to believe.


But, since Bill believes it to be true, then it must be true.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:52:14 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am
for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get.
And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The
body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol
provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in
the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a
problem

Well, you say that, but it's not true. You may not show the effects,
but they are there. And I know - believe me, I know. You're talking
to somebody who once drank a bottle of Aqua Velva to get rid of the
shakes enough to drive to the convience store to get a bottle of
Boone's Farm to be able to get to the package store for a case of beer
and a quart of Valu-Rite bourbon. :)

It was shortly after that that I understood that I had a problem - so
to speak. :)

It sounds to me that the problem was you needed to find a better store
that had Aqua Velva, Boone's Farm and rot gut bourbon. It would have
saved you the trouble of driving all over town.



--
Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using
someone else's ID.