| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
For the children's sake...
"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. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
For the children's sake...
"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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Please, for the sake of the country, keep Obama safe | General | |||
| To Our Children's Children's Children, On the Threshold of aNightmare | General | |||
| Go Vote for the sake of pinks everywhere | General | |||
| SAILING for @%^&^&**&^ sake | ASA | |||
| Agreement in Maine Will Remove Dams for Salmon's Sake | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
