For some reason, alcohol in the middle of the day makes me feel like I've
got 100 lbs of rocks in my shoes. Not the way I like to be when fishing.

"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote in message
...
Doug,
I don't drink anymore, but when I did I would limit myself to one beer
every two hours. In between I would drink water or a soft drink.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Hank" wrote in message
m...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote in message
...
Doug,
It is becoming normal for DUI violators to be charged with murder when
a
death is involved. The charge might be murder in the 2nd degree, but
repeat
DUI violators who then have a DUI involving a death are being charged
in
the
1st degree. I am aware of one person who received the death penalty
for a
DUI death.

I an not a proponent of the death penalty, but I am glad DUI is not
being
aggressively prosecuted.

But, I wish the pursuit would be of the high offenders, the mindset
here(at least in some communities) seems to be to turn it into another
cash
cow for the guvmint.....with overaggressive enforcement at the lower
end
( high fines, "community service" counseling,...which drums up more
work for
the 'connected' while the multiple repeat offenders seem to be able to
get
away with it time and again. (one of my dock neighbors is a cop on a
DUI
unit)



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
This situation won't change until more prosecutors are prepared to
charge
violators with murder instead of manslaughter, and put them away for
LONG
periods of time. I'm aware of one case where this worked (for
automobile
DWI). Just one. I'm sure it's rare.


And your cop buddy, if not him, has innumerable cop-buddies who are the
worst offenders, but they get away with their stupidity. It's usually
along the lines of, "Ok, brother, can you make it home from here?" or
"Just park your car over there and we'll give you a ride home." or
"Let's let your buddy (sometimes less drunk) drive the rest of the way."
or "Give me your keys and sleep it off. I'll be back at the end of my
duty with your keys."

I would love to see a zero tolerance campaign that is well publicized
and strongly enforced on the water. I know that the lakes I frequent
don't even have a sign, let alone one that people will notice,
commenting on drinking and boating. Then there's the good old resorts
on the lakes with their guest docks and the only reason people stop
there is to get liquored up before they get back on the water.

Yeah, stupidity, drinking, and boating put us all at risk, risk of
serious life-changing or life-ending consequences, even those of us who
try to have a safe boating experience. I have no compassion for the
drunken fool who operates a car or boat. But that's just me.

Frankly, I wonder why more drunks don't kill themselves, even with the
boat standing still. Along comes a wake, the boat rocks, off goes the
captain into the water. We can only dream. Personally, I take just one
beer with me when I go fishing, and plan on opening it only if the
fishing has been extraordinary. 99% of the time, that beer comes home
unopened. :-(

Dr. Dr. . R. Name wrote:

Doug,
DUI deaths has steadily declined (almost 40% since 1982). Party / casual
drinkers are more likely to use a designated driver.

It appears that a big part of the problem are alcoholics. 1/3 of all DUI's
are the repeat offenders. If they are locked up, they will not repeat the
offense.



Precisely! The question is whether we lock up offenders to
punish them, to cure their problem or to protect society. I
adhere to the latter view.

-Raf


--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert

http://www.ralphandsue.com

Ever been to Blarney's Island?

http://www.blarneyisland.com/



Dan J.S. wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

A common scene on the water.

=========================================
from
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in711940.shtml



(CBS) People who would never drive drunk somehow forget that lesson when
it comes to partying on the water.

"We have cases where people have run into each other on jet skis while
intoxicated," says Judge Lex Anderson. "People have run into islands, and
people have been decapitated by propellers of boats."

Across the country, there are more than 5,000 boating accidents every year
and alcohol has a role in many of them. While California and Florida top
the list, The Early Show correspondent Hattie Kauffman reports,
desert-bound Arizona has some of the highest accidents rates in the
country. Many of those accused of OUI, operating a boat under the
influence, end up in court.

"The lakes now are just so jam packed, compared to what they were even a
few years ago," one judge says. "Just the volume of people coming in with
OUI tickets has just skyrocketed."

One of them was Angel Lindbergh, 19, convicted of manslaughter in the
death of her best friend.

"Because I was being irresponsible," she says, "My best friend is now
gone."
================================================ =============

Make sure to view the video link at the upper left corner of the page.



I live 1/2 mile from the Fox River in Illinois. I had a boat on this river
for 1 season. The amount of fast cigarette type speed boats and drunk
drivers was staggering. Whats worse, the river is maybe 5 feet deep, at some
points, 150 feet wide. These guys drive their fast boats next to other
slower boats at speeds upward of 50 MPH. Needless to say I moved the boat to
some quiet Wisconsin lakes. Amazing how many bars are on the Fox.

Hey I am all about partying, but this is too much.

"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote
I know it is not really a 2 liter, I just don't know what size the BIG
bottle of beer is. ; )

If you don't know a quart from a double-deuce, you're really not qualified
to comment on this subject. (Just funnin' witcha)

Seriously, though, I think a zero tolerance policy, and for that matter the
virtual zero tolerance policies that we currently use, are
counterproductive. Targeting responsible drinkers with random tests is as
much a waste of resources as strip searching little old ladies at the
airport. Organizations like MADD and the NSC have done an outstanding job of
changing societal attitudes toward drunk driving, but there are still
hard-core hard-cases who don't respond to public scorn. The problem is not
people with trace amounts of alcohol in their system, the problem is drunks,
and that's who we should be concentrating our scarce law enforcement
resources on.

In the unlikely event that Doug Kanter has a good day fishing and celebrates
with that beer of his, he's probably not going to be instantly
transmogrified into a marauding menace to society. But the way our current
enforcement policies work, he could be treated the same as that guy who's
been drinking all day and tearing around in his 50mph cigarette boat. I'll
take common sense over zero tolerance any day.

Joe,
The guy was having trouble counting his change, he definitely did not need
to be on the road. As far as a zero tolerance, I don't believe any states
have zero tolerance. I know there are some countries in Europe that do have
zero tolerance.


"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote
I know it is not really a 2 liter, I just don't know what size the BIG
bottle of beer is. ; )

If you don't know a quart from a double-deuce, you're really not qualified
to comment on this subject. (Just funnin' witcha)

Seriously, though, I think a zero tolerance policy, and for that matter
the virtual zero tolerance policies that we currently use, are
counterproductive. Targeting responsible drinkers with random tests is as
much a waste of resources as strip searching little old ladies at the
airport. Organizations like MADD and the NSC have done an outstanding job
of changing societal attitudes toward drunk driving, but there are still
hard-core hard-cases who don't respond to public scorn. The problem is not
people with trace amounts of alcohol in their system, the problem is
drunks, and that's who we should be concentrating our scarce law
enforcement resources on.

In the unlikely event that Doug Kanter has a good day fishing and
celebrates with that beer of his, he's probably not going to be instantly
transmogrified into a marauding menace to society. But the way our current
enforcement policies work, he could be treated the same as that guy who's
been drinking all day and tearing around in his 50mph cigarette boat. I'll
take common sense over zero tolerance any day.

"J. Smithers" wrote
The guy was having trouble counting his change,
he definitely did not need to be on the road.

So get him off the road. That's my point. We can all recognize when somebody
really shouldn't be driving and we don't need to send blood to the lab to do
it. Making the guy who has no signs of impairment other than a .08 BAC
reading equal in the eyes of the law to the guy who's obviously drunk is
foolish.

"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"J. Smithers" wrote
The guy was having trouble counting his change,
he definitely did not need to be on the road.

So get him off the road. That's my point. We can all recognize when
somebody really shouldn't be driving and we don't need to send blood to
the lab to do it. Making the guy who has no signs of impairment other than
a .08 BAC reading equal in the eyes of the law to the guy who's obviously
drunk is foolish.




I don't think the cops have the time for making value judgements, even
though they should. Legally, things would probably get sticky without some
sort of metrics. However, I *do* see your point about how subjective
inebriation can be. I only know how it affects me differently, depending on
time of day, what I've eaten, and what activity I'm involved in. If I'm out
in the sun, maybe snacking instead of eating real meals, one beer will
sometimes flatten me, and I *know* it's going to happen. (That's why the one
fishing beer usually remains in the cooler). Other times, 2 bourbons mixed
with appetizers and dinner have less of an effect. But, I have friends who
expect to reach a certain level of buzz much quickly, and they're unable to
judge things very well, putting down 3 cocktails before they've had food.
One in particular loses her ability to judge appropriate comments, and often
doesn't remember what she said the night before. Obviously a problem.

But still, cops can only make judgements in the way they write speeding
tickets: They see a snapshot of an activity. I don't like it, but that's how
it is.

Joe,
That is the reason the cops do the field sobriety test in front of the
camera.


"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"J. Smithers" wrote
The guy was having trouble counting his change,
he definitely did not need to be on the road.

So get him off the road. That's my point. We can all recognize when
somebody really shouldn't be driving and we don't need to send blood to
the lab to do it. Making the guy who has no signs of impairment other than
a .08 BAC reading equal in the eyes of the law to the guy who's obviously
drunk is foolish.

"Dan Krueger" wrote in message
link.net...
Ever been to Blarney's Island?

http://www.blarneyisland.com/


Yeah a few times... before I got married :)

"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote


In the unlikely event that Doug Kanter has a good day fishing and
celebrates with that beer of his, he's probably not going to be instantly
transmogrified into a marauding menace to society. But the way our current
enforcement policies work, he could be treated the same as that guy who's
been drinking all day and tearing around in his 50mph cigarette boat. I'll
take common sense over zero tolerance any day.


You make a great point, but I guess the difference in perspectives may lay
with the different definitions of what is is. Zero tolerance to me means,
if you're drunk AND operating a car or boat, you're cuffed and prosecuted.
For me zero tolerance doesn't mean pulling Doug over for celebrating his
catch with his first (and last) beer of the day. To me, drunk is drunk and
is is is.