If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
>>>John David Galt Jan 10, 5:06 pm
I agree. Granted that this requires judgment on the part of the police officer, most cop cars these days have video cameras, & I've seen them show a jury just how badly the guy was driving before the officer made the decision to pull him over. That's how it should be done. So you think DUI should be allowed unless the cop can prove the driver is impaired. Do you also think heroin and cocaine possesion should be allowed unless the cops can prove the user is a threat to society? |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you ask about heroin and cocaine? You worried about getting
busted? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you ask about heroin and cocaine? You worried about getting
busted? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What does it matter how the answer comes back? You can't tell the
difference between 6 & 60 or 25 & 41. And you're not adult enough to answer in an intelligent manner. Is that mommy calling you? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What does it matter how the answer comes back? You can't tell the
difference between 6 & 60 or 25 & 41. And you're not adult enough to answer in an intelligent manner. Is that mommy calling you? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and
> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected > from .03%. MADD wants you to believe that, because their real purpose is to reinstate alcohol prohibition. > They may still be able to steer the car properly but they take > risks they would otherwise not take, situational awareness decreases > sharply and the risk of causing an accident drastically increases. And I take more risks after my first cup of coffee in the morning than before. Ya wanna ban that, too? It's all a matter of degree. And adults are entitled to make their own choices about risk, individually. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and
> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected > from .03%. MADD wants you to believe that, because their real purpose is to reinstate alcohol prohibition. > They may still be able to steer the car properly but they take > risks they would otherwise not take, situational awareness decreases > sharply and the risk of causing an accident drastically increases. And I take more risks after my first cup of coffee in the morning than before. Ya wanna ban that, too? It's all a matter of degree. And adults are entitled to make their own choices about risk, individually. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:29:24 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, C.H. wrote: >>> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and >>> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected >>> from .03%. They may still be able to steer the car properly but they take >>> risks they would otherwise not take, situational awareness decreases >>> sharply and the risk of causing an accident drastically increases. >> >> How about a cite not MADD or similiar? > > Several of the studies I am referring to have been conducted in Europe and > thus have nothing to do with MADD. The Germans have determined that the > risk of causing a fatal accident driving drunk (above the legal limit of > 0.05%) is at least 6 times as high than are driving sober. Then let's see a real cite then. Because the ones presented here before go back to the neo-prohibitionists. >> MADD and other orgs achieved their goals and are now pushing for a new >> prohibition to continue their existance IMO. > I like a beer or a glass of wine now and then, I just don't drive > afterwards until the effect of the alcohol has completely worn off (both > impairment and BAC wise). If someone is unable to make sure they don't > drink if you have to drive afterwards, they are an alcoholic. However MADD and other orgs are still pushing a neo-prohibitionist agenda. The USA is simply filled with control freaks. Instead of being open, the method of recent decades has been incrementalism. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:29:24 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, C.H. wrote: >>> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and >>> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected >>> from .03%. They may still be able to steer the car properly but they take >>> risks they would otherwise not take, situational awareness decreases >>> sharply and the risk of causing an accident drastically increases. >> >> How about a cite not MADD or similiar? > > Several of the studies I am referring to have been conducted in Europe and > thus have nothing to do with MADD. The Germans have determined that the > risk of causing a fatal accident driving drunk (above the legal limit of > 0.05%) is at least 6 times as high than are driving sober. Then let's see a real cite then. Because the ones presented here before go back to the neo-prohibitionists. >> MADD and other orgs achieved their goals and are now pushing for a new >> prohibition to continue their existance IMO. > I like a beer or a glass of wine now and then, I just don't drive > afterwards until the effect of the alcohol has completely worn off (both > impairment and BAC wise). If someone is unable to make sure they don't > drink if you have to drive afterwards, they are an alcoholic. However MADD and other orgs are still pushing a neo-prohibitionist agenda. The USA is simply filled with control freaks. Instead of being open, the method of recent decades has been incrementalism. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >Nonsense. Read the papers. Most of the drunk drivers who get checked after >a crash are somewhere between .05% and 0.1% Most non-alcoholics are not >even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%. Obviously, we haven't been reading the same papers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
528i vs 530i vs 540i USA Versions | FSJ | BMW | 37 | January 16th 05 06:38 PM |
MFFY Driver Get His Come-Uppance | Dave Head | Driving | 25 | December 25th 04 06:07 AM |
Speeding: the fundamental cause of MFFY | Daniel W. Rouse Jr. | Driving | 82 | December 23rd 04 01:10 AM |
There I was, Driving in the Right Lane... | Dave Head | Driving | 110 | December 18th 04 02:07 AM |