Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> >>>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?
Yes, or the users are driving in an impaired manner.

nate

"C.H." > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:22:53 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>
>>>Olaf, you may not want to see it, but the only thing I am interested in
>>>is
>>>that people are safe on the road.
>>
>> And that road is paved with good intentions (maybe not, but I'll give
>> you the benefit of the doubt just this once). Unfortunately, that
>> road leads to hell.
>
> You got that wrong, drunk driving very often leads to hell.
>
>>>I have seen too many people die on the road under the influence of
>>>alcohol,
>>
>> Really? How many?
>
> Just about one or two in every Monday morning paper - just from the county
> I used to live in.

So you haven't actually "seen" squat, is that about right?

>
>>>a lot of them thinking they were sober enough to drive (in fact most of
>>>them).
>>
>> And how do you know they thought that?
>
> Because they got behind the wheel. And only a terminally stupid person
> gets behind the wheel if they are _not_ thinking that they are sober
> enough to drive.

And you're a mind reader, too. Must be nice.

"C.H." > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:22:53 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>
>>>Olaf, you may not want to see it, but the only thing I am interested in
>>>is
>>>that people are safe on the road.
>>
>> And that road is paved with good intentions (maybe not, but I'll give
>> you the benefit of the doubt just this once). Unfortunately, that
>> road leads to hell.
>
> You got that wrong, drunk driving very often leads to hell.
>
>>>I have seen too many people die on the road under the influence of
>>>alcohol,
>>
>> Really? How many?
>
> Just about one or two in every Monday morning paper - just from the county
> I used to live in.

So you haven't actually "seen" squat, is that about right?

>
>>>a lot of them thinking they were sober enough to drive (in fact most of
>>>them).
>>
>> And how do you know they thought that?
>
> Because they got behind the wheel. And only a terminally stupid person
> gets behind the wheel if they are _not_ thinking that they are sober
> enough to drive.

And you're a mind reader, too. Must be nice.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:08:14 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
>

>Mike Z. Helm > wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" >
>>
>> >> No, I'm not going to dignify it by formally disagreeing with it
>> >> because the notion is utterly ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not going to waste my time trying to make fun of your name either.
>> >> Your idiocy does a good enough job of making fun of yourself as it is.
>> >
>> >Uh-huh. Your barrages of postarrhea, which you have been spraying all
>> >over this newsgroup, speaks for itself.
>> >
>> >Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
>>
>> Will you even be old enough to drink in 10 years?
>>
>> You can't seem to argue the issue so you resort to kindergarten-like
>> behavior.
>
>Well, for one thing, "Are you sure you're not drunk right now?" is
>merely repeating back to that poster ("Olaf") the same "intelligent"
>statement that he earlier injected into the thread.
>
>For a second thing, "Olaf" has been posting a bunch of silliness.
>
>For another thing, the following statement is one of the immature "gems"
>that you (Mike Z. Helm) injected into the threat: "Maybe they should do
>some cocaine to keep them alert when they hit the road after a few
>drinks".
>
>Puh-leeze.

Yep, I made that comment about cocaine. It was a reaction to the
idiotic notion that one shouldn't drive if they've even had 1 drink.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:08:14 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
>

>Mike Z. Helm > wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" >
>>
>> >> No, I'm not going to dignify it by formally disagreeing with it
>> >> because the notion is utterly ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not going to waste my time trying to make fun of your name either.
>> >> Your idiocy does a good enough job of making fun of yourself as it is.
>> >
>> >Uh-huh. Your barrages of postarrhea, which you have been spraying all
>> >over this newsgroup, speaks for itself.
>> >
>> >Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
>>
>> Will you even be old enough to drink in 10 years?
>>
>> You can't seem to argue the issue so you resort to kindergarten-like
>> behavior.
>
>Well, for one thing, "Are you sure you're not drunk right now?" is
>merely repeating back to that poster ("Olaf") the same "intelligent"
>statement that he earlier injected into the thread.
>
>For a second thing, "Olaf" has been posting a bunch of silliness.
>
>For another thing, the following statement is one of the immature "gems"
>that you (Mike Z. Helm) injected into the threat: "Maybe they should do
>some cocaine to keep them alert when they hit the road after a few
>drinks".
>
>Puh-leeze.

Yep, I made that comment about cocaine. It was a reaction to the
idiotic notion that one shouldn't drive if they've even had 1 drink.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:37:10 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:12:35 +0000, John Mara wrote:
>
>>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I have seen too many people die on the road under the influence of
>>> alcohol, a lot of them thinking they were sober enough to drive (in
>>> fact most of them). If you can't tell this from 'prohibition' it's your
>>> problem.
>>
>> Who are you, Calamity Jane? I've never seen anyone die on the road
>> under the influence of alcohol.
>
>So you don't read the papers? You don't know people who have been killed
>by some drunk asshole? You must be a very rare species indeed.

Read the "papers"? Sure. Know someone who was killed by some drunk
asshole? No.

As has been stated here repeatedly, most people who drive after having
a drink or two (or more) never even get into an accident let alone a
fatal one.

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:37:10 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:12:35 +0000, John Mara wrote:
>
>>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I have seen too many people die on the road under the influence of
>>> alcohol, a lot of them thinking they were sober enough to drive (in
>>> fact most of them). If you can't tell this from 'prohibition' it's your
>>> problem.
>>
>> Who are you, Calamity Jane? I've never seen anyone die on the road
>> under the influence of alcohol.
>
>So you don't read the papers? You don't know people who have been killed
>by some drunk asshole? You must be a very rare species indeed.

Read the "papers"? Sure. Know someone who was killed by some drunk
asshole? No.

As has been stated here repeatedly, most people who drive after having
a drink or two (or more) never even get into an accident let alone a
fatal one.

>
>Chris