PDA

View Full Version : DUI laws/penalties are unfair



bighead384
05-27-2008, 01:16 AM
I whole heartedly agree with the reforms presented here. I think DUI laws and penalties are designed so that the courts can steal more money from people. It is my opinion that almost everyone whose faced the harsh DUI penalties for having a BAC between 0.08 and 0.12 has basically been robbed. Also,fuck the judges and cops who enforce these laws but do the exact same fucking thing.

"Here are four issues that must be addressed to correct the abuses fostered by revenge and prohibition-driven DUI policies:

1. Repeal the .08 percent Blood Alcohol Content laws and set more legitimate and rational BAC standards.

Current law says that any person with a BAC of .08, or higher is automatically a drunk driver, no exceptions and no defenses to the contrary. This is an absolute standard that is also absolutely arbitrary. The vast majority of people who drink are not effectively impaired with a BAC of .08 and they are perfectly capable of driving in a safe and responsible fashion. If we are to have an absolute BAC standard that automatically classifies a person as a drunk driver, that standard should be at least high enough to encompass drivers that are actually impaired. A BAC standard of .12 percent would be a more fair and legitimate legal threshold. This does not mean that a person who is obviously impaired, but who has a BAC below .12, cannot be arrested and charged with DUI. It simply means that their BAC level does not automatically make them a "drunk driver."

Using absurdly low BAC standards, like .08 make it easy for the police to arrest alleged "drunk drivers" and easier yet to convict them in court. "Easy" doesn't mean fair or reasonable.

2. Reform the system of fines and penalties for technical violations of BAC standards to reflect the actual harm done by the defendant.

If an impaired driver (or any driver, impaired or not) causes property damage and personal harm they should be punished accordingly, preferably providing full compensation for the losses suffered by others. However, a person who is stopped because of a minor traffic or equipment violation and is subsequently charged with violating the BAC standard should not have to endure huge fines, loss of license, unfair insurance charges, and jail time because they had three drinks instead of two. A person distracted by a cell phone conversation or kids in the back seat can cause just as much damage and mayhem as an impaired driver. There should be more balance in how they are treated by the police and the courts.

3. Prohibit the use of Breathalyzer results as a determinate of impairment or blood alcohol content.

Breathalyzers do not accurately reflect blood alcohol content. The margin of error can be as much as 50 percent! Furthermore, even if accurately measured, blood alcohol content is not an accurate determinate of impairment. Even a breathalyzer that very accurately measures breath alcohol content tells the operator very little about real blood alcohol content and less yet about impairment. What other industry, agency, business, or school would accept a measurement device that can err up to 50 percent? Yet, we are destroying peoples lives based on the readings of these instruments.

4. Eliminate the use of roadblocks (sobriety checkpoints) for DUI enforcement.

The purpose of DUI roadblocks is to instill a sense of fear and intimidation. DUI roadblocks catch very few drunk drivers. The same officers, if deployed to find actual impaired drivers, would generate far more arrests for DUI than they can operating roadblocks. Roadblocks, for any reason other than absolute emergencies, are contrary to the values of a free society. Free people should be able to go about their business without being confronted with armed, uniformed government agents who demand that we stop and "show our papers."

Only when average, everyday Americans start speaking out on these issues will change occur. Right now legislators are only hearing from those who are misguided by a campaign of revenge or who use drunk driving as an excuse to promote a prohibitionist agenda. Results to date are enforcement abuses, perverted courts, draconian penalties for victimless crimes, and 1.5 million people annually who have had their lives turned upside down, often for violating an arbitrary and irrational law. Isn't it time we all speak out in opposition to this miscarriage of justice?"

Llamas
05-27-2008, 01:27 AM
I think drunk driving is a big problem in our country, and think the laws are already taken advantage of enough. I know far too many people who drive drunk, and in very dangerous states. If the laws are relaxed, it'll be worse. I know enough people who didn't realize they had a serious drinking problem to the point of going to AA meetings until they got a few DUIs. Drunk driving is one of the very few areas where I do not have a problem with the enforcement.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 01:36 AM
I think drunk driving is a big problem in our country, and think the laws are already taken advantage of enough. I know far too many people who drive drunk, and in very dangerous states. If the laws are relaxed, it'll be worse. I know enough people who didn't realize they had a serious drinking problem to the point of going to AA meetings until they got a few DUIs. Drunk driving is one of the very few areas where I do not have a problem with the enforcement.

Justice will be served to people who drive wasted as long as we draw the line somewhere reasonable. I have sympathy for respectful, productive people who have had their lives turned upside down because they, as the article puts it, had three beers instead of two. The penalties you can face for driving with even a 0.08 BAC are ridiculous. It ruins your life, and for no good reason. I really think the legal BAC should be no lower than 0.12. If you look at the statistics, most of the fatal alcohol related crashes involve people with BAC WAY higher than 0.08.

Bazza
05-27-2008, 01:38 AM
Some Eastern European countries have zero tolerance on drink drive. ie anything over 0% alcohol in the bloodstream (not including naturally occuring alcohols of course) can be pulled, so think yourself lucky to have some tolerance.

If I'm driving then I don't drink, simple as that. The same should go for anyone else, if you are a responsible person then you don't drink before driving. I don't think there should be any need to relax laws and I fully agree with what Brianna has stated.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 01:59 AM
Some Eastern European countries have zero tolerance on drink drive. ie anything over 0% alcohol in the bloodstream (not including naturally occuring alcohols of course) can be pulled, so think yourself lucky to have some tolerance.

What a bunch of fucking psychos with laws like like. Also, to be honest, I really don't think it's very lucky to have some level of tolerance.In fact, all that does is make people think they can have a few drinks and take a while to sober up without any sort of trouble. Little do they know, they're going to have their ENTIRE LIFE RUINED for having a 0.09 BAC.



If I'm driving then I don't drink, simple as that. The same should go for anyone else, if you are a responsible person then you don't drink before driving. I don't think there should be any need to relax laws and I fully agree with what Brianna has stated.

Don't be such a black and white thinker. Thanks to propaganda, your mind has been trained to think of a slobbering idiot staggering all over the place and hopin' in a car when you hear "DUI". That's not the case for people who have a BAC less than 0.12, not by a long-shot.

randman21
05-27-2008, 02:00 AM
This was presenting a very coherent and organized way, so I hope you get a lot of serious answers, but I disagree with so much of the topic that I don't feel like writing it all down. I mostly agree with Bazza on this one. If I'm going to do any drinking, I won't be driving, period. Or mostly, if I'm driving, I don't drink. But I understand different strokes for different folks, so I don't think it should be law. I just don't understand why people would want to take that chance. People never realize they're drunk unless fall-over drunk.

Also, I've been wondering this for a while, but now I have to ask: Are you OffspringHead?

bighead384
05-27-2008, 02:09 AM
This was presenting a very coherent and organized way, so I hope you get a lot of serious answers, but I disagree with so much of the topic that I don't feel like writing it all down. I mostly agree with Bazza on this one. If I'm going to do any drinking, I won't be driving, period. Or mostly, if I'm driving, I don't drink. But I understand different strokes for different folks, so I don't think it should be law. I just don't understand why people would want to take that chance. People never realize they're drunk unless fall-over drunk.

Also, I've been wondering this for a while, but now I have to ask: Are you OffspringHead?

No I aint "OffspringHead" or whatever. And the fact of the matter is, it really isn't that much of a risk to drive with a BAC less than 0.12. This is what you fail to understand. If you would ever sit down and drive a car about 2 miles with say a 0.10 BAC, you'd be in disbelief at the penalties your state wants you to face for it. It's not that big of a fucking deal like they make it out to be.

Llamas
05-27-2008, 02:17 AM
The thing is, .08 is not a "huge deal" for everyone. However, since drunk driving is enough of a problem, they set the limit pretty low. Most people can't tell what their BAC is, so it makes more sense to set the limit to something that stops people from getting to the point of danger.

I don't picture people with a .08 getting into their car slobbering and backing into things, no. I picture someone right around there missing a stop sign, though, and T-boning someone. Driving is fucking dangerous enough as it is. We don't need people adding more danger to the situation. I personally wouldn't mind if we had a "not one drop" rule for all drinking and driving situations. Why add more danger to an already very dangerous situation?

Bazza
05-27-2008, 03:41 AM
Don't be such a black and white thinker. Thanks to propaganda, your mind has been trained to think of a slobbering idiot staggering all over the place and hopin' in a car when you hear "DUI". That's not the case for people who have a BAC less than 0.12, not by a long-shot.

Well the law is the law, no matter what shades of grey I think in. If you know what the law is then you know not to break it. Over in England our BAC level is 0.08, and so we know not to go over it.

I actually despise drink drivers, the sort of people who come out with crap and brag about how much they've had to drink and still driven. I feel that zero tolerance is the best policy since you will not drink if you are going to drive. I don't quite understand why you are arguing the point that someone shouldn't be penalised for going slightly over the legal limit. You should see the legal drink drive limit as being the tolerance factor over not drinking at all, not that there should be a tolerance factor added on top of the limit.

Also a BAC of 0.08 is roughly equivalent to one pint of 4.0% beer, and I know many people who start to feel light headed after just that much, the sort of people I would not want behind the wheel of a one ton machine capable of doing 100mph.

Edit: basically what Brianna said again.

Edit 2: bighead384 can I just ask how old are you? And do you drive/how long have you driven for? I only ask because you appear to have quite an immature attitude towards drink driving.

Rag Doll
05-27-2008, 05:14 AM
I don't picture people with a .08 getting into their car slobbering and backing into things, no. I picture someone right around there missing a stop sign, though, and T-boning someone. Driving is fucking dangerous enough as it is. We don't need people adding more danger to the situation. I personally wouldn't mind if we had a "not one drop" rule for all drinking and driving situations. Why add more danger to an already very dangerous situation?

Completely agree. If I'm driving, the most I will drink is 1 drink, if that. I take people's keys, I'll make multiple trips to drive carloads of people home from a party if someone that was going to DD ends up drinking a bit much. You not only put yourself in danger when you drink and drive, but you put EVERYONE ELSE on the road in danger. I do not want to die because you decided to have 1 more drink than you should have. It's not that hard to get someone to drive or to call a cab. Hell, it's not that hard to just not drink. And if it's that difficult for you, maybe you should seek treatment.

nieh
05-27-2008, 05:32 AM
In NJ, driving without insurance carries a worse penalty than driving drunk, so yes, DUI penalties are unfair in that they're not harsh enough.

Blackball_
05-27-2008, 06:22 AM
yep. theyre unfair.

hang the bastards.

Superdope
05-27-2008, 06:22 AM
In NJ, driving without insurance carries a worse penalty than driving drunk

Really? That sounds insane.

Sunny
05-27-2008, 06:48 AM
oh, cry moar. oh yes horrible prohibitionist draconian laws.. POLICE STATE NAZI FASCISTS RARAR >:O

the roads are already dangerous as shit, and alcohol-related deaths are rampant. if anything, the law should be stricter. as other people said, if you had three beers instead of two, take a fucking cab. boo hoo, i weep for your civil fucking liberties being violated... except not at all. it's not *that* hard to limit your alcohol intake to one beer or shell out $20 for a cab. if you have no self control, get off the damn road, and shut the fuck up.

also, a BAC of .08 won't turn you into a slobbery drunk, but it might fuck up your response time. no, not noticeably in most situations, but should an emergency arise (and they do), you might be a 0.05 of a second slower than you would be while sober... and that just might make ALL the diference.

forcyn
05-27-2008, 07:12 AM
if I drink, I don't drive, it's really that simple. it's not that hard to take a cab or ask somebody to drive you home.

driving drunk, even after 1 beer, you risk not only your life but also the other around you.

Little_Miss_1565
05-27-2008, 07:55 AM
People SHOULD be afraid of having their entire lives fucked by blowing above a .08. If you're that selfish, stupid, and careless to get behind the wheel after more than the barest minimum of alcoholic beverages, you deserve it.

Jakebert
05-27-2008, 09:46 AM
No I aint "OffspringHead" or whatever. And the fact of the matter is, it really isn't that much of a risk to drive with a BAC less than 0.12. This is what you fail to understand. If you would ever sit down and drive a car about 2 miles with say a 0.10 BAC, you'd be in disbelief at the penalties your state wants you to face for it. It's not that big of a fucking deal like they make it out to be.

I know a lot of light weights who get pretty tipsy by the time that they're .08and definitely shouldn't be in the car. If you made the limits higher, then these people would legally be allowed to get behind the wheel and cause accidents. And getting behind the wheel tipsy is just as dangerous as slobbering drunk, or maybe even worse because in that case the driver is usually convinced that the alcohol isn't affecting them.

Like others in the thread have pointed out, drunk driving is a huge problem in this country. I've read so many news stories about people driving drunk and killing people AFTER they've already been arrested for drunk driving and gotten to go free multiple times. If you ask me, I think there should be a zero tolerance policy, because as pointed out, it's one of the most irresponsible things that you can do. You're putting the lives of every other person on the road in your hands when you go out and drive, and doing it when you're drunk, even if you're "merely" .08 is wrong and shouldn't be done.

coke_a_holic
05-27-2008, 11:02 AM
People who drive around carelessly in that state of inebriation, putting themselves and innocent pedestrians at harm shouldn't be allowed to drive.

I don't want to fear for my life when I'm crossing the street or driving somewhere; I want to know that if I'm acting safely, other people will have the common courtesy of doing the same for me.

Fuck that, I hope drunk driving has a worse consequence in the future.

IamSam
05-27-2008, 11:21 AM
Troll.


I've seen too many lives ruined by drunk drivers to agree with this drivel.

Llamas
05-27-2008, 11:32 AM
In NJ, driving without insurance carries a worse penalty than driving drunk, so yes, DUI penalties are unfair in that they're not harsh enough.
What the fuck... that's retarded. Driving drunk is SOOOO much worse than without insurance. :-/ :-/ :-/


People SHOULD be afraid of having their entire lives fucked by blowing above a .08. If you're that selfish, stupid, and careless to get behind the wheel after more than the barest minimum of alcoholic beverages, you deserve it.
Couldn't say it better myself.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 11:35 AM
I don't like "drunk" drivers either, but even 0.12 is NOT drunk. To the people that disagree: have you ever, at any point in your life, driven a car a few miles after having just a few beers over the course of the night? It's harmless.

I personally feel that if they can't raise the legal BAC, they should at least make the penalties A LOT less severe for a BAC between 0.08 and 0.12. Right now it helps you the slightest bit if you are in that range, but you're still completely fucked.

IamSam
05-27-2008, 11:40 AM
I don't like "drunk" drivers either, but even 0.12 is NOT drunk. To the people that disagree: have you ever, at any point in your life, driven a car a few miles after having just a few beers over the course of the night? It's harmless.


Why couldn't the condom have worked for your parents?

bighead384
05-27-2008, 11:42 AM
Why couldn't the condom have worked for your parents?

You suck at making these sort of comments.

Rag Doll
05-27-2008, 11:47 AM
To the people that disagree: have you ever, at any point in your life, driven a car a few miles after having just a few beers over the course of the night? It's harmless.

No. Nor would I. It isn't "harmless." If it were "harmless" people wouldn't be killed by those driving under the influence.

Little_Miss_1565
05-27-2008, 11:52 AM
I don't like "drunk" drivers either, but even 0.12 is NOT drunk. To the people that disagree: have you ever, at any point in your life, driven a car a few miles after having just a few beers over the course of the night? It's harmless.

Um, no, considering I spent part of my weekend babysitting someone who got shitty drunk off one beer she chugged when the bar's fire alarm went off. 0.12 for some people isn't drunk -- for others, it's way too much. I don't want to have my life or the lives of my friends and family in danger because someone thinks that the alcohol doesn't affect their reaction time and driving decisions.

Just wondering...are you 17?

bighead384
05-27-2008, 11:55 AM
No. Nor would I. It isn't "harmless." If it were "harmless" people wouldn't be killed by those driving under the influence.

Wrong. People are killed because of people who drive their car when they're completely wasted. Not by people who had four beers in four hours and breathed a 0.12 or something like that. Open your eyes. I too agree that "drunk" driving is very dangerous, but the courts are designing these laws to take money from people who aren't "drunk".

nieh
05-27-2008, 11:58 AM
Wrong. People are killed because of people who drive their car when they're completely wasted. Not by people who had four beers in four hours and breathed a 0.12 or something like that.

You're an idiot. By that logic, no one should ever get killed by a sober driver and yet it still happens.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 12:01 PM
Um, no, considering I spent part of my weekend babysitting someone who got shitty drunk off one beer she chugged when the bar's fire alarm went off. 0.12 for some people isn't drunk -- for others, it's way too much. I don't want to have my life or the lives of my friends and family in danger because someone thinks that the alcohol doesn't affect their reaction time and driving decisions.

Just wondering...are you 17?

If you knew more about the statistics, you'd know that for ALMOST EVERYONE, 0.12 is not too much. I'll bet that if you guys really knew how sober 0.12 feels, you'd change your minds. Also, I see you live in the city, where public transportation is efficient, and I'll bet that really affects your opinion on this.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 12:02 PM
You're an idiot. By that logic, no one should ever get killed by a sober driver and yet it still happens.

That makes no sense. I'm talking about laws regarding a specific substance.

Bazza
05-27-2008, 12:09 PM
To the people that disagree: have you ever, at any point in your life, driven a car a few miles after having just a few beers over the course of the night? It's harmless.

I don't think anyone has actually agreed with you.

I think you are really missing the point as to why drink drive laws are there. In my world I'd remove a drink drivers licence indefinitely since they have proven that they are irresponsible enough to drive a vehicle.

I don't think you've answered my earlier question, how old are you and do you actually drive/how long for?

Llamas
05-27-2008, 12:09 PM
I'd just like to point out that the BAC was determined based on statistics. The fact of the matter is that there is a dramatic increase in accidents when a BAC of .08 or higher is involved. Fact. You can't argue that. That is why it is set at .08, and it should not be set higher.

At .08 BAC, all drivers, even experienced drinkers, show impairment in driving ability. For the great majority, there is serious deterioration in driving performance at .08 BAC.

Sunny
05-27-2008, 12:11 PM
Wrong. People are killed because of people who drive their car when they're completely wasted. Not by people who had four beers in four hours and breathed a 0.12 or something like that. Open your eyes. I too agree that "drunk" driving is very dangerous, but the courts are designing these laws to take money from people who aren't "drunk".

you are an idiot. 100% wasted drunks are only responsible for *some* of the deaths. it's not like *every* "drunk" driver can't walk in a straight line. many accidents happen because buzzed person with impaired response time encountered a situation where they needed to react immediately (having to brake instantly, losing control of vehicle on slippery road, child running out into the street, whatever). emergencies arise pretty frequently, and some situations might be easy to handle for sober drivers; however, in these situations every second counts, and if your response time is fucked up, you're fucked too.

nieh
05-27-2008, 12:11 PM
I'll bet that if you guys really knew how sober 0.12 feels, you'd change your minds.
How sober it FEELS is a whole lot different from how sober it actually IS.

That makes no sense. I'm talking about laws regarding a specific substance.

It makes perfect sense. You said people with .12 BAC don't kill people, I said sober people kill people. Every drink you put into yourself causes a slight decline in reaction time whether you notice it yourself or not. Even .04 would make someone more likely to kill someone than a sober person would be.

Bazza
05-27-2008, 12:15 PM
I'd just like to point out that the BAC was determined based on statistics. The fact of the matter is that there is a dramatic increase in accidents when a BAC of .08 or higher is involved. Fact. You can't argue that. That is why it is set at .08, and it should not be set higher.

Believe it or not, but both the USA and UK have the highest BAC level out of pretty much all developed countries. Maybe it's about time we followed other countries and reduce it to around 0.04.

Also something you might find interesting (lifted from wiki):
Effects of BAC range 0.06Ė0.10
Behaviour
Blunted Feelings
Disinhibition
Extroversion
Impaired Sexual Pleasure
Impairment
Reflexes Impaired
Reasoning
Depth Perception
Distance Acuity
Peripheral Vision
Glare Recovery

Llamas
05-27-2008, 12:16 PM
Pay close attention to the statements I bolded for you.



ABSTRACT

It is illegal per se to have a certain blood alcohol concentration (BAC) while driving a motor vehicle in most states of the United States (U.S.). The majority of these states have set the illegal BAC limit at .10g/dl for drivers aged 21 and over. However, eleven states have lowered the limit to .08g/dl. An analysis was conducted using fatal crash data to determine the impact of lowering the per se limit to .08 in five of those states which had the law for at least two years. The results of the analyses revealed statistically significant reductions of driver involvement in alcohol-related fatal crashes after .08 legislation took effect in four of the five states, ranging from 4% in California to 40% in Vermont. This assessment appears to indicate that the implementation of .08 laws and other related activities (i.e. public information about the law) are associated with reductions in fatal crash driver alcohol involvement.

1. Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and test track research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks. Performance decrements in some of these tasks are as high as 60%-70% at .08 BAC according to studies (Moskowitz and Robinson, 1988).
2. The risk of being involved in a crash increases substantially by .08 BAC. The risk of being in a crash gradually increases at each BAC level, but rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 BAC compared to drivers with no alcohol in their blood systems. The relative risk of being killed in a single vehicle crash at BACs between .05 and .09 is 11 times that of drivers at .00 BAC (Zador, 1991).
3. Lowering the Per Se limit is a proven effective countermeasure which will reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities. There was a 12% reduction in alcohol-related fatalities in California in 1990, the year .08 and an administrative license revocation law went into effect (Research and Evaluation Associates, 1991). The decrease in alcohol-related fatalities occurred at both high and low BAC levels, even drivers with BACs of .20 or greater.
4. .08 is a reasonable level to set the limit. A .08 BAC is not reached with a couple of beers after work or a glass or two of wine with dinner. The average 170 pound male would have to consume more than 4 drinks within 1 hour on an empty stomach to reach .08 BAC. The average 137 pound female would need 3 drinks in one hour on an empty stomach to reach that level (NHTSA, 1992).
5. The public supports levels below .10 BAC. NHTSA surveys all show that most people would not drive after consuming 2 or 3 drinks in an hour (NHTSA, 1992).
6. Most other industrialized nations have set BAC limits at .08 or lower and have had these laws for many years. For example, Canada and Great Britain are at .08--so is Austria and Switzerland. The states in Australia range from .05 to .08 (NHTSA, 1991).

HornyPope
05-27-2008, 12:16 PM
I love driving drunk.

I love the excitement and the challenge. I love the lights of cars flashing by, I love the sound of screeching tires as I swerve at full speed and the screams of my passengers in the backseat.

People who never drove/raced drunk don't know what they're missing. It's an intense feeling of adrenaline at your fingertips, it's very empowering.

Llamas
05-27-2008, 12:22 PM
Oh yeah.

WHEN I'M ON A BINGE MY FRIENDS ALL CRINGE THEY WON'T DRIVE AT NIGHT CAUSE THE WAY I TEAR UP THE FREEWAYS SUCH A FRIGHT

BUT I THINK I DRIVE ALRIGHT!

bighead384
05-27-2008, 12:29 PM
Pay close attention to the statements I bolded for you.



ABSTRACT

It is illegal per se to have a certain blood alcohol concentration (BAC) while driving a motor vehicle in most states of the United States (U.S.). The majority of these states have set the illegal BAC limit at .10g/dl for drivers aged 21 and over. However, eleven states have lowered the limit to .08g/dl. An analysis was conducted using fatal crash data to determine the impact of lowering the per se limit to .08 in five of those states which had the law for at least two years. The results of the analyses revealed statistically significant reductions of driver involvement in alcohol-related fatal crashes after .08 legislation took effect in four of the five states, ranging from 4% in California to 40% in Vermont. This assessment appears to indicate that the implementation of .08 laws and other related activities (i.e. public information about the law) are associated with reductions in fatal crash driver alcohol involvement.

1. Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and test track research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks. Performance decrements in some of these tasks are as high as 60%-70% at .08 BAC according to studies (Moskowitz and Robinson, 1988).
2. The risk of being involved in a crash increases substantially by .08 BAC. The risk of being in a crash gradually increases at each BAC level, but rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 BAC compared to drivers with no alcohol in their blood systems. The relative risk of being killed in a single vehicle crash at BACs between .05 and .09 is 11 times that of drivers at .00 BAC (Zador, 1991).
3. Lowering the Per Se limit is a proven effective countermeasure which will reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities. There was a 12% reduction in alcohol-related fatalities in California in 1990, the year .08 and an administrative license revocation law went into effect (Research and Evaluation Associates, 1991). The decrease in alcohol-related fatalities occurred at both high and low BAC levels, even drivers with BACs of .20 or greater.
4. .08 is a reasonable level to set the limit. A .08 BAC is not reached with a couple of beers after work or a glass or two of wine with dinner. The average 170 pound male would have to consume more than 4 drinks within 1 hour on an empty stomach to reach .08 BAC. The average 137 pound female would need 3 drinks in one hour on an empty stomach to reach that level (NHTSA, 1992).
5. The public supports levels below .10 BAC. NHTSA surveys all show that most people would not drive after consuming 2 or 3 drinks in an hour (NHTSA, 1992).
6. Most other industrialized nations have set BAC limits at .08 or lower and have had these laws for many years. For example, Canada and Great Britain are at .08--so is Austria and Switzerland. The states in Australia range from .05 to .08 (NHTSA, 1991).

I'm sorry if this comes across as frustratingly dismissive but that's almost all biased bullshit. They're exaggerating everything, and basically when I read this :The average 170 pound male would have to consume more than 4 drinks within 1 hour on an empty stomach to reach .08 BAC I knew this was nothing to take serious. Scratch that, I'm not sorry. Will you just fucking look at that bolded quote again?! Are you fucking serious?! Four beers in an hour on an empty stomach has you AT LEAST at 0.15. This is just an example of people seeing what they want to see in order to further their agenda of BURYING slightly buzzed drivers.

Sunny
05-27-2008, 12:30 PM
buzzed drivers deserve whatever they get. end of story. really, how hard is it for you to designate a sober driver or spend $20? cause if it's such a huge fucking deal and you have 1) no friends 2) no money, then maybe you shouldn't be out drinking anyway.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 12:39 PM
buzzed drivers deserve whatever they get. end of story. really, how hard is it for you to designate a sober driver or spend $20? cause if it's such a huge fucking deal and you have 1) no friends 2) no money, then maybe you shouldn't be out drinking anyway.

Straight up fucking wrong, you tool.

Sunny
05-27-2008, 12:58 PM
please be so kind to find a way of killing yourself that doesn't involve harming others.

Little_Miss_1565
05-27-2008, 01:17 PM
Seriously, either drink at your house, have a DD, or bring cab fare. From all the whining you're doing, it doesn't sound like you're of age to drink anyway.

IamSam
05-27-2008, 01:22 PM
Ban this moronic troll.

forcyn
05-27-2008, 01:22 PM
please be so kind to find a way of killing yourself that doesn't involve harming others.

how about drinking to death?

Jakebert
05-27-2008, 01:39 PM
I don't like "drunk" drivers either, but even 0.12 is NOT drunk. To the people that disagree: have you ever, at any point in your life, driven a car a few miles after having just a few beers over the course of the night? It's harmless.

I couldn't begin to count the number of times that I've heard the story of someone who got in a serious car accident after "only having 2-3 beer then driving 5 minutes up the road". Situations that happen while driving are unpredictable, and a routine drive home can turn into something much more dangerous in a split second. You can't say it's harmless because you have no idea if it's harmless or not until your drive is over and you step out of the car. Any number of things can happen, and being alert and able to make smart decisions in the blink of an eye is necessary.



If you knew more about the statistics, you'd know that for ALMOST EVERYONE, 0.12 is not too much. I'll bet that if you guys really knew how sober 0.12 feels, you'd change your minds. Also, I see you live in the city, where public transportation is efficient, and I'll bet that really affects your opinion on this.

Too much is relative. 0.12 isn't too much when you're drinking with your friends, but it certainly is too much the second you get behind the wheel of a car that has the capability of killing people.

You keep saying that for "almost everyone" that's the case. Let's say you're right, but you yourself even said "almost". In a case like this, where someone's safety is at serious risk, the fact that there are people that couldn't handle it, even if it is a tiny percentage, is enough to justify the law being the way it is. So what if some people don't get drunk after 4 beers? There are people that do, and bending the law in favor of those that don't will let those people that can't handle it legally get on the streets and kill people. And the percentage of people that get drunk off of a small amount of alcohol is a lot larger than you are saying.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 01:48 PM
Too much is relative. 0.12 isn't too much when you're drinking with your friends, but it certainly is too much the second you get behind the wheel of a car that has the capability of killing people.

You keep saying that for "almost everyone" that's the case. Let's say you're right, but you yourself even said "almost". In a case like this, where someone's safety is at serious risk, the fact that there are people that couldn't handle it, even if it is a tiny percentage, is enough to justify the law being the way it is. So what if some people don't get drunk after 4 beers? There are people that do, and bending the law in favor of those that don't will let those people that can't handle it legally get on the streets and kill people. And the percentage of people that get drunk off of a small amount of alcohol is a lot larger than you are saying.

I'm going to refer to the article here:

"If we are to have an absolute BAC standard that automatically classifies a person as a drunk driver, that standard should be at least high enough to encompass drivers that are actually impaired. A BAC standard of .12 percent would be a more fair and legitimate legal threshold. This does not mean that a person who is obviously impaired, but who has a BAC below .12, cannot be arrested and charged with DUI. It simply means that their BAC level does not automatically make them a "drunk driver. Using absurdly low BAC standards, like .08 make it easy for the police to arrest alleged "drunk drivers" and easier yet to convict them in court. "Easy" doesn't mean fair or reasonable."

And also, like I said before, If they don't raise the legal BAC, I think they should dramatically reduce the penalties for a DUI with a BAC between .08 and .12.

Rag Doll
05-27-2008, 01:48 PM
I still want to know why you either can't just abstain from drinking, find a designated driver, or take a cab.

Bazza
05-27-2008, 01:51 PM
I also still want to know how old you are. Since you really don't seem to be responsible enough to either a) drive or b) drink.

Drafan
05-27-2008, 03:25 PM
We have too drunk drivers in our country. Sometimes they lose they licence, but keep on driving. Police gets them 5, 6 times, they donīt care, still drives drunk. Now at least the court can confiscate their car and destroy it.

come out swinging
05-27-2008, 03:31 PM
Great saying "Don't drink and drive, smoke and fly"

Llamas
05-27-2008, 03:37 PM
I still want to know why you either can't just abstain from drinking, find a designated driver, or take a cab.


I also still want to know how old you are. Since you really don't seem to be responsible enough to either a) drive or b) drink.

I doubt he'll answer either of these. He doesn't have a good answer to the first one, and surely the answer to the second one is a number that is under 21.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 05:38 PM
I still want to know why you either can't just abstain from drinking, find a designated driver, or take a cab.

Me and my friends always designate a driver, who usually just drinks a few beers and stops drinking a while before we go. I think that's what most people do. But according to my state, there is a problem with driving slightly buzzed...so much so that you should have to pay thousands of dollars and lose your license for having thee drinks instead of two. Or 12 drinks instead of 11 if you believe the propaganda that ilovellamas found LOL.

And BTW, I just turned 21 you fucking snobs.

Rag Doll
05-27-2008, 05:57 PM
Me and my friends always designate a driver, who usually just drinks a few beers and stops drinking a while before we go. I think that's what most people do. But according to my state, there is a problem with driving slightly buzzed...so much so that you should have to pay thousands of dollars and lose your license for having thee drinks instead of two. Or 12 drinks instead of 11 if you believe the propaganda that ilovellamas found LOL.

And BTW, I just turned 21 you fucking snobs.

No, it isn't what "most people" do.

And you went from acting like when people have a few drinks they're fine and their reaction time is impeccable. Now you're referring to them as "slightly buzzed." Wow. There IS a problem with driving "slightly buzzed," you halfwit.

IamSam
05-27-2008, 06:07 PM
No, it isn't what "most people" do.

And you went from acting like when people have a few drinks they're fine and their reaction time is impeccable. Now you're referring to them as "slightly buzzed." Wow. There IS a problem with driving "slightly buzzed," you halfwit.

I think the proper term is 'dimwit.' Halfwit is too much credit at this juncture.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 06:17 PM
No, it isn't what "most people" do.
What planet are you from? Why do you think the cops pull over any young person they can if it's past twelve?


And you went from acting like when people have a few drinks they're fine and their reaction time is impeccable. Now you're referring to them as "slightly buzzed." Wow. There IS a problem with driving "slightly buzzed," you halfwit.

What? I've been saying the whole time that when it comes to the overwhelming majority of people, a BAC of .12 or less does not present a real problem. Or at least not a problem that justifies fines of thousands of dollars and no license. They only want you to think that so they can make money off it. And you're siding with them.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 06:19 PM
I think the proper term is 'dimwit.' Halfwit is too much credit at this juncture.

I guarantee you stole that and it's pathetic that you keep coming back to this thread with the sole purpose of making comments like that.

Rag Doll
05-27-2008, 06:24 PM
What planet are you from? Why do you think the cops pull over any young person they can if it's past twelve?



What? I'm saying the whole time that when it comes to the overwhelming majority of people a BAC of .12 or less does not present a real problem. They want you to think that, so they can make money off it. And you're siding with them.

I'm from Earth. Clearly, you're not. And 1) what does that have to do with this discussion? And 2) give me stats on this, because I call bullshit as I've never experienced it and I drive past 12 all the time.

You are now saying "buzzed." Earlier, you were saying there was no problem. If you are "buzzed," your motor functions are impaired, your reaction time is impaired, your judgment is impaired. That IS a real problem. Also, who is this "they" that you keep referring to? Whoever "they" are, "they" are correct. There is a PROBLEM if you are driving impaired. And you become more impaired with every single drink you have starting with drink number one.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 06:29 PM
I'm from Earth. Clearly, you're not. And 1) what does that have to do with this discussion? And 2) give me stats on this, because I call bullshit as I've never experienced it and I drive past 12 all the time.

You are now saying "buzzed." Earlier, you were saying there was no problem. If you are "buzzed," your motor functions are impaired, your reaction time is impaired, your judgment is impaired. That IS a real problem. Also, who is this "they" that you keep referring to? Whoever "they" are, "they" are correct. There is a PROBLEM if you are driving impaired. And you become more impaired with every single drink you have starting with drink number one.

I'm not giving you stats on something that everyone knows. Look it up yourself, I don't care about convincing you because I don't think you know what you're talking about. I really have no clue what you're talking about calling me out on saying "buzzed". I WAS saying there is no problem....(WITH BEING BUZZED). You're just annoying me.

Edit: Okay so I was referring to "buzzed" as less than .12. Is that what you're confused about? I thought that was easy enough to figure out without explanation.

Rag Doll
05-27-2008, 06:36 PM
I don't know that police commonly do that, because I haven't had it happen to me or anyone I know. Stats or shens.

I don't see how what I am saying is hard to understand. I completely understand you. You are saying if one has under a .12 BAC they are fine to drive and should not face penalty. You are calling this "buzzed."

What I am saying is you originally said they are not impaired. Now you are referring to these people as "buzzed." Do you know what the common meaning of "buzzed" is? One who is "buzzed" has drank alcohol to the point of altering their mood, behavior, feeling, etc in some way. This is NOT the same as fine to drive. The reaction time is changed. The person is clearly feeling the effects of the alcohol.

Llamas
05-27-2008, 06:42 PM
I'm sorry if this comes across as frustratingly dismissive but that's almost all biased bullshit. They're exaggerating everything, and basically when I read this :The average 170 pound male would have to consume more than 4 drinks within 1 hour on an empty stomach to reach .08 BAC I knew this was nothing to take serious. Scratch that, I'm not sorry. Will you just fucking look at that bolded quote again?! Are you fucking serious?! Four beers in an hour on an empty stomach has you AT LEAST at 0.15. This is just an example of people seeing what they want to see in order to further their agenda of BURYING slightly buzzed drivers.

Do you know the meaning of the word "average"? You just said a bit ago that, for you, 3 drinks will put you over .08. The average male takes 4. It obviously depends on things like your weight and what kinds of drinks you're having, too. Look it up anywhere. Every site I've found says the average for a male is about 4 drinks, for a female about 3. It's average. You're probably a light weight, so it takes less. It takes me, a 125 lb female, about 3 drinks to feel buzzed. I fall within the average.

The main point:::::

Laboratory and on-road research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are significantly impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, changing lanes, divided attention tasks, and judgement. The risk of being in a crash rises gradually with each BAC level, but then rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 BAC, compared to drivers with no alcohol in their system.

Fucking refute that and tell me why you think we should raise the limit to .12 when THIS IS FACT.

IamSam
05-27-2008, 06:44 PM
I guarantee you stole that and it's pathetic that you keep coming back to this thread with the sole purpose of making comments like that.

Really? Where did I steal it from?

It's even more pathetic that you think you are right. Driving impared is both stupid and reckless. It doesn't matter at what level you're at, you are impared. How do I know this? Because I've been at the .08 level and I would not drive. It was obvious driving was out of the question when I couldn't hit the beer pong table, let alone a cup!

Have you ever watched Mythbusters and them attempting to drive a road course drunk? It didn't work out too well for them. That and when you have more than just yourself in the vehicle you will be even more distracted.

I think all the alcohol you have drank has finally caught up with you. You and your remaining gray matter need to call it quits.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 06:52 PM
I don't know that police commonly do that, because I haven't had it happen to me or anyone I know. Stats or shens.

I don't see how what I am saying is hard to understand. I completely understand you. You are saying if one has under a .12 BAC they are fine to drive and should not face penalty. You are calling this "buzzed."

What I am saying is you originally said they are not impaired. Now you are referring to these people as "buzzed." Do you know what the common meaning of "buzzed" is? One who is "buzzed" has drank alcohol to the point of altering their mood, behavior, feeling, etc in some way. This is NOT the same as fine to drive. The reaction time is changed. The person is clearly feeling the effects of the alcohol.

You're telling me what I meant by buzzed, explaining your own definition, and then acting like we should continue the argument that I originally made with your definition. You need to ask yourself why you are doing that, because it makes no sense. As for the rest of what you said: I'm not repeating myself or the article. They lie and exaggerate the danger of driving with a BAC of less than .12, plain and simple.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 06:57 PM
Really? Where did I steal it from?

It's even more pathetic that you think you are right. Driving impared is both stupid and reckless. It doesn't matter at what level you're at, you are impared. How do I know this? Because I've been at the .08 level and I would not drive. It was obvious driving was out of the question when I couldn't hit the beer pong table, let alone a cup!

Have you ever watched Mythbusters and them attempting to drive a road course drunk? It didn't work out too well for them. That and when you have more than just yourself in the vehicle you will be even more distracted.

I think all the alcohol you have drank has finally caught up with you. You and your remaining gray matter need to call it quits.

I didn't say I could prove you stole it, just that I know that you would based on how you act on these forums.

If you can't throw a ping pong ball onto a table from a few feet away, you were not at 0.08, you were at about .15. All that story proves to me is that you buy into the propaganda that 0.08 is "drunk".

Also, do you really think they would show it on national TV if they proved that the dangers of drinking and driving were exaggerated?

Rag Doll
05-27-2008, 07:01 PM
You're telling me what I meant by buzzed, explaining your own definition, and then acting like we should continue the argument that I originally made with your definition. You need to ask yourself why you are doing that, because it makes no sense. As for the rest of what you said: I'm not repeating myself or the article. They lie and exaggerate the danger of driving with a BAC of less than .12, plain and simple.


Because that is the common use of the word "buzzed." Why would you use the word to describe someone that is not in any way impacted by the alcohol?

bighead384
05-27-2008, 07:09 PM
Because that is the common use of the word "buzzed." Why would you use the word to describe someone that is not in any way impacted by the alcohol?

That's NOT what i did. I was using the word "buzzed" to describe someone whose had just a few drinks and is impacted by alcohol very, very slightly, but not enough to prevent them from operating two pedals and a steering wheel. When people say "I'm not drunk, but I'm a little buzzed" they mean they are slightly affected, but not significantly.

Rag Doll
05-27-2008, 07:14 PM
But you ARE affected in some way. So you SHOULDN'T be driving. "Buzzed" is not the same thing as "not impaired."

WebDudette
05-27-2008, 07:18 PM
I am truly impressed by bighead. He is quite the trooper.

I was a designated drive for a party last weekend. I didn't have a single beer until my best friend showed up and offered to drive my truck and drop of the people I was taking home.

Though, one of the people I was supposed to take home ended up getting a ride with a kid who was rather drunk and high out of his mind.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 07:28 PM
But you ARE affected in some way. So you SHOULDN'T be driving. "Buzzed" is not the same thing as "not impaired."

Look, I saw a billboard the other day that said "Buzzed driving is Drunk Driving". It was obviously referring to people who think they can slide by with BAC near about 0.8 to .12. So I thought I'd referred to this as "buzzed driving" and encounter no problems. But clearly I was wrong. Whatever.

You know, I know from experience that Drowsy Driving is about a million times harder than driving with a 0.08 BAC, although my states laws clearly do not reflect this. It's amazing that people will bitch about people who drive after having three beers over a couple hours, but will wake up 20 minutes before work or school and drive on over there, or drive home from their friends house at 3 am after passing out.

WebDudette
05-27-2008, 07:30 PM
Yeah, driving while asleep is bad. But that doesn't mean you decrease the punishment for driving under the influence or alcohol.

Llamas
05-27-2008, 07:35 PM
Look, I saw a billboard the other day that said "Buzzed driving is Drunk Driving". It was obviously referring to people who think they can slide by with BAC near about 0.8 to .12. So I thought I'd referred to this as "buzzed driving" and encounter no problems. But clearly I was wrong. Whatever.

You know, I know from experience that Drowsy Driving is about a million times harder than driving with a 0.08 BAC, although my states laws clearly do not reflect this. It's amazing that people will bitch about people who drive after having three beers over a couple hours, but will wake up 20 minutes before work or school and drive on over there, or drive home from their friends house at 3 am after passing out.

The only reason driving while tired isn't penalized like drunk driving is because YOU CAN'T PROVE HOW TIRED SOMEONE IS. Duh. There's no breathalizer test for that. How are they going to prove how much sleep you didn't have? My god.

Rag Doll
05-27-2008, 07:36 PM
You know, I know from experience that Drowsy Driving is about a million times harder than driving with a 0.08 BAC

Personal experience, eh? Did you get a DWI? Is that why you're so up in arms about this issue?

bighead384
05-27-2008, 07:38 PM
The only reason driving while tired isn't penalized like drunk driving is because YOU CAN'T PROVE HOW TIRED SOMEONE IS. Duh. There's no breathalizer test for that. How are they going to prove how much sleep you didn't have? My god.

Ok, I said "my states laws clearly do not reflect this" and it was just a little side comment I threw in, but if you read what I said, I was really talking about the hypocrisy of people, and not really the comparison of drowsy driving laws versus drunk driving laws.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 07:39 PM
Personal experience, eh? Did you get a DWI? Is that why you're so up in arms about this issue?

No, but I know I will someday, even though I ALWAYS make sure that I never exceed what I know is safe.

Rag Doll
05-27-2008, 07:46 PM
No, but I know I will someday, even though I ALWAYS make sure that I never exceed what I know is safe.

Wonderful, you're prepping to get a DWI. So, you want the laws changed so you can be as reckless as you want without fear of penalty? You wouldn't even be able to make a judgment about what is safe because you will be too impaired to know....

Sunny
05-27-2008, 08:16 PM
What planet are you from? Why do you think the cops pull over any young person they can if it's past twelve?


oh bullshit. i've been pulled over ONCE because of a broken light, and i live in NYC (and trust me, NYC suburb cops are bored as shit). but oh... could it possibly be that most people i've been in cars with were *gasp* sober and driving like they're *gasp* sober?

people get pulled over because they drive like assclowns due to impaired judgment. i find it hilarious how desperate you are to pull shit out of your ass just to prove your pathetic point - which can basically be summed up by "waaa waaahhh unfaiiirrrrr why can't i driiiiive druuunk :(:(:mad::confused:"

Llamas
05-27-2008, 08:21 PM
No, but I know I will someday, even though I ALWAYS make sure that I never exceed what I know is safe.

Wow, this makes me very, very glad our laws are as harsh as they are. I'm really glad that someday you'll probably end up in one of those rehab centers they send people with more than like 4 DUIs.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 09:03 PM
None of you made good points.

IamSam
05-27-2008, 09:06 PM
I didn't say I could prove you stole it, just that I know that you would based on how you act on these forums.

If you can't throw a ping pong ball onto a table from a few feet away, you were not at 0.08, you were at about .15. All that story proves to me is that you buy into the propaganda that 0.08 is "drunk".

Also, do you really think they would show it on national TV if they proved that the dangers of drinking and driving were exaggerated?

Hey assclown, we have a breathalyser that we take to parties. I was at .08.


And don't bring my personal posting into this. What I post is exponentially better than what you post.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 09:13 PM
Hey assclown, we have a breathalyser that we take to parties. I was at .08.


And don't bring my personal posting into this. What I post is exponentially better than what you post.

Who takes a breathalyser to a party? There hasn't been a single time in my life where I've seen that. And if you can't hit a table from a few feet away at 0.08, you're fucking retarded. That's like two beers in an hour for an average sized male. What are you fucking kidding me?

Llamas
05-27-2008, 09:19 PM
Who takes a breathalyser to a party? There hasn't been a single time in my life where I've seen that. And if you can't hit a table from a few feet away at 0.08, you're fucking retarded. That's like two beers in an hour for an average sized male. What are you fucking kidding me?

People take breathalysers to parties so they can make sure they're good to drive when they leave. People do that, idiot. I've seen it several times at some really big parties.

Please show me where you're getting this statistic "two beers in an hour for an average sized male". Please. Every site I've found says you're wrong. Find something scientific that says that.

IamSam
05-27-2008, 09:27 PM
I <3 llamas right now.

Yes, correct. We took a breathalyser to the party so we would be responsible. Do you know the meaning of this word?

And it's 4 beers in an hour for me. Quit making shit up.

Llamas
05-27-2008, 09:29 PM
Seriously, this kid thinks 2 beers in an hour for a guy?? I'm a rather small girl, and 2 beers doesn't give me a buzz! If a guy gets buzzed off two beers... he's either 14 years old, or weighs like 120 lbs. Holy shit.

0r4ng3
05-27-2008, 09:31 PM
Or maybe he just has low tolerance, like I do.

Jakebert
05-27-2008, 09:36 PM
I <3 llamas right now.

So does Brianna, actually.

Llamas
05-27-2008, 09:54 PM
I always <3 llamas. I can't help it.


Or maybe he just has low tolerance, like I do.

But you're asian. You're naturally short and tiny ;) Seriously, though, Jesse. How much do you weigh? And how often do you drink? If you get buzzed off two beers, then you probably don't weigh a whole lot and don't drink that often. Not that that's bad at all. You just kinda fall on the low end of the scale (which, of course, is why it's an average afterall).

0r4ng3
05-27-2008, 09:56 PM
140 lbs, and I've only dranken three times in my life.

Also, FYI, I'm half-asian, if that makes any difference.

Llamas
05-27-2008, 10:01 PM
140 lbs, and I've only dranken three times in my life.
That sounds about right, then. And the word is "drunk", not "dranken", hahaha. Sorry. I lol'd. But. Yeah, guys who are around that weight class and don't drink certainly wouldn't bring up the low end of that average at 2 drinks for a buzz. I also know some big guys who drink 8 beers and don't feel a thing, haha. So it definitely averages out.


Also, FYI, I'm half-asian, if that makes any difference.
I can't say anything here that wouldn't be obvious/lame.

0r4ng3
05-27-2008, 10:05 PM
And the word is "drunk", not "dranken", hahaha. Sorry. I lol'd.
Both sounded awkward in my head. I just went for the one that sounded more awkward.

T-6005
05-27-2008, 10:18 PM
I don't mind drinking two pints an hour. It feels just fine.

HornyPope
05-27-2008, 10:27 PM
I don't mind drinking two pints an hour. It feels just fine.

I think the point is that the legal threshold is much lower, however. I'm not sure what it is because it's not like I ever respect it, but I've been told before that drinking two beers (not pints) in an hour will run up the alcohol in your blood level to a 0.08%. This is indeed a very small number as most of us will barely get tipsy from that amount.

And yes it does feel fine. I'll be coming in a couple of weeks btw. I'll ask my woman to schedule a good night out for us. And don't worry about staying past the subway working hours this time, I'll give you a lift. ;)

bighead384
05-27-2008, 10:28 PM
I'm kind of a lightweight I'll admit, but that's not why I feel this way.

Llamas
05-27-2008, 10:34 PM
I'm kind of a lightweight I'll admit, but that's not why I feel this way.

The problem is that you're claiming the average man gets buzzed off two beers. That may be the case for you, the lightweight, but that's not the AVERAGE. The average is 4. You're dodging the subject because you can't find any data that says otherwise.

Mota Boy
05-27-2008, 11:07 PM
Without reading anything in the thread, I'm going to say that DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 11:14 PM
I think the point is that the legal threshold is much lower, however. I'm not sure what it is because it's not like I ever respect it, but I've been told before that drinking two beers (not pints) in an hour will run up the alcohol in your blood level to a 0.08%. This is indeed a very small number as most of us will barely get tipsy from that amount.



I too have always heard that two beers in an hour gets you right on the legal limit. I can't think of a reason why that would be going around if it weren't true. I've heard that tons of times, including my dad saying it like three days ago. Even the article I found talks about "the difference between 2 or 3 beers". However, I have to admit that until now, I've never seen the statistics that claim most people can slam down four or five beers in 60 minutes and not get a DUI, but now I see that a few websites say this is true. If that's true, that's pretty reasonable. That's unbelievable to me...but I can't really ignore it. I have to reconsider my opinion because of llamas, which really bothers me because she's a bitch and is usually always wrong, but at least I can admit it. Unless of course those studies are biased and agenda driven, which is always a possibility.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/calculator.htm <Can't fucking believe this!

HornyPope
05-27-2008, 11:31 PM
Without reading anything in the thread, I'm going to say that DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional.

The trick is to go through rich-people neighborhoods. Cops don't dare to set up roadblocks where rich people live.


However, I have to admit that until now, I've never seen the statistics that claim most people can slam down four or five beers in 60 minutes and not get a DUI, but now I see that a few websites say this is true. If that's true, that's pretty reasonable. That's unbelievable to me...but I can't really ignore it. I have to reconsider my opinion because of llamas, which really bothers me because she's a bitch and is usually always wrong, but at least I can admit it.

That's because a lot of people are really fat and/or have a genetic predisposition for drinking large amounts of alcohol.

bighead384
05-27-2008, 11:36 PM
On second thought, the "in one hour" calculations are extremely unrealistic. Most people go to bars and drink for three hours, and really I'd say that most people drink for about three hours anywhere.

So in THREE hours, according to this website...
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/calculator.htm
A 160 pound male will get a DUI for drinking 5 beers in three hours (0.084)

Maybe .12 is pushing it, but I really don't see a problem with 0.10.

IamSam
05-27-2008, 11:57 PM
Going through some previous posts:

Kudos on the llamas comments and the Asian comments. Or half-Asian comments.

nieh
05-28-2008, 04:39 AM
Without reading anything in the thread, I'm going to say that DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional.

Every now and then the cops around here set up seatbelt road blocks around the mall during lunch time. It's the most obnoxious thing ever because it backs traffic up FOREVER and most people there only have an hour lunch break.

Little_Miss_1565
05-28-2008, 07:52 AM
On second thought, the "in one hour" calculations are extremely unrealistic. Most people go to bars and drink for three hours, and really I'd say that most people drink for about three hours anywhere.

If you're going to be drinking for three hours, I don't care how much, you shouldn't be behind the wheel. Period. Boo hoo hoo, it's an inconvenience, I should be able to do what I want/do what I feel like, the cops are so not punk rock, you can totally shotgun two beers and not have any decreased reaction time or impaired judgment on how far you are from other cars/people/obstacles, don't those lawmakers like fun?

sKratch
05-28-2008, 08:01 AM
Without reading anything in the thread, I'm going to say that DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional.

Be glad you haven't read anything. Holy shit it makes me sad.

And that's completely true. Unconstitutional. I'm sure you've seen videos of people calling the cops out on it. My favorite recent video was a guy at a border patrol checkpoint asking the lady about 30 times if he was being detained and if he was free to go before she let him drive off without answering any questions.

Sunny
05-28-2008, 08:19 AM
And that's completely true. Unconstitutional. I'm sure you've seen videos of people calling the cops out on it. My favorite recent video was a guy at a border patrol checkpoint asking the lady about 30 times if he was being detained and if he was free to go before she let him drive off without answering any questions.

YES. it was hilarious. good for him.

bighead384
05-28-2008, 08:44 AM
I should be able to do what I want/do what I feel like, the cops are so not punk rock

What does this have to do with punk rock? Do you have some kind of problem with punk rock or something?

Sunny
05-28-2008, 09:02 AM
have you considered a career in standup comedy? cause your lines are fucking GOLD.

bighead384
05-28-2008, 09:05 AM
have you considered a career in standup comedy? cause your lines are fucking GOLD.

There was nothing funny about that question and you can't explain why it was funny.

nieh
05-28-2008, 09:25 AM
Explaining a joke makes it inherently unfunny.

Sunny
05-28-2008, 09:27 AM
...and explaining unintentional hilarity is just awkward.

bighead384
05-28-2008, 09:54 AM
Stop pretending you got something on me. You don't.

HornyPope
05-28-2008, 10:00 AM
Be glad you haven't read anything. Holy shit it makes me sad.

And that's completely true. Unconstitutional. I'm sure you've seen videos of people calling the cops out on it. My favorite recent video was a guy at a border patrol checkpoint asking the lady about 30 times if he was being detained and if he was free to go before she let him drive off without answering any questions.

Victory for the People. Down with the Man!!!

Llamas
05-28-2008, 11:22 AM
This thread is so full of awesome. I really, really like it.

I think it's hilarious that bighead thinks I'm a bitch... :D That's a rarity I don't come by too often.

Oh, it's also cute that he hints that I can never admit I'm wrong... except I'd like to take a look at how many conversations I've ever had with him. Especially those where I was proven wrong. haha.

Anyway, the fact that a lot of things point toward the average requiring more drinks than bighead thought to get a .08, the abstract from a scientific article that I posted can't be so easily discredited like bighead did before. Therefore, when you actually read the article, it says that the amount a person is impaired increases dramatically from .08 and beyond. There was a 40% decrease in alcohol related FATAL accidents in Vermont... just because of a switch from .10 to .08 as the legal BAC. That says a LOT. I think it's time to go back and re-read the article, now that it's been proven that "4 drinks in an hour" isn't silly bullshit.

sKratch
05-28-2008, 11:41 AM
I did enjoy the, "Oh, what's this? A study? No, no, no. I disagree."

Little_Miss_1565
05-28-2008, 12:05 PM
Stop pretending you got something on me. You don't.

You missed a joke. It's fine, it happens, and there's no need to get so defensive about it. But I do have something on you...

HornyPope
05-28-2008, 12:40 PM
If you're going to be drinking for three hours, I don't care how much, you shouldn't be behind the wheel. Period. Boo hoo hoo, it's an inconvenience, I should be able to do what I want/do what I feel like, the cops are so not punk rock, you can totally shotgun two beers and not have any decreased reaction time or impaired judgment on how far you are from other cars/people/obstacles, don't those lawmakers like fun?

First, that's like your opinion.

Personally, I think the day and the night should be split among the people equally. Until midnight (except public holidays), there should be extremely tough laws against drink and driving. Like rape-them-in-the-ass tough. The next hour is transition period (depending on the city, community) and after that and until 6am, it's FAIR GAME FOR EVERYONE. What the hell is someone doing out at 2am anyways if he's not drinking?

nieh
05-28-2008, 12:57 PM
Bowling, Barnes and Noble, movies, diner, finishing up the last trek of a road trip, etc.

HornyPope
05-28-2008, 01:03 PM
No, no, bad examples.

Little_Miss_1565
05-28-2008, 01:09 PM
I totally know someone whose wife was killed when a drunk driver crashed into their bedroom. In their house. Whilst they were sleeping. Not to throw a wrench into an otherwise perfect plan, though. Anarchy!

nieh
05-28-2008, 01:10 PM
Working the night shift, grocery shopping, concerts, coming home after the midnight release of a popular video game system and/or wizard-centered novels.

nieh
05-28-2008, 01:15 PM
I totally know someone whose wife was killed when a drunk driver crashed into their bedroom. In their house. Whilst they were sleeping. Not to throw a wrench into an otherwise perfect plan, though. Anarchy!

I knew someone back in middle school who had three drunk drivers crash into their house on three separate occasions in less than two years. They were on the news and everything. Nobody was harmed thankfully.

HornyPope
05-28-2008, 01:29 PM
Working the night shift, grocery shopping, concerts, coming home after the midnight release of a popular video game system and/or wizard-centered novels.

Do it during the day like normal people.

Sunny
05-28-2008, 01:39 PM
Working the night shift, grocery shopping, concerts, coming home after the midnight release of a popular video game system and/or wizard-centered novels.

on a related note, nothing quite like being out late, drunk, and stumbling across a huge line of 30-something harry potter fans waiting outside of barnes&noble. complete with velvety capes, pointy hats and magic wands. oh dear.

bighead384
05-28-2008, 01:56 PM
Whilst they were sleeping. Not to throw a wrench into an otherwise perfect plan, though. Anarchy!

The law was at 0.10 like 3 years ago, but okay, compare it to anarchy.

Little_Miss_1565
05-28-2008, 02:06 PM
The law was at 0.10 like 3 years ago, but okay, compare it to anarchy.

You missed a joke.

Mota Boy
05-28-2008, 02:52 PM
The law was at 0.10 like 3 years ago, but okay, compare it to anarchy.You are so desperate to find some small chink in someone's armor that you are making yourself look like a fool. Repeatedly. It would be embarrassing if you hadn't already gambled away any respect anyone may have once held for you on prior pathetic, failed attempts at scoring a point off someone. It's not like you have any dignity left to preserve, so I can't convince you to walk away from the debate on that count, but you have already dug yourself in so deep, so thoroughly soiled your reputation as a possible possessor of any intellectual ability, that further argumentation is a waste of your time. It could be argued that it's also a waste of ours, but you're proving somewhat entertaining at this point, in an awkward, retarded-child-attempting-to-dribble-a-ball kinda way. So I'd advise you, for your own sake, to just walk away from this conversation. That won't help your rep in terms of brains, but it would at least indicate that you possess some basic modicum of self-awareness and the tiniest shred of, if not dignity (too late for that), at least maturity.

Otherwise we're all just sticking around to see how much lower you can possibly go before you bottom out.

bighead384
05-28-2008, 03:49 PM
You are so desperate to find some small chink in someone's armor that you are making yourself look like a fool. Repeatedly. It would be embarrassing if you hadn't already gambled away any respect anyone may have once held for you on prior pathetic, failed attempts at scoring a point off someone. It's not like you have any dignity left to preserve, so I can't convince you to walk away from the debate on that count, but you have already dug yourself in so deep, so thoroughly soiled your reputation as a possible possessor of any intellectual ability, that further argumentation is a waste of your time. It could be argued that it's also a waste of ours, but you're proving somewhat entertaining at this point, in an awkward, retarded-child-attempting-to-dribble-a-ball kinda way. So I'd advise you, for your own sake, to just walk away from this conversation. That won't help your rep in terms of brains, but it would at least indicate that you possess some basic modicum of self-awareness and the tiniest shred of, if not dignity (too late for that), at least maturity.

Otherwise we're all just sticking around to see how much lower you can possibly go before you bottom out.

You are the lamest person ever, you fucking rant generator. Look how much energy and emotion you put into that. Like, what if you went out to dinner tonight, and everyone there saw this quote...they'd be like "JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY, WHAT DID THIS KID DO TO YOU"?! And you wanna act like you're normal.

Here's an idea, look at the last two pages and tell me I'm the one that kept it going, that I was looking for chink's in people's armor(what everyone here does and can't admit it to themselves).

Psycho.

bighead384
05-28-2008, 04:11 PM
I did enjoy the, "Oh, what's this? A study? No, no, no. I disagree."

What are you blind? This is absolutely ridiculous. This is literally the exact opposite of what I did when I finally looked into the BAC study. It's like you guys are trained to think that somebody has to look like a fool after 10 or so pages cause you get off on it. I already admitted that I need to factor new information into my opinion.

Straight up psychos.

IamSam
05-28-2008, 04:12 PM
You are the lamest person ever, you fucking rant generator. Look how much energy and emotion you put into that. Like, what if you went out to dinner tonight, and everyone there saw this quote...they'd be like "JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY, WHAT DID THIS KID DO TO YOU"?! And you wanna act like you're normal.

Here's an idea, look at the last two pages and tell me I'm the one that kept it going, that I was looking for chink's in people's armor(what everyone here does and can't admit it to themselves).

Psycho.

And I think we may have hit bottom.

bighead384
05-28-2008, 04:15 PM
We had our little debate. I eventually admitted that I was ignorant of certain BAC studies. I agreed to reconsider my opinion. Period.

That's all that happened.

But you guys want more. You'll never admit it to yourselves. But you want more.

Little_Miss_1565
05-28-2008, 04:34 PM
But you guys want more. You'll never admit it to yourselves. But you want more.

Pot kettle what? Who's come back after declaring all of us elitist assholes trying to start in with more of the same, but hiding behind a new name? Which of us really wants more?

adombomb222
05-28-2008, 05:17 PM
The problem is, is that there is no reason someone needs to drive after drinking. No matter how much they have to drink, the reason the BAC is at .08 is because everyone is different, and reacts to alcohol differently. Moving it up to .12 is stupid. Roadblocks are in place to protect people, I drive at night a lot and Iíd prefer to have those in place and be a few minutes late home. And you saying its ineffective is bullshit, the first year they put those in place here in Denver over a wide range on New Years eve/night they got hundreds of people who where ďclearlyĒ drunk and unable to safely drive. The only reason, if any, that numbers have gone down is because people know those are in place and do not drive. To me that sounds like its working. Drinking and driving have no place in our society anymore, we have means to get home safely and not endanger other people, we have services where a company will bring two drivers one to drive you and the other to drive your car. If youíre going out on the town get driven in by a friend or by taxi, get out by friend or by taxi, itís simple. And yea it may cost some money, but its better then maybe drinking a little too much by accident and then driving home and slamming into a pole or worse hitting another car and more then likely killing the people in that car.

Mota Boy
05-28-2008, 06:00 PM
You are the lamest person ever, you fucking rant generator. Look how much energy and emotion you put into that. Like, what if you went out to dinner tonight, and everyone there saw this quote...they'd be like "JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY, WHAT DID THIS KID DO TO YOU"?! And you wanna act like you're normal.You act as if I hate you. I have no emotions towards you, not even contempt. In a week, I will have forgotten you existed, as I always do until you pop up once again to make a fool out of yourself. I'm just telling you the truth, which you need to hear rather than wish away. It's understandable that you don't want to hear it, that you want to blame me, act as though the problem is somehow on my end, but at some point in your life you're going to feel the sneaking suspicion that perhaps the problem isn't with everyone else. And keep this in mind when that point comes - take a good, long, hard look at yourself and be prepared to change a great many things about yourself. It's going to be hard and it's going to take a lot of time, and it's understandable that you'd rather settle for convincing yourself that you're happy with the way you are now, but ultimately you'd be a better person to be aware of the multitude of deep-set flaws that are glaringly apparent to even the casual observer. Good luck.

loud_noises!
05-28-2008, 07:32 PM
Pardon me if I reiterate anything thatís already been said in this thread, because Iíve only skimmed it. Also, I donít drink and donít really know all that much about the statistics behind it all, so correct me if Iím wrong because Iím sure I wonít have many facts to back up my opinions. Then again, sometimes all it takes is a little common sense to put two and two together.

This is a touchy subject because you have too many people with mixed emotions and opinions. There are people who drink a few beers and claim that they feel nothing and are fully capable of operating a vehicle. They may be able to drive a car, but Iím assuming some people are affected differently than others. So if someone crashes into a tree and dies and there is any possibility that alcohol was involved, then of course the laws are going to be strict as hell. Strict laws butt rape any offenders and use them as examples to get to people. It may be unfair, but Iím sure it intimidates people and prevents some people from getting drunk and going out late at night.

In some cases, the strict laws may be unfair, but thatís life and we should just accept it. Itís not like you canít get piss drunk, you just have to be responsible enough to have a plan or a backup plan before you go out drinking.

Llamas
05-29-2008, 12:22 AM
I honestly do like these kinds of debates, because I do learn more from them. I didn't know that the limit used to be .10, and that the difference from .08 to .10 was so drastic. DUI laws and drunk driving were always things I had my views on, but had never taken the time to delve into WHY I felt the way I did. Now I actually understand why I believe what I do, which is cool.

So even though that wasn't bighead's intention with this thread, I'm glad he made it. And I'm glad he was able to learn, and possibly realize that there was some error in his beliefs. I definitely encourage people to verbalize their beliefs like this... but it would be nice in the future if it was done a little more nicely.

sKratch
05-29-2008, 03:13 PM
TRoadblocks are in place to protect people, I drive at night a lot and Iíd prefer to have those in place and be a few minutes late home. And you saying its ineffective is bullshit, the first year they put those in place here in Denver over a wide range on New Years eve/night they got hundreds of people who where ďclearlyĒ drunk and unable to safely drive. The only reason, if any, that numbers have gone down is because people know those are in place and do not drive. To me that sounds like its working.

They should figure out a way to curb drunk driving in a way that doesn't infringe on people's freedom. The police have no right to to detain anyone without reason. If they want to set up a bunch of "traps" where they pull over people who appear to be driving drunk, that's fine. But road blocks are illegal.

Jakebert
05-29-2008, 03:28 PM
Agreed 100%. While I've made it pretty clear that I'm hugely anti-drunk driving, I'm not huge on traffic stops. Traps, hidden police officers, and zero tolerance stuff is all fine with me, though.

adombomb222
05-29-2008, 04:48 PM
I understand, but what other solutions are there? And for that matter whoís responsibility is it to ensure that no one drive above the legal limit. I know car can be modified to not start with out a Breathalyzer test. Maybe that should be mandatory for all drivers whom are committed with a DUI. Or maybe to the extreme all cars canít start with out a confirmed passing Breathalyzer, is that less of a convenience? Maybe thatís an invasion of privacy or is there any other real solutions? Maybe it should be a requirement that establishments take away key from people after a few drinksÖ Yet that too is a little far. Obviously we canít hold it in the hands of the individual since, we already know they donít really care because their judgment is fucked up if the step into that car. And arenít roadblocks only out during the nightly hours of the day, so who is really inconvenienced? Maybe a few people who have late shift-early morning jobs and people coming home from late shits? Also people going or coming from drinking.

OffspringHead
05-29-2008, 06:01 PM
No I aint "OffspringHead" or whatever.
Lmfao. Ok. I know i start a lot of fights about shit but it's not ALWAYS me. C'mon guys. Lighten up. I'm a cool guy =D

And bighead, you've probably never had a friend or family member die or be injured by a drunk driver have you? Its traumatizing. I agree with whoever it was above me that said that some countries have 0 tolerance for alcohol levels. Don't drive if you've been drinking. Even if it's one beer.

sKratch
05-30-2008, 12:47 PM
I understand, but what other solutions are there? And for that matter whoís responsibility is it to ensure that no one drive above the legal limit. I know car can be modified to not start with out a Breathalyzer test. Maybe that should be mandatory for all drivers whom are committed with a DUI. Or maybe to the extreme all cars canít start with out a confirmed passing Breathalyzer, is that less of a convenience? Maybe thatís an invasion of privacy or is there any other real solutions? Maybe it should be a requirement that establishments take away key from people after a few drinksÖ Yet that too is a little far. Obviously we canít hold it in the hands of the individual since, we already know they donít really care because their judgment is fucked up if the step into that car. And arenít roadblocks only out during the nightly hours of the day, so who is really inconvenienced? Maybe a few people who have late shift-early morning jobs and people coming home from late shits? Also people going or coming from drinking.

There comes a point where responsibility must rest with the citizens themselves. It's completely inappropriate to regulate driving to the extend you suggest. I think the point of the toughness of DUI penalties is to discourage drunk driving so that such ridiculous measures are not required. The government has no right to control whether or not you can start your car, which is your private property. However, they have every right to regulate your use of your car when it's on public roads, because they're owned by the government.

And the point is not necessarily that few people are inconvenienced by road blocks. The point is that one should never be willing to compromise his or her rights for any reason. C.f. losing freedoms to fight terrorism, etc.

randman21
05-30-2008, 08:43 PM
Lmfao. Ok. I know i start a lot of fights about shit but it's not ALWAYS me. C'mon guys. Lighten up. I'm a cool guy =D
Hehe, yeah. I was the one who suggested you were the same guy. You're definitely nowhere near as bad as he is, but you both use the conspiracy motif in almost every Politics thread. But you don't take a "Facts? Never happened" approach to debates.

nieh
05-30-2008, 08:50 PM
Lmfao

I don't believe you actually are.

OffspringHead
06-02-2008, 10:47 AM
Hehe, yeah. I was the one who suggested you were the same guy. You're definitely nowhere near as bad as he is, but you both use the conspiracy motif in almost every Politics thread. But you don't take a "Facts? Never happened" approach to debates.

Well, conspiracy theories make things a bit interesting. It makes you think. Most of them are bullshit but some recognized by the U.S government so they can't be completely false.

And i can debate without conspiracies. Just give me a topic. And please not the Presidential Campaign.

OffspringHead
06-02-2008, 10:48 AM
I don't believe you actually are.

Yo. I L-O-L all the time at my computer. =D