Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....


Cannuck
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

"There is evidence that even drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level between 0.2 and 0.4 mg/ml are 1.4 times more likely

Interesting stat considering I've been talking about < 0.10
 
DaSleeper
#92
For those who believe in wiki.....here it is.....
Blood alcohol content - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Cannuck
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

For those who believe in wiki.....here it is.....
Blood alcohol content - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks but I don't think anybody here is arguing about the effects of BAC. The question is whether it leads to more accidents and at what level.
 
lone wolf
+1
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Thanks but I don't think anybody here is arguing about the effects of BAC. The question is whether it leads to more accidents and at what level.

When it involves taking chances you wouldn't when you're reasonable? Sure it does
 
DaSleeper
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

For those who believe in wiki.....here it is.....
Blood alcohol content - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And for all those who were referring to .80??? at .80 you Dead.
 
Cannuck
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

When it involves taking chances you wouldn't when you're reasonable? Sure it does

That is one of the questions raised by the Australian study. Did the willingness to take chances decrease initially. If I remember correctly, the accident rate began to spike significantly after BAC was greater than 0,10
 
lone wolf
+2
#97
I suppose if all you're being hit by is a study, there wouldn't be much of an issue.
 
Cannuck
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

I suppose if all you're being hit by is a study, there wouldn't be much of an issue.

Well, MADD and their supporters use studies to push for throwing people in jail. I think faulty studies would be something you might think about with all the time you have to waste in jail.
 
CDNBear
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Well, MADD and their supporters use studies to push for throwing people in jail. I think faulty studies would be something you might think about with all the time you have to waste in jail.

I'm interested in your supposed study showing lower BAC causing operators to drive safer.

How's that coming?
 
L Gilbert
+1
#100
lol Well, if judgement and motor skills are impaired starting at 0.05 then I thought it'd be pretty obvious there's a danger. Also, if one doesn't consider an impairment of judgement and motor skills to be a danger, then they belong in a zoo.
 
Cannuck
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

lol Well, if judgement and motor skills are impaired starting at 0.05 then I thought it'd be pretty obvious there's a danger. Also, if one doesn't consider an impairment of judgement and motor skills to be a danger, then they belong in a zoo.

They are a danger if no compensation is made. If somebody drives slower or stays off of major thoroughfares or is more alert and aware, these things may offset the impaired judgement in the lower levels of BAC. That is why I ask the question. It's a reasonable question given that you wish to spend millions of tax dollars fighting this "problem".
 
CDNBear
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

They are a danger if no compensation is made. If somebody drives slower or stays off of major thoroughfares or is more alert and aware, these things may offset the impaired judgement in the lower levels of BAC.

There's no proof of that at all whatsoever.
 
damngrumpy
#103
To start with you have an individual who is at the mercy of alcohol because he is on a personal
path to destruction. Until he gets help it will continue. Alberta actually has a program to keep
people even against their wishes to try to straighten them out it is a good start.
Now in addition the State of Texas is often irrational as the above man mentioned and there are
millions who champion their madness. It is folly to suggest they should spend thirty to fifty
thousand dollars a year to keep him in a federal prison when they could spend a fraction of that
keeping him in a facility that would treat his alcoholism and allow him to become a valued and
taxpaying citizen.
One selfish act here begets another one. The State of Texas makes these pompous and radical
decisions for show rather than for substance most of the time. If the government sometimes acts
like its bat sh*t insane what does that often say about the people living there?
Should he be on the street? Good God no. It does not mean he should be in a Federal Prison doing
life either.
The other problem for America is they don't have a pro active view of medical issues either measures
that could confine and treat this person. They reason they wouldn't do it is because the managed
health care providers would whine to high heaven. People get a grip, this is not murder its drunk
driving. If he killed someone yes, but if he nearly killed someone? Better think about that. Next you
could do life without parole for running yellow or red lights that can nearly kill someone too. How many
have ever run a few yellow lights? Be honest now.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

They are a danger if no compensation is made. If somebody drives slower or stays off of major thoroughfares or is more alert and aware, these things may offset the impaired judgement in the lower levels of BAC. That is why I ask the question. It's a reasonable question given that you wish to spend millions of tax dollars fighting this "problem".

Ifs? May? Wanna gamble your life on "if" and "may" and the hope that all drivers who imbibe will "compensate", you go right ahead.
 
L Gilbert
+3
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

He's Ok with if's, maybe's and possibly's, so long as he thinks it supports his position.

Not uncommon for CC's self proclaimed silliest member.

Funny. I was just thinking while getting my bowl of soup here that it sounds like someone's trying to rationalise their propensity for heading off to the pub or buddy's place and having only 1 or 2 beers and then driving.
 
CDNBear
+2
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Funny. I was just thinking while getting my bowl of soup here that it sounds like someone's trying to rationalise their propensity for heading off to the pub or buddy's place and having only 1 or 2 beers and then driving.

That's a distinct possibility.

It would explain his hypocrisy.
 
Ron in Regina
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post



1) Is this the same Thread?
2) Can we keep this civil before I have to start flushing chunks of this Thread?


Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

It's Sunday afternoon & I'm here to play. Don't make me have to pretend to work here.

Ah Christ Guys....can this Thread just stick to the Thread topic without the B.S.???
 
Cannuck
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Ifs? May? Wanna gamble your life on "if" and "may" and the hope that all drivers who imbibe will "compensate", you go right ahead.

That would depend on what the statistics say. If drivers with a BAC less than 0.10 are causing an insignificant number of accidents and/or deaths then I am quite willing to gamble my life. The alternative is to spend millions of tax dollars and limit other people's freedoms for what amounts to minimal risk.

For me, this runs along the same vein as gun control. Confiscating rifles would save people and nobody "needs" a rifle. I don't personally feel the cost outweighs the benefit. Now, if I saw some statistical evidence that people with a BAC <0.10 were a significant problem ( just like if I saw statistics that rifles were a significant problem) I would have no problem with legislating a solution.
 
L Gilbert
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

lol Well, if judgement and motor skills are impaired starting at 0.05 then I thought it'd be pretty obvious there's a danger. Also, if one doesn't consider an impairment of judgement and motor skills to be a danger, then they belong in a zoo.

Especially when combined with inattention. We all must have a good idea of how many people drive around while even momentarily distracted.
 
L Gilbert
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

That would depend on what the statistics say. If drivers with a BAC less than 0.10 are causing an insignificant number of accidents and/or deaths then I am quite willing to gamble my life. The alternative is to spend millions of tax dollars and limit other people's freedoms for what amounts to minimal risk.

For me, this runs along the same vein as gun control. Confiscating rifles would save people and nobody "needs" a rifle. I don't personally feel the cost outweighs the benefit. Now, if I saw some statistical evidence that people with a BAC <0.10 were a significant problem ( just like if I saw statistics that rifles were a significant problem) I would have no problem with legislating a solution.

More gambling on "ifs". Go figger.
I have an "if" of my own. Suppose someone investigated the issue further, came up with stats, the powers made a law accordingly, then the stats were found to be in error or skewed ..... Well, some people here might get the drift of my point.
 
L Gilbert
#111
And it isn't as if the law is spending "millions" on JUST those who are above 1 ml/l either.
 
Cannuck
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

I have an "if" of my own. Suppose someone investigated the issue further, came up with stats, the powers made a law accordingly, then the stats were found to be in error or skewed

You make a decision based on the best science available, not emotion. I'm not afraid to change my mind if the facts suggest I need to.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Isn't that what you do all day? Or do you spend your days locked in your cellar so nobody can hurt you?

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Ah Christ Guys....can this Thread just stick to the Thread topic without the B.S.???

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Good question

Uhuh.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

You make a decision based on the best science available, not emotion. I'm not afraid to change my mind if the facts suggest I need to.

Best to be sorrier than safer.
 
Cannuck
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

And it isn't as if the law is spending "millions" on JUST those who are above 1 ml/l either.

Of course not but maybe they should.

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Best to be sorrier than safer.

It isn't one or the other. Like everything in life, there is a risk benefit analysis done. Are you willing to give up everything just to be safe?
 
CDNBear
+3
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I'm not afraid to change my mind if the facts suggest I need to.

Neither am I, which is why I'm waiting to see the alleged study you have mentioned every time this topic comes up.

I'm starting to believe it was all in your mind.

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Uhuh.

If only he was capable of being honest, and dropped the morally superior and condescending nonsense, maybe he wouldn't get so emotional all the time.
 
L Gilbert
#116
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Of course not but maybe they should.

I'm just happy they pay attention to the scientific research that says 0.05 is when both judgement and motor skills take a dive. Making redundant laws is a waste of money.

Quote:

It isn't one or the other. Like everything in life, there is a risk benefit analysis done. Are you willing to give up everything just to be safe?

Not everything. Just driving after 0.05. And that 0.05 part IS a fact regardless of what other facts you use to dislodge the discussion or rationalise your need for imbibing and driving..
 
gerryh
+2
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

I know two guys that had impaired driving charges much more numerous than three. One had
between 10-12 & the other in the teens...oh yeah...& a third I guess in the teens. All three to
the best of my knowledge are all clean and sober at this point in their lives after decades of
run away alcoholism.

One is a brother of mine, and he was in & out of corrections so often that he was known on a
first name basis there, and they'd just set everything up for him when they'd see his name on
the list of prisoners arriving. He'd get dropped off, deloused & changed into prison garb, handed
a broom, etc...and would start working, and wouldn't even see his cell 'till the end of the day.

It's sad. Some can handle booze, and some just can't at all. Two of the three above I know well
and had the same pattern. Once any booze was in their system, they didn't need food or sleep
and could go for days with just booze. One of them drank himself into a coma on several
occasions, had 30+ feet of burned out intestines removed over the years, had family called in
to sign the paperwork to shut of life-support several times only to come out'a it to go and get
drunk again. Hellish existence for themselves and all around them. All three found bottom way
beyond where anyone else would think bottom must be, & are clean and sober today.

Life sentences for three strikes on DUI's? That's pretty heavy based upon the justification above
of "could'a" in that a drunk could'a run someone over but didn't....as they all happen to be equipped
to have also "could'a got someone pregnant" or whatever. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue.

Above was mentioned a CHIP in their livers that would immobilize a vehicle once they where behind
the wheel (an electro magnetic pulse perhaps, seeing as everything is computer reliant now?), and
as far fetched as that sounds, I think it's not that far fetched though the answer might be a technological
one but less extreme and closer to Breathalyzer type machines factory installed someday in all vehicles
that're less intrusive than today's versions.



OK.... then how about this...... once... just one fu cking time..... one of these brainless drunks kills or injures someone.... that`s it, they are gone...locked up permanently...... no other chances.... no other freedoms.... nada. If they can`t fu cking control themselves, and they hurt someone than THAT is the end of the road...... or is that too harsh also? Maybe you have some other excuses as to why these useless peices of meat should be given a break?
 
CDNBear
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

OMaybe you have some other excuses as to why these useless peices of meat should be given a break?

It's to expensive.
 
gerryh
+1
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

It's to expensive.


riiiiiight....so much cheaper to just make another human than worry about how many get hurt by these morons.
 
L Gilbert
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

And it isn't as if the law is spending "millions" on JUST those who are above 1 ml/l either.

I meant "below".
 

Similar Threads

69
B.C.s new drunk driving laws
by JLM | Sep 25th, 2010
57
Drunk driving laws
by Kreskin | May 9th, 2010
28
Drunk Driving Program Goes Too Far?
by karrie | Jun 12th, 2008