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".
Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
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".
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.
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.
Ifs? May? Wanna gamble your life on "if" and "may" and the hope that all drivers who imbibe will "compensate", you go right ahead.
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.
1) Is this the same Thread?
2) Can we keep this civil before I have to start flushing chunks of this Thread?
Ah Christ Guys....can this Thread just stick to the Thread topic without the B.S.???
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.
Especially when combined with inattention. We all must have a good idea of how many people drive around while even momentarily distracted.
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.
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.
Of course not but maybe they should.
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?
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.
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.Uhuh.
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.
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..
Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction
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?
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?
Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction
riiiiiight....so much cheaper to just make another human than worry about how many get hurt by these morons.
riiiiiight....so much cheaper to just make another human than worry about how many get hurt by these morons.