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

[JLM]

JLM's trolling thread I think. Without getting into detail, I give reds when the post requires a response but isn't worth much effort...personal attacks, childishness, name calling...you get the point (or perhaps not)

Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee HeeHee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee

Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee HeeHee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee

Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee HeeHee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee -

 

[L Gilbert]

Here Les, I've quoted post 323 because it's obviously too difficult for you to scroll back.

And yet one more time, you've reached the conclusion that too much is spent without even knowing what is spent.
I spent x on a particular tool. So do you think I spent too much on it?

 

[JLM]

You do appear to be the number 1 member for handing out reds.

To me for sure, I've probably had 50 since I got one from Teddy or Walter (and I thought those guys were idiots)

It sure goes well with the truck he fell off....

Yeah, and if he ain't careful I'll down grade him to a water melon!

 

[Cannuck]

And yet one more time, you've reached the conclusion that too much is spent without even knowing what is spent.

Seriously dood, have you been drinking this afternoon?

C - I think we should know these things so the response is on par with the situation.

On what planet is your conclusion similar to my conclusion?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Oh God Guys...This Thread is titled:

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

I don't believe the topic has anything to do with Reds or Greens or
Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down or the constant & chronic complaining
about the same. It's so old, & derails so many threads.

Please stick to the Thread Topic.

 

[L Gilbert]

...and nobody has the right to make other Canadians pay the horrendous legal costs to deal with a non-problem just because they have an issue with it.

Here you are ASSuming the cost of catching people impaired between 0.05 and 0.08 is a horrendous cost.

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

Why would you need to change your mind unless you've reached a conclusion? An undecided person cannot change their mind.

At any rate, I have come to the conclusion that since there are a number of deaths of drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 and the fact that the statistic I found only referred to those drivers' deaths and not injuries or the deaths and injuries of passengers, pedestrians, etc., and science has shown impaired judgement and motor skills after 0.05, 0.05 is a safe limit to come to. And I have not seen sufficient argument to cause me to change my conclusion. After that, I think people who get caught and convicted twice should not be driving, so yes, they should lose that freedom.

 

[Cannuck]

Here you are ASSuming the cost of catching people impaired between 0.05 and 0.08 is a horrendous cost.

No I'm not. I said I don't know. I don't know how many times I need to say that before you understand.

At any rate, I have come to the conclusion that since there are a number of deaths of drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 and the fact that the statistic I found only referred to those drivers' deaths and not injuries or the deaths and injuries of passengers, pedestrians, etc., and science has shown impaired judgement and motor skills after 0.05, 0.05 is a safe limit to come to. And I have not seen sufficient argument to cause me to change my conclusion. After that, I think people who get caught and convicted twice should not be driving, so yes, they should lose that freedom.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion regardless of whether they care to look deeper.

 

[JLM]

Please stick to the Thread Topic.

Hello Ron- not meaning to sound cheeky but when there is one constant in a problem, generally removing the constant fixes it.-

Here you are ASSuming the cost of catching people impaired between 0.05 and 0.08 is a horrendous cost.

Why would you need to change your mind unless you've reached a conclusion? An undecided person cannot change their mind.

At any rate, I have come to the conclusion that since there are a number of deaths of drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 and the fact that the statistic I found only referred to those drivers' deaths and not injuries or the deaths and injuries of passengers, pedestrians, etc., and science has shown impaired judgement and motor skills after 0.05, 0.05 is a safe limit to come to. And I have not seen sufficient argument to cause me to change my conclusion. After that, I think people who get caught and convicted twice should not be driving, so yes, they should lose that freedom.

The way I see it, while the cops have set up a road block they are on a wage and whether they stop one car in an hour or 50 it all costs the same, and whether a guy blows 0.00 or 5.6 that all costs the same, so the contention they can't bother with guys under 0.08 is BULL SH*T.

 

[Cannuck]

The way I see it, while the cops have set up a road block they are on a wage and whether they stop one car in an hour or 50 it all costs the same, and whether a guy blows 0.00 or 5.6 that all costs the same, so the contention they can't bother with guys under 0.08 is BULL SH*T.

The "cost" does not just include the cost of the police.

 

[Goober]

The "cost" does not just include the cost of the police.

I would then suggest asking your local municipality what the costs are for these type of stops. Every area will be a tad different. Not much but a tad.

 

[JLM]

I would then suggest asking your local municipality what the costs are for these type of stops. Every area will be a tad different. Not much but a tad.

And whatever the cost, if it was reported that one life was saved would anyone say it's too expensive? (Like is it more expensive than supporting family of a wage earner on welfare for 20 years?)

 

[Goober]

And whatever the cost, if it was reported that one life was saved would anyone say it's too expensive? (Like is it more expensive than supporting family of a wage earner on welfare for 20 years?)

Costs for Police- Fire fighters etc - man hours and equipment costs - replacements for equipment- can be obtained by contacting your local municipality. You should be able to get a fair idea of the costs.
But I am not doing another Members research.

 

[JLM]

Costs for Police- Fire fighters etc - man hours and equipment costs - replacements for equipment- can be obtained by contacting your local municipality. You should be able to get a fair idea of the costs.
But I am not doing another Members research.

Nah, we should let our chief spokesman do the research and I might spot check once in awhile to make sure he's not Bullsh*tting.-

 

[Cannuck]

And whatever the cost, if it was reported that one life was saved would anyone say it's too expensive?

Yes. I could, especially if there are more cost effective ways of making things safer.

(Like is it more expensive than supporting family of a wage earner on welfare for 20 years?)

Once you factor in moving through the legal system, remand and probation, it just might be.

Costs for Police- Fire fighters etc - man hours and equipment costs - replacements for equipment- can be obtained by contacting your local municipality. You should be able to get a fair idea of the costs.
But I am not doing another Members research.

That's only a portion of the cost (see above). Then there is the cost of removing ones license which may put them out of work. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a comprehensive study done to determine what it costs society for each impaired charge.

 

[Goober]

Yes. I could, especially if there are more cost effective ways of making things safer.

What are your suggestions.

Once you factor in moving through the legal system, remand and probation, it just might be.

So what would you do-remove this from the Criminal Code

 

[JLM]

I never would have thought suggestions warranted "reds"!-

What are your suggestions.

I doubt if he's thought that far yet......................give him a week or two.

 

[Cannuck]

What are your suggestions.

The first thing I would do do is have a comprehensive study to determine what the costs of our current approach is and how significant the problem is.

 

[Goober]

The first thing I would do do is have a comprehensive study to determine what the costs of our current approach is and how significant the problem is.

But all the research is available- I asked 2 questions, your thoughts are?

 

[Cannuck]

But all the research is available- I asked 2 questions, your thoughts are?

So people keep saying. I haven't seen it though. The answer to your second question would depend on the results of the study

 

[Goober]

So people keep saying. I haven't seen it though. The answer to your second question would depend on the results of the study

LG, others and myself have posted documented damages, injuries and deaths - They do not include the long time emotional scars to family, friends and other to those that are left with permanent injuries- costs that are borne by health care- social assistance- insurance payouts- Then we add in the deaths caused by in my opinion Freaking Idiots that drive impaired.

Yet they are not valid to you. Why is that.