Jump to content


Photo

It should be legal to drive with any BAC.

water yeast malt hops drinking

  • Please log in to reply
288 replies to this topic

#21 Enid Puceflange

Enid Puceflange

    Old Squinty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6189 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 07:41 AM

I suspect many of the arguments against a high BAC also apply in the case of poor vision - there are requirements for a certain level of visual acuity and failing that will remove your licence too.Bottom line - it comes down to probabilities and we've got ample historical evidence that allowing YOU to drive home from the pub with a skinful puts US at a significantly increased risk. There are more of us than you - so you don't get to do it, at least legally. :)
  • 0

#22 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24763 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 07:56 AM

saying you should be able to drive legally with any bac is about like saying you should be able to shoot at people. hey, as long as you don't actually hit them, you haven't injured them.
  • 2

#23 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 65250 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:19 AM

saying you should be able to drive legally with any bac is about like saying you should be able to shoot at people. hey, as long as you don't actually hit them, you haven't injured them.

yep
  • 0

#24 Brownbeard

Brownbeard

    Comptroller of Ilks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35519 posts
  • LocationCedar Rapids, Ia

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:27 AM

Had a brief discussion over some beers regarding why it's illegal to drive with booze in your blood. So I ask the PH. Why is it illegal? It seems like any and all the negative results of drinking and driving are already illegal: reckless driving, speeding, running stop signs/red lights, vehicular manslaughter, etc. So what do we gain by making it also illegal to do those things after a few beers?The only argument I've heard is that DUI laws prevent people from killing or injuring people (which may or may not be true), but it's already illegal to kill or injure someone with your car.The way I see it, it's making it a crime to increase your likelihood of committing a crime, which seems stupid and unconstitutional. Kinda like making it illegal to have a gun because you might shoot someone. It seems very Minority Report-ish to convict people of a pre-crime like DUI.I'd be fine for increasing penalties for committing a crime/traffic offense if you are also drunk, but it shouldnt be illegal to drive after drinking if you havent committed any other crimes. If you're not swerving, hitting things, or otherwise driving shittily, what harm are you causing yourself or others?What say teh drunkies?

I say I agree with this 100%. But as you can see, you will not get much support here. Folks who hate big govt never seem to mind piling on charges to get stronger convictions. Why isn't the penal system and an excessive criminal code big govt?
  • 0

#25 Brownbeard

Brownbeard

    Comptroller of Ilks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35519 posts
  • LocationCedar Rapids, Ia

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:29 AM

One time I got pulled over because I drove past a cop who was sitting in a parking lot and then proceeded to take my next right on my way home from work. He asked me if I knew why I was pulled over and I said no. I hadn't been speeding, so I had no clue. He asked me if I had been drinking. I told him I had a glass of wine after work, which was a fib, but anyway... He told me he pulled me over because he thought it was suspicious that I took a right there. I told him that is how I get to my house, and then he made me give directions. Easy. He let me go. But in reality, he only pulled me over to see if I had been drinking. Right hand turns on green are not illegal..... :stabby:

This right here is a violation of your 4th amendment rights.
  • 0

#26 Mando

Mando

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46727 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:35 AM

This right here is a violation of your 4th amendment rights.

I think we need to seperate the issues here. having DUI laws is one thing. DUI checkpoints, randomly stopping people to see if they've been drinking, etc. is definitely another. the former seems like a good idea - the latter seems like giving more power to the police that they don't need.
  • 0

#27 Brownbeard

Brownbeard

    Comptroller of Ilks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35519 posts
  • LocationCedar Rapids, Ia

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:38 AM

I think we need to seperate the issues here. having DUI laws is one thing. DUI checkpoints, randomly stopping people to see if they've been drinking, etc. is definitely another. the former seems like a good idea - the latter seems like giving more power to the police that they don't need.

I disagree. Before there were ever DUI laws, every state had reckless driving laws. It should not matter why you are driving recklessly. Just like the texting laws. Either you are driving safely, or not. How do you feel about hate crime legislation?
  • 0

#28 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89149 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:38 AM

Driving with a high BAC is no different than driving a car with headlights that don't work, or wipers. Or a hood that is held down with a piece of rope. It's no different than other traffic violations like speeding or running a stop sign.

Excellent analogy actually. For those who say they agree with the OP, should it be legal to drive around without your headlights at night as long as you don't actually get into an accident?
  • 0

#29 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:40 AM

Crimes that are defined to prevent situations that inherently have so much potential for disaster, we make the threat a crime. Operating a car in an impaired state is an obvious example. We do not want to wait for the bad thing to happen, we want to prevent it in the first place....Hard to be against a law that tries to keep an alcoholic with a BAC of 0.20 driving through a school zone at 3:00 PM Wednesday.

I agree that we don't want to wait for the bad thing to happen. That's why reckless driving should be enforced. If someone is a danger to others, it's obvious. I've seen it several times on the road. Pull that guy over and lock him up.I am against a law that prevents someone with a BAC of 0.20 from driving through a school zone if that's the only measure of if he's breaking the law or not. I don't care what your BAC is. If you can drive safely it should be legal. If you can't drive safely at 0.00 then you should be ticketed or locked up.

saying you should be able to drive legally with any bac is about like saying you should be able to shoot at people. hey, as long as you don't actually hit them, you haven't injured them.

This is about the worst analogy possible. They are in no way similar.
  • 0

#30 Brownbeard

Brownbeard

    Comptroller of Ilks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35519 posts
  • LocationCedar Rapids, Ia

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:40 AM

Excellent analogy actually. For those who say they agree with the OP, should it be legal to drive around without your headlights at night as long as you don't actually get into an accident?

That is reckless driving. There is a law for that. If you are drunk and swerving, that is reckless driving. There is already a law for that.
  • 0

#31 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89149 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:42 AM

That is reckless driving. There is a law for that. If you are drunk and swerving, that is reckless driving. There is already a law for that.

So, in your mind, you'd be OK with charging people with 'reckless driving' if their BAC was too high?
  • 0

#32 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24763 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:42 AM

This is about the worst analogy possible. They are in no way similar.

they're a lot more similar than you'll probably acknowledge. either way, you're engaging in extremely risky behavior that is putting other people at risk. the only real difference between the two situations is that with the drunk driving deal, the other drivers don't know you're putting them at risk, while the person being shot at probably does know that you have put them at risk.
  • 0

#33 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:43 AM

So, in your mind, you'd be OK with charging people with 'reckless driving' if their BAC was too high?

If they were driving recklessly.If they were driving safely and not breaking any traffic laws, the cops have no right to even know how many drinks they had.
  • 0

#34 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89149 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:45 AM

If they were driving recklessly.If they were driving safely and not breaking any traffic laws, the cops have no right to even know how many drinks they had.

OK, so suppose a sober guy runs a stop sign. The cop writes him a ticket, says "Don't run any more stop signs" and lets him go on his way. If the guy was drunk should the same thing happen?
  • 0

#35 Brownbeard

Brownbeard

    Comptroller of Ilks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35519 posts
  • LocationCedar Rapids, Ia

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:51 AM

So, in your mind, you'd be OK with charging people with 'reckless driving' if their BAC was too high?

No. It would be ok to charge them with reckless driving if they were driving recklessly.

OK, so suppose a sober guy runs a stop sign. The cop writes him a ticket, says "Don't run any more stop signs" and lets him go on his way. If the guy was drunk should the same thing happen?

If a guy gets pulled over, and fails a field sobriety test, it should not matter what his BAC is, because he is driving recklessly. BAC was a way to define drunk in the beginning. But like most bad legislation, it was bastardized by special interest groups, and lowered to a point where it is not about stopping drunk drivers anymore. Now most people who get DUI are not even drunk. I say take the arbitrary number out of the equation, and go on field sobriety, which is a better indication of impairment. If you are impaired, you are driving recklessly. Having a .08 BAC does not mean you are a reckless driver.
  • 0

#36 Deerslyr

Deerslyr

    Disliker of Nut Kicking

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23796 posts
  • LocationGod's Country!

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:52 AM

Just having "wreckless driving" on the books is subjective. Studies have shown that judment and recation time is impaired at a certain level. It used to be .10. Then, about ten years ago, it was reduced to .080. You can argue the level of impairment between the two, but what it did was said that "no matter what, if you are above level X, you are too impaired to drive" and it takes the discretion out of the officer and requires them to haul them in. You can be .080 at the time of the arrest, and based on physiology and timing be at a .12 by the time you get to the county jail for the blood draw or the official Intoxylizer test... a time during which you could have been on the road with impaired driving. In the old days, when it was just wreckless driving, the officer would likely have sent you along your way without understanding that as every moment passed, you were likely becoming more and more impaired.Having this "standard", while it is an annoyance to you, takes the subjectivity out of the equation. If you blow a .040, then you cannot be charged with the Prohibited Alcohol Concentration charge.
  • 0

#37 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:52 AM

OK, so suppose a sober guy runs a stop sign. The cop writes him a ticket, says "Don't run any more stop signs" and lets him go on his way. If the guy was drunk should the same thing happen?

I guess the cop would have to make a judgement on if the guy was reckless or just disobeying a traffic law. On a country road with nobody else around, maybe a ticket is enough. In a school zone at 3PM, lock him up. What the guy had with his lunch should not be a factor.
  • 0

#38 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:55 AM

If a guy gets pulled over, and fails a field sobriety test, it should not matter what his BAC is, because he is driving recklessly. BAC was a way to define drunk in the beginning. But like most bad legislation, it was bastardized by special interest groups, and lowered to a point where it is not about stopping drunk drivers anymore. Now most people who get DUI are not even drunk. I say take the arbitrary number out of the equation, and go on field sobriety, which is a better indication of impairment. If you are impaired, you are driving recklessly. Having a .08 BAC does not mean you are a reckless driver.

Excellent point. I'd be fine with getting people off the road that fail standardized field sobriety/motor skills/coordination tests. That includes old people and women.
  • 0

#39 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89149 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:55 AM

No. It would be ok to charge them with reckless driving if they were driving recklessly.If a guy gets pulled over, and fails a field sobriety test, it should not matter what his BAC is, because he is driving recklessly. BAC was a way to define drunk in the beginning. But like most bad legislation, it was bastardized by special interest groups, and lowered to a point where it is not about stopping drunk drivers anymore. Now most people who get DUI are not even drunk. I say take the arbitrary number out of the equation, and go on field sobriety, which is a better indication of impairment. If you are impaired, you are driving recklessly. Having a .08 BAC does not mean you are a reckless driver.

What about a taillight out? If you have one taillight out you are not driving recklessly but you can still get pulled over. I have, and the cop just let me off with a warning, telling me to make sure and get it fixed. If I reeked of alcohol but wasn't weaving, I wasn't driving "recklessly", so should I have gotten the same warning?
  • 0

#40 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:57 AM

What about a taillight out? If you have one taillight out you are not driving recklessly but you can still get pulled over. I have, and the cop just let me off with a warning, telling me to make sure and get it fixed. If I reeked of alcohol but wasn't weaving, I wasn't driving "recklessly", so should I have gotten the same warning?

Yes.ETA: And honestly I'm surprised that you are defending a law that allows the cops to arrest someone because of the way they smell.
  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: water, yeast, malt, hops, drinking

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users