Let's Play "I Can Make Or Change Any One Law I Want To"

[5-Points 2,729]

I'm just wondering how you plan to obtain this drinking and driving "sweet" spot, when different types of alcohol will affect the same person differently, along with other things like how much sleep a person has had, any medications they have taken, health, etc. You'd never be able to nail something like that down.

Just like now, it's up to the individual to ensure they are within their prescribed limit. We trust people to make that call now, that wouldn't change. They would still be held to the same impairment standards as everybody else. The only difference would be if they pass all FST's and show no obvious signs of impairment they just get a little more leeway on the BAC.

[5-Points 2,729]

Which do you think is a bigger problem, too many undeserved DUIs or unpunished drunk drivers? Maybe more access to breathalyzers or adoption of a personal policy not to drive after drinking could save all your acquaintances from ruining their lives?

 

Even though I think your two wine-swilling victims are fictitious, why do believe some people are charged with DUI despite sub-.08 BAC? Could it be that the the BAC is an imperfect tool? Might this limit its utility in your alcoholic utopia?

How many times do you think the average drunk driver drives drunk before they are caught? When they are caught, what do we do? We fine them. In this scenario they basically pay the fine up front and they still aren't allowed to drive drunk.

 

You can assume whatever you want I really don't care. I have no reason to lie.

[Mookz 1,287]

Ban lobbyists from actual lobbies. We have a lot of people going in and out, and they need to be able to get through. There's plenty of space back in the drawing room, or you can just wait out on the front lawn if you'd like. But we need to keep this area clear.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

I'm a veteran too. I guess I'm sort of an all American bad ass, and we don't work cheap! I'm sorry you couldn't defend yourself because of the fat and all,but I had your back for 24 years! You're welcome!

[Giants Fan 85]

Lawrence Taylor says, you should post a thank you to Mike, in my October 27th, 1999 thread.

[5-Points 2,729]

STFU. Just because one almost killed you, why do you have such disdain for drunk drivers? Stop thinking about yourself and consider the lives of innocent drinkers ruined by DUI(s)!

Jesus what a kunt. My point was that having been through what she went through, she has every reason to disagree with me and I can completely understand why she would. Again, you seem to have trouble grasping the concept that I am not advocating drunk driving. I've said it many times now. Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Jesus what a kunt. My point was that having been through what she went through, she has every reason to disagree with me and I can completely understand why she would. Again, you seem to have trouble grasping the concept that I am not advocating drunk driving. I've said it many times now. Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

 

Yet...you are.

You are advocating we figure out this supposed thresh hold for people who will then think...hey, mine is higher than it used to be, I can have another drink at dinner tonight since my legal BAC went up.

Its a stupid focking idea...one of the most idiotic things I have read on this board ever.

[dain11279 928]

Drug tests for welfare recepients if it hasn't been mentioned already

[drobeski 3,061]

I'm a veteran too. I guess I'm sort of an all American bad ass, and we don't work cheap! I'm sorry you couldn't defend yourself because of the fat and all,but I had your back for 24 years! You're welcome!

I never needed defending

Even if you are a veteran your dad probably still blew the mayor, cus he liked it.

[5-Points 2,729]

 

Yet...you are.

You are advocating we figure out this supposed thresh hold for people who will then think...hey, mine is higher than it used to be, I can have another drink at dinner tonight since my legal BAC went up.

Its a stupid focking idea...one of the most idiotic things I have read on this board ever.

Please show me where I have advocated drunk driving. You can't because I have not. It very well may be the dumbest idea ever posted anywhere. In which case it should be easy to present a compelling argument to the contrary. You brought nothing.

[Giants Fan 85]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

Say thanks to Mike in the anniversary thread I started, kiss and makeup, and who cares.

 

Yay, I convinced a single person I was right about a subject today on the internet. Jesus, who cares! Seriously.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

So Drobeski, you don't need defending? I thought you right wingers were big supporters of the military? Like I said, you're welcome.

[drobeski 3,061]

So Drobeski, you don't need defending? I thought you right wingers were big supporters of the military? Like I said, you're welcome.

good job kid, want a donut ? Or a black kid to shoot ?

[OldMaid 1,838]

How many times do you think the average drunk driver drives drunk before they are caught? When they are caught, what do we do? We fine them. In this scenario they basically pay the fine up front and they still aren't allowed to drive drunk.

You can assume whatever you want I really don't care. I have no reason to lie.

I would assume that the average drunk driver does it A LOT before they either get caught or something bad happens. That's still no reason to advocate for higher BAC laws. People make poor choices when alcohol is involved-even after one drink. And what's at risk, to me, is greater than what the benefit of something like this would be. It's much safer all around to just get a designated driver, call a cab, get an Uber, take the bus, etc.

 

You have the potential to seriously hurt or even kill someone... Unfortunately, I think it has to hit close to home, before it really sinks in, for most people, what's at stake. I can't imagine why anybody would EVER want to take that risk. But sadly, most people do. I guess it's that whole "It could never happen to me" mentality.

[crackattack 513]

Drunk Driving is a very very very bad idea. Just my two cents.

[Frank M 181]

I would assume that the average drunk driver does it A LOT before they either get caught or something bad happens. That's still no reason to advocate for higher BAC laws. People make poor choices when alcohol is involved-even after one drink. And what's at risk, to me, is greater than what the benefit of something like this would be. It's much safer all around to just get a designated driver, call a cab, get an Uber, take the bus, etc.

 

You have the potential to seriously hurt or even kill someone... Unfortunately, I think it has to hit close to home, before it really sinks in, for most people, what's at stake. I can't imagine why anybody would EVER want to take that risk. But sadly, most people do. I guess it's that whole "It could never happen to me" mentality.

 

I drove drunk literally thousands of times without getting caught. I'm talking driving in a state where I could barely walk. It's only sheer luck that I never got caught or hurt anybody. I destroyed a couple of cars driving drunk without getting in any kind of trouble.

 

It took a friend of mine getting permanently disabled by a drunk driver to stop me.

 

I understand that 5 Points is trying to be controversial. He knows his argument is ridiculous, that there are hardly any people who get charged with DUI who don't have a track record of driving when they shouldn't have.

 

If you are going to drink at all, don't drive. If you do, you deserve what you get, and hopefully you won't hurt anybody.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

I've had a donut. And shot a black man. What can I say, he drew first,l drew best. Thanks Marine Corp! Here's a rule, anyone, let's say a plumber, who takes cash for a job and doesn't report the income is sentenced to death. Can't have these freeloaders not paying their share.

[OldMaid 1,838]

I drove drunk literally thousands of times without getting caught. I'm talking driving in a state where I could barely walk. It's only sheer luck that I never got caught or hurt anybody. I destroyed a couple of cars driving drunk without getting in any kind of trouble.

 

It took a friend of mine getting permanently disabled by a drunk driver to stop me.

 

I understand that 5 Points is trying to be controversial. He knows his argument is ridiculous, that there are hardly any people who get charged with DUI who don't have a track record of driving when they shouldn't have.

 

If you are going to drink at all, don't drive. If you do, you deserve what you get, and hopefully you won't hurt anybody.

[5-Points 2,729]

I would assume that the average drunk driver does it A LOT before they either get caught or something bad happens. That's still no reason to advocate for higher BAC laws. People make poor choices when alcohol is involved-even after one drink. And what's at risk, to me, is greater than what the benefit of something like this would be. It's much safer all around to just get a designated driver, call a cab, get an Uber, take the bus, etc.

 

You have the potential to seriously hurt or even kill someone... Unfortunately, I think it has to hit close to home, before it really sinks in, for most people, what's at stake. I can't imagine why anybody would EVER want to take that risk. But sadly, most people do. I guess it's that whole "It could never happen to me" mentality.

I completely agree. I do not condone drinking and driving let alone drunk driving. I came up with a controversial idea in a "Make up a law" thread. I know the idea is pretty much indefensible. I was basing my argument on sorta what we do with big rig drivers and class A licenses. They have to pass a test to prove they can safely operate a vehicle of that size and weight and voila we turn them loose on the highway and trust that they won't fock up. I simply expanded on that idea for the sake of discussion. Thanks for the reasoned responses.

[5-Points 2,729]

 

I understand that 5 Points is trying to be controversial. He knows his argument is ridiculous, that there are hardly any people who get charged with DUI who don't have a track record of driving when they shouldn't have.

 

If you are going to drink at all, don't drive. If you do, you deserve what you get, and hopefully you won't hurt anybody.

Bingo!

[Sho Nuff 719]

Please show me where I have advocated drunk driving. You can't because I have not. It very well may be the dumbest idea ever posted anywhere. In which case it should be easy to present a compelling argument to the contrary. You brought nothing.

 

Guy A tests to where his BAC can be higher than the current legal limit.

Guy A decides, since he tests higher...he can have another drink at dinner (not already realizing he was probably already over the old legal limit with what he normally drinks...and now has passed his other threshold).

 

The problem with any idea involving alcohol...is people are inherently idiotic when it comes to drinking.

They think they can handle more than they actually can. They think they feel fine, when they really are not.

 

In TN, I think the number is like 2/3s of all DUIs...the person is twice the legal limit. (this from what I recall from a Highway Patrolman in my neighborhood).

 

Any idea that involves people possibly drinking more before getting behind the wheel of a car...or trying to figure out how much up the limit someone is going to try and push it before getting in their cars is focking moronic.

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

How many times do you think the average drunk driver drives drunk before they are caught? When they are caught, what do we do? We fine them. In this scenario they basically pay the fine up front and they still aren't allowed to drive drunk.

 

You can assume whatever you want I really don't care. I have no reason to lie.

I assume they drive many times before they are caught. And you're right, they usually just get fined. I think that is too lenient though, and favor they lose their license 1st offense, at least for a little while. That should be followed by permanent revocation and harsher fines +/- jail time to really deter recidivism. None of this "three strikes" nonsense.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Jesus what a kunt. My point was that having been through what she went through, she has every reason to disagree with me and I can completely understand why she would. Again, you seem to have trouble grasping the concept that I am not advocating drunk driving. I've said it many times now. Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

My reading comprehension is excellent. Even though I've never been hit by a drunk driver, I think your idea is inane.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Please show me where I have advocated drunk driving. You can't because I have not. It very well may be the dumbest idea ever posted anywhere. In which case it should be easy to present a compelling argument to the contrary. You brought nothing.

I've provided multiple reasons why your idea won't work, and even suggested I support the exact opposite of what you suggest by lowering the BAC limits for everyone. Can you give me a compelling argument why we shouldn't adopt a lower BAC limit, maybe even zero?

 

Why the he!! is it so hard to arrange alternative transportation if you want to drink???

[vuduchile 1,941]

I'm fine with changing the BAC limit to 0.

[5-Points 2,729]

I've provided multiple reasons why your idea won't work, and even suggested I support the exact opposite of what you suggest by lowering the BAC limits for everyone. Can you give me a compelling argument why we shouldn't adopt a lower BAC limit, maybe even zero?

 

Why the he!! is it so hard to arrange alternative transportation if you want to drink???

Actually, lowering the BAC to 0 would be better than what we currently have. I think saying "the legal limit is .08" sends the wrong message and gives people the impression that there is an acceptable level of "intoxication" when driving. People then mistakenly think they are below that acceptable level and that it's ok to get behind the wheel. Changing the BAC to 0.00 would send a clear message that 1 drink is enough to get you in trouble. Because unfortunately that is what motivates most people. They don't worry about the fact that they may hurt somebody, they worry that they may get pulled over (if they worry at all). If they didn't think they had any wiggle room in regards to the BAC, they might decide its not worth the risk.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Actually, lowering the BAC to 0 would be better than what we currently have. I think saying "the legal limit is .08" sends the wrong message and gives people the impression that there is an acceptable level of "intoxication" when driving. People then mistakenly think they are below that acceptable level and that it's ok to get behind the wheel. Changing the BAC to 0.00 would send a clear message that 1 drink is enough to get you in trouble. Because unfortunately that is what motivates most people. They don't worry about the fact that they may hurt somebody, they worry that they may get pulled over (if they worry at all). If they didn't think they had any wiggle room in regards to the BAC, they might decide its not worth the risk.

We finally agree!

 

I remember Strike making an argument that the legal BAC should be raised, noting that fatal accidents almost always occur well above the limit. I provided several examples of fatal accidents at very low BACs. Of course he just dismissed them like any alcoholic would, but I like the way you've argued the point above much more effectively.

 

Several counties have adopted the 0 BAC standard to operate a motor vehicle, but I'm sure some big business lobby will prevent that from ever happening in the US.

[5-Points 2,729]

We finally agree!

 

I remember Strike making an argument that the legal BAC should be raised, noting that fatal accidents almost always occur well above the limit. I provided several examples of fatal accidents at very low BACs. Of course he just dismissed them like any alcoholic would, but I like the way you've argued the point above much more effectively.

 

Several counties have adopted the 0 BAC standard to operate a motor vehicle, but I'm sure some big business lobby will prevent that from ever happening in the US.

It's always easier to argue in favor of the common sense approach.

 

I must've missed the thread where you and Strike discussed the topic. Maybe it was before my time. Anyway, for the record, I am not in favor of raising the legal BAC level. I'm opposed to people doing pretty much anything that puts others at risk unnecessarily. If you want to hurt yourself, have at it but don't endanger innocent people with your lack of self regard or regard for others.

 

[Cloaca du jour 2,064]

No breeding without each parent graduating high school with a 3.0 gpa....mebbe 2.5

[BiPolarBear 476]

I would also close the loophole on churches not being taxed. Its estimated that the U.S. loses between 180 and 250 BILLION a year fromm not taxing churches. enough to pay for the entire federal education budget or to put us at a 3% tax rate.

 

That's what I was going to say...without knowing all the data you know.

[mmmmm...beer 691]

As long as we're dreaming big... Cunnilinggus Tuesdays!

Whys that gotta be a dream? We already have that law on the books at Casa de Beer.

[shotsup 832]

Whys that gotta be a dream? We already have that law on the books at Casa de Beer.

Don't forget she has a ghey BF

 

He likes hot dogs over roast beef.

[kilroy69 994]

 

That's what I was going to say...without knowing all the data you know.

that is my biggest malfunction with the federal government. we are digging ourselves into debt with china for no reason. we could pay down significant portions of our debt if we just closed tax loopholes that allow for this type of abuse. Or we could use that money to bust out a new deal type of thing where our crumbling roads,bridges and damns are fixed without raising taxes on anyone.

[Vikings4ever 496]

that is my biggest malfunction with the federal government. we are digging ourselves into debt with china for no reason. we could pay down significant portions of our debt if we just closed tax loopholes that allow for this type of abuse. Or we could use that money to bust out a new deal type of thing where our crumbling roads,bridges and damns are fixed without raising taxes on anyone.

I'd be OK taxing churches as long as all other non-profits were also taxed the same way. Planned Parenthood, NAACP, unions, etc.

 

We'd also "raise" another 100 billion a year if we disallowed tax deductions and credits after 0 in income tax were paid.

[kilroy69 994]

I'd be OK taxing churches as long as all other non-profits were also taxed the same way. Planned Parenthood, NAACP, unions, etc.

 

We'd also "raise" another 100 billion a year if we disallowed tax deductions and credits after 0 in income tax were paid.

I am very very fine with that.