See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102 ... i_legislation_ignition_locks_4
Published: Jan 2, 2009
Author: MICHAEL TARM
Post Date: 2009-01-02 14:59:31 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 1784
Comments: 150
CHICAGO – Motorists convicted of driving drunk will have to install breath-monitoring gadgets in their cars under new laws taking effect in six states this week. The ignition interlocks prevent engines from starting until drivers blow into the alcohol detectors to prove they're sober. Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington state began Jan. 1 requiring the devices for all motorists convicted of first-time drunken driving. South Carolina began requiring them for repeat offenders. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been conducting a nationwide campaign to mandate ignition locks for anyone convicted of drunken driving, claiming doing so would save thousands of lives. But critics say interlocks could lead to measures that restrict alcohol policies too much. Users must pay for the fist-sized devices, which in Illinois cost around $80 to install on dashboards and $80 a month to rent; there's also a $30 monthly state fee. And they require periodic retesting while the car is running. "It's amazingly inconvenient," said David Malham, of the Illinois chapter of MADD. "But the flip side of the inconvenience is death." Other states with similar laws include New Mexico, Arizona and Louisiana. Most other states give judges the option of forcing convicted drunk drivers to use the devices. In practice though, they are rarely ordered unless laws mandate them, according to MADD. Until now, that's been true in Illinois, said MADD national CEO Chuck Hurley. "Illinois has excellent law enforcement," he said. "But the judicial system leaks like a sieve. This law will change the catch and release system to one where people are at least caught and tagged." In Illinois, the interlocks are mandated only for the five to 11 months licenses are suspended with a first DUI. Drivers can opt not to install them, but then would be banned from driving during the suspension period. Motorists in Colorado get a similar choice — install the devices or get a longer suspension. The law taking effect in Washington state actually relaxes penalties on drunk drivers, allowing them to avoid a previously mandatory license suspension by getting an interlock. The bill's author, Rep. Roger Goodman, said too many motorists were driving with suspended licenses. Motorists could try to skirt the devices by, say, having someone else blow into the detector or driving someone else's car. But if caught trying to circumvent the interlocks, they could go to jail. Within a year, up to 30,000 first-time offenders in Illinois could be using them, state officials estimate. New Mexico was the first state to mandate the devices in 2005. Since then, according to MADD, that state has seen its drunk-driving deaths fall 20 percent. Hurley said other states could see the same percentage decline within a few years. DUI deaths nationally have plummeted to around 15,000 from around 30,000 annually in the early 1980s. Malham, who supports the technology, said in the future even more advanced technology will enable cars to effectively sniff car cabins, scan faces and eyes of drivers or even test sweat on steering wheels to assess sobriety before engines start. Not everyone is as enthusiastic. One of the staunchest critics of interlock laws for first-time offenders is the Washington-based American Beverage Institute, a trade association representing restaurants and retailers. ABI managing director Sarah Longwell said the group backs interlock laws targeting repeat offenders and those arrested with high blood-alcohol levels. But she said laws advocated by MADD don't allow judges to distinguish between those who have a few drinks and go just over the 0.08 blood-alcohol legal limit and those who go way over. "We want sensible alcohol policies," she said. "We want 10 people to be able to come in and have one drink and not one person to come in and have 10." She said current interlock laws could lead to more draconian measures. "We foresee is a country in which you're no longer able to have a glass of wine, drink a beer at a ball game or enjoy a champagne toast at a wedding," she said. "There will be a de facto zero tolerance policy imposed on people by their cars." She argued that MADD puts too much emphasis on links between alcohol and traffic deaths, giving too little regard to the roles excessive speed and driver cell-phone use in deadly accidents. Proponents of interlock laws say studies back their approach. They cite a 2008 study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation that found interlock devices in New Mexico helped decrease repeat offenses by approximately two-thirds. MADD also points to figures showing one-third of all drunk drivers have a prior DUI conviction. The American Beverage Institute questions studies cited by advocates, saying they other factors, like education programs, also account for the declines. Malham concedes Illinois' new law isn't perfect. For one, it only applies to drivers during relatively short license-suspension periods. "But perfection can't be the enemy of the good, to quote (18th century philosopher) Voltaire," he said. "I'd like to see more teeth in the law in the future. But this is a start."
Poster Comment: With all the car rentals, they'll also have to note the conviction on a persons drivers license. This will mean whenever a person uses their lic. for ID (as in a new job, etc) the conviction will appear.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-110) not displayed.
.
.
.
#111. To: Jethro Tull, christine, Critter (#105)
Adroitly sidestepping a side debate of some complexity - regardless as to whether alcoholism is a disease or not we, as a group, have decided that some impairments are incompatible with some activities. For example we don't issue Driver's Licenses to blind people. So, regardless of the genesis of the alcoholism we know, both from personal experience and laboratory testing, that alcohol impairs reaction time, field of vision, and judgement. So, I do not think it unreasonable to prohibit drinking and driving. We have to have some standard by which to judge that line of demarcation - between impaired and unimpaired. At this point many states, regardless of the validity, have set the standard at .08% Blood Alcohol. Therefore, regardless of what one might think personally, that is the legal standard. Thus anyone exceeding that standard is, by legal definition, too impaired to be behind the wheel of a car. Since driving impaired is irresponsible and puts others at risk against their will then action is justified in sanctioning that behavior. We know from experience that for a standard to be enforceable, where willful people are concerned, then the sanction must be draconian enough to get their attention and make the penalty for the irresponsible action more than they're willing to risk.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
In Sweden it is permanent - no exceptions, and resulted in dramatic decline in Auto Accident Fatalities. Why stop at driving? I've said this countless times, but a large majority of the people I arrested were drinking. It's a wicked drug, so why not another round of prohibition? I guarantee if alcohol weren't available crime would drop dramatically. Who's arguing for prohibition. I certainly am not. And we both know how well "Prohibition" worked in the Twenties and with the current "War on Some drugs". I oppose prohibition as strenuously as I object to driving while intoxicated. I don't drink much anymore but you'll get my Scotch and Cognac (and Red Wine) when you get through the front door - which might be a tough proposition - assuming I'm not too impaired to shoot straight. And I doubt crime would drop from prohibition - we have empirical evidence suggesting the exact opposite.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
I have no problem with arresting DUIs - I do have a problem with draconian punishment. First time offenders - no injuries - should be fined and allowed a 'bread and butter license' (to and from work). If you remove a person's license, and their income/job for the most part, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Kinda like the war on terror? Kill em all over there before they kill us over here? Again you offer a simile that is not similar. The "WaronTerra" is founded on lies. Yes or No? Does alcohol impair a person's ability to see clearly, think clearly, and react quickly. Yes? Or No? You keep avoiding the issue of individual responsibility and the rights of others to go about their affairs unendangered by the irresponsible action of SOME. Is it more reasonable to allow the irresponsible to kill others by their irresponsibility than to take what action we can to reduce "the bag limit" of drunks behind the wheel? Are people responsible for their actions or not? Yes or No? Are we, as a society, within OUR rights to defend against the actions of an irresposible, and deadly, few? Yes or No?
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
I brought this up because you seem treat a .081 driver - no injuries - more harshly than a .081 bar stool sitter who punches (assault) the guy next to him.
I could live with that. It is a reasonable compromise position. But ONLY to and from work.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
The impaired individual, regardless of whether anyone is harmed, has taken an action which held the potential to cause harm. It is thus an irresponsible action which could have resulted in grave harm. Therefore they have violated the mutual covenant or respect for the rights of others and thus have behaved in a criminally irresponsible way. The person on the Bar Stool is guilty of assault and thus has earned what the law dictates. They have as well violated the rights of another.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
I understand, my point is the inequity of the punishment. In the case of the driver, no harm occurred, yet they get hammered with arrest, loss of DL, an increase in insurance premium, etc. The bar stool drunk faces nothing near as severe *and* h/she actually caused an injury.
I understand, my point is the inequity of the punishment. In the case of the driver, no harm occurred, yet they get hammered with arrest, loss of DL, an increase in insurance premium, etc. The bar stool drunk faces nothing near as severe *and* h/she actually caused an injury. It comes down to the potential for harm and personal responsibility. The person who drives impaired holds the potential to easily kill or maim if something goes awry. The potential exists for much greater harm than one drunk launching a "haymaker" at another drunk. As well if the drunk on the stool was swinging on my Uncle Rocky he might find himself in the Emergency Ward after colliding with a right hook (he had to sleep off half of his 70th Birthday in the Drunk Tank for beating the crap out of a guy half his age who thought he could push around a rowdy old Irishman from Hell's Kitchen). Insurance companies are in the business of insuring risk. People who behave irresponsibly are a higher risk and thus have to pay more because of that greater risk - as demonstrated by their own behavior. The same goes for people who have speeding violations or any other moving violation. It is equitable and based upon a judgement informed by risk tables. A person who gets behind the wheel of a car while under the influence has forfeited their trust again by their own actions. Yes, the penalties can be heavy, but there is a simple solution - don't get behind the wheel of a car under the influence.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
This is where things get hazy (pardon the pun). When society uses the "potential for harm" as a criterion for punishment, we're entering the eerie realm pre-crimes. Charges should be leveled for what was done, not for what might have been done. Just for the fun of it, how should we deal with drivers and the aging process? I'd guess a man/woman of 80 years has half the reaction time of a 30 year old. I'd also guess that the decrease in reaction time might be the equivalent of having a few beers. At what age do we begin yanking the geezers off the roads related to age?
This is where things get hazy (pardon the pun). When society uses the "potential for harm" as a criterion for punishment, we're entering the eerie realm pre-crimes. Charges should be leveled for what was done, not for what might have been done. It is not JUST the potential for harm though. It is an ACTION which the individual voluntarily and of their own volition TOOK which was irresponsible and the potential for harm becomes serious harm when that drunk driver plows into a pedestrian, a car, or into the side of a bus at 70 miles an hour (in a 45 MPH Zone against a Red Light) as happened near where I live. What is being punished, or sanctioned, is the irresponsible action which experience has taught us CAN kill. I think Oregon came up with a sound answer - after a certain age (70 or so) a person must periodically re-test. If they are no longer physically able to drive safely their license IS NOT renewed. Florida has been wrestling with this one because of the high number of fatalities from older drivers picking off pedestrians. However, there are variables based on how well a person ages. At 85 my Great Aunt Grace was still safer than most other drivers on the road - and she DID NOT do 33 in a 70 MPH Zone. However, my Grandfather, again at 85, had become unsafe and his kids took away his Car Keys (pissed him off too, but he was forced to agree when he had calmed down). Again it is a matter of responsibility. If a person is no longer able to drive safely, and will not voluntarily put down the keys, then for the safety of all I would think it justified to take them away.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Back to the
inequities of punishment, re; alcohol and driving. Lets remove the two
beers consumed by Suzie Q from the above, rather dramatic, "potential for
harm." IOW, she drove her car in the exact same way, causing the exact
same "potential" for harm. Her sanction if caught? A few summonses. Now, add a
bud light to the equation and MADD stains their pants. I remind you there are
no injuries in my Bud light example. The more I think of the "potential for
harm" issue, the more I realize very few poor choices are excluded from this
pool. Most every crime has an enormous, unsanctioned, potential for harm.
About the Oregon solution to aging and DLs, do you have any stats as to how
many drivers have failed the reaction test? I'll take a wild stab and say few
if any, this despite their unquestionable slowed reaction time. Sans multiple
accidents and summons, the elderly will be issued DLs, based on fear of age
discrimination. Potential for harm be damned, but at least they're off the
hooch :P
I'm not avoiding anything. I am saying it is impossible to fight, and the more we get behind the government trying to fight it, the more freedom we are going to have to give up in the name of safety. FUCK THAT! You want a nanny state so you can feel safe? Change your screen name.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. Who said anything about a "nanny state"? We are talking about people who are violating the right to life, liberty, and property of others by not behaving responsibly. What is there about that which does not compute? Do you feel that it is an unfair infringement upon someone's liberty to not let them get behind the wheel of a thousand pound missle when they are under the influence of alcohol (or other intoxicants)? In what way is it oppressive to use force to restrain someone who is being criminally negligent and irresponsible? Do you believe that we, as a group, have the right to enact laws to restrain those who have no respect for the rights of others or do you find such to be oppressive nanny-statism? What about drunk driving do you find commendable?
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
There is no fool proof measure of one's level of impairment that can be administered by the police. The ORIGINAL INTENT is that it is better to have guilty men run free than innocent men punished. Change your name. It is false advertising.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. Maybe I do owe you an explanation for my total intolerance for the anti DUI police state which you seem to favor. Around here, driving after 11pm is DUI, or it is at least assumed to be, by the nazis, I mean police. They have this neat little trick where they ride on your ass with high beams on, especially on curvy sections of road, and hope that your tire touches the yellow line while you are blinded. Then they get to pull you over to check you out. It has happened to me about half a dozen times in two years. They are greeted with complete and total contempt by me. They ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" I say, "I have no FUCKING idea!". They say my tire touched the yellow line, I say, that it is because I had some asshole riding on my bumper with his high beams on. They invariably say, "I didn't have my high beams on." Funny how they never claim to not be assholes. They ask where I am going, none of your business, where have you been, none of your business, may I leave now? They give me my "papers" back and say drive safe, I say after you, I don't like assholes on my bumper. Or when I go through a DUI roadblock and they ask like questions and I return like answers, and they have the gall to say to me that they have a right to make sure I am safe to drive. Fuck them. They have a right to kiss my ass too. Keep trying to win this war and you will be getting the same treatment where ever you are, and worse, cuz like all government wars on anything, eventually innocent people start getting killed by the "authorities". So forgive me if I say go fuck yourself if you support another war du jour on American citizens.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. Here in Indiana it's against the law to sell alcohol on Sunday except in bars and restaraunts - no carry out. Unless I stock up, which I rarely do as alcohol is not a necessity, in order to get a drink on Sunday I have to get in my car, drive to a bar, consume any booze I may want, and then drive home. Does this law make any sense, except to lounge owners?
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Until a decade ago there were many states that set the legal limit at 0.10%, until FedGov blackmailed them into lowering limit to 0.08. Original Intent, are you telling me you support this sort of centralized, bullying activity?
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
AMA states that a blood alcohol level of 0.1 percent should be accepted as prima- facie evidence of alcohol intoxication I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. In the past, the prosecutor's case in a Los Angeles DUI prosecution rested solely on the testimony of the arresting officer. The evidence against the defendant consisted entirely of the officer's observations of the defendant and of his opinion as to sobriety. But the pitfalls were many. The Los Angeles police officer's word could be challenged, and there was nothing to corroborate his observations. The validity of his opinion could be questioned and his opinion often had little special education or training behind it. Perhaps most important, the Los Angeles prosecutor had to fit the DUI defendant within a vague, ill-defined category entitled "under the influence." At no time could the prosecutor offer any evidence but outward symptoms and opinions, and at no time could he even spell out the DUI offense beyond such amorphous phrases as "substantial impairment." Two factors led to a drastic change in this situation. The first was the advent of advanced scientific techniques within criminalistics laboratories. Increasingly, law enforcement was turning to scientific methods of detection in proving criminal conduct. Then, in 1938, the American Medical Association set up a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents"; at almost the same time, the National Safety Council established a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication." Studies by these committees resulted in a recommendation that legal standards be set for determining the intoxication of a driver by chemical testing. Although there was some disagreement among the prominent medical members of the committees, the consensus recognized that any individual who had .15 percent alcohol in his blood could be presumed to be under the influence of alcohol; anyone having less than .05 percent of alcohol could be presumed to be not under the influence; and those individuals falling in the .05 - .15 percent midrange might or might not be under the influence - that is, the test would not be conclusive. The .15 level was lowered in 1960 by the recommendations of both committees to .10 percent (this vacillation of medical experts, incidentally, should give added ammunition to defense counsel for cross-examination). Since then, many states have lowered it even further - to .08 percent. Armed with these findings and recommendations, prosecuting agencies throughout the country were able to obtain legislation requiring any driver to submit to chemical testing when requested by an officer. If the driver refused, these implied consent statutes automatically imposed sanctions, usually in the form of license suspension, regardless of the driver's guilt. When a blood-alcohol reading was obtained from the test, still other statutes determined what presumption, if any, was to be drawn legally from the reading, and the jury was to be instructed accordingly. I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. What I most object to is the "zero tolerance" mindset behind all these new laws. Laws should exist solely for the benefit of the legalised, but once some dickhead figures out how to game the system the rest of us become life's losers. Figuratively.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Does this law make any sense, except to lounge owners? Of course not. My home of VA had the strictest blue laws of all when I was a kid. Every store including 7-11s had a canvas blanket that they pulled down over toothpaste and all of those drug store items on Sunday, as well as forbidding the purchase of beer and wine. (hard liquor is purchased at state stores from a govt employee who wears a badge and who assesses the character of each sinner who buys "The Devil's Elixer") When VA experimented with liquor by the drink back in the 70's prior to legalization (when only beer and wine were available in bars and restaurants) all patrons had to be seated and the wait staff had to move the drink if customers chose to switch tables. No, you couldn't stand up and you couldn't sit on the floor. The Babtists thought that GAWD would be glorified if those who drank hard likka were seated half way in between.... Presumably the heart filled up with lust much more quickly if wimmen could stand and move graciously around intoxicated men....and every night would be the Devil's holiday in The Bible Belt. Of course the cab drivers I knew had a lucrative Sunday business selling otherwise legal whiskey by the half or whole pint. They had a car that they moved to a diff location every week and all of the cabbies had a trunk key. If a sailor asked for a bottle the cabbie would drive within a couple of blocks of the "rolling warehouse" and while the customers waited he'd hoof around the corner and pop the trunk to get the liquor which was always the cheapest rotgut, which they then resold at 100% markup. The Norfolk Police Vice and Taxi Squads never busted that operation the whole time it existed! And even a snitch sailor could not ID the vehicle because the cabbie never let the customers see it. (also to keep the squids and marines from breaking in and stealing the goods) Most folks think of bootlegging as the sale of unbonded whiskey and that is true except in Sunday blue law states which created a demand for bonded liquor and beer...on The Lord's day. Prohibitionists never learn, do they?
I remeber hearing co-workers in Pennsylvania describe similar setup.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Makes me sad I loaned out my DVD of Thunder Road to my supervisor at work.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Send me a reminder to vote once you decide to run for king again, gov.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
I remeber hearing co-workers in Pennsylvania describe similar setup. YUP! That's the OTHER COMMONWEALTH with badge wearing state store employees. (There are four commonwealths, MA and KY being the other two. Neither of these have govt controlled state stores for liquor sales.)
Robert Mitchum!
I'll never forget the time I drove to Cincinnati to attend a "rock concert". I must have been accosted my like 400 miscreants offering me 5ickets to the event I'd just driven 2 hours to attend. Apparently scalping is illegal and therefor lucrative in Ohio?
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
I'll get it back. This is same person I loaned original manuscript for Naked Lunch to in 1952.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Actually, scalping is regulated at the municipal level in OH, and the strictest law is Cleveland I believe. ($250 fine and 30 days in the clink) The tragic deaths of 11 concert goers at the WHO concert in CINN in 1979 leads me to believe that the venue and others in OH attract a lot of patrons from surrounding rural areas and states, and that "big city excitement" as well as a lack of TICKETMASTERS outlets (combined with the foolish and dangerous practice of festival seating and resulting in disaster that night) may create a vigorous market for scalped tickets.
I suggest we start with a list of major roads, cattle trails, and heliports, work backward from there...
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Funny! I used to drive up to Lansdale, PA (in the Poconos) every Monday to restock my truck with parts, and near the shop I drove on a long, two lane road called Cowpath! It was called that because, well, I guess you can figure that out.....
With open-carry, I believe that it could work quite nicely.
these laws supposdly compelling people to affix and breathe into some machine AFTER they have been sentenced and convicted and served their time is complete BS. i cant even believe anyone on this site would fall for that BS for one minute. i suppose nothing should surprise me anymore.?
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. There is a strong argument against drunk driving.
of course, as i said before, getting hit by 3 drunk drivers in my life i know! i dont even drink (not that im against it, just dont care for it) and i dont care for drunks. but these prohibitionist control freak kooks, what gives govt any authority to install and compel murikans to put breathing devices affixed to their autos? man thats right out of the twilight zone!
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. One of the ones with brass balls. THANK YOU FOR SAYING WHAT ALL HERE SHOULD KNOW!!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Countries Without a Draft circa 2001 (You'll need this soon if you have kids) RUN SILENT, RUN DEEP Yeah, that is a little too much. Maybe they could just install them on the drunks?
Funny how they never claim to not be assholes. They ask where I am going, none of your business, where have you been, none of your business, may I leave now? They give me my "papers" back and say drive safe, I say after you, I don't like assholes on my bumper. Or when I go through a DUI roadblock and they ask like questions and I return like answers, and they have the gall to say to me that they have a right to make sure I am safe to drive. Fuck them. They have a right to kiss my ass too. ha ha. man i like O_I but aside from the personalities that post of yours is a great post and deserves a ping. LOL!! the next time you do that to the pigs can you please videotape it and post it to you tube?? ;-D
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. Why not just buy 30 feet of 3/8" or 1/2" plastic tubing, whichever would fit, blow in it when you sober and, when you need to, fit one end of the 30 foot coil over the the part you blow in and blow on the other end of the tubing. There would be enough air (40 cubic inches) in the tubing to pass the breath-monitoring gadget. It would simple, would not cost much, and no cop would question that you might need some plastic tubing for your ice maker. Also, if you need to blow a short time later just suck on one end to remove your air and fill it with ordinary air.
That alcoholism is a disease isn't my premise; much smarter people than myself have have arrived at that conclusion. What can't be argued by anyone is the genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Using that fact as a start, the evidence, for me at least, points to a disease process.
#112. To: Jethro Tull (#108)
Statistically 50% of ALL Auto Accidents are Alcohol related.
#113. To: Original_Intent (#111)
#114. To: Critter, christine, Jethro Tull (#110)
(Edited)
Or is it more responsible, as a group and individual, to put in those safeguards we can to prevent the needless death in the first place?
#115. To: Original_Intent (#112)
And I doubt crime would drop from prohibition
#116. To: Jethro Tull (#113)
I have no problem with arresting DUIs - I do have a problem with draconian punishment. First time offenders - no injuries - should be fined and allowed a 'bread and butter license' (to and from work). If you remove a person's license, and their income/job for the most part, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
#117. To: Jethro Tull (#115)
I brought this up because you seem treat a .081 driver - no injuries - more harshly than a .081 bar stool sitter who punches (assault) the guy next to him.
#118. To: Original_Intent (#117)
The person on the Bar Stool is guilty of assault and thus has earned what the law dictates.
#119. To: Jethro Tull (#118)
(Edited)
The person on the Bar Stool is guilty of assault and thus has earned what the law dictates.
#120. To: Original_Intent (#119)
It comes down to the potential for harm and personal responsibility.
#121. To: Jethro Tull (#120)
It comes down to the potential for harm and personal responsibility.
Just for the fun of it, how should we deal with drivers and the aging process? I'd guess a man/woman of 80 years has half the reaction time of a 30 year old. I'd also guess that the decrease in reaction time might be the equivalent of having a few beers. At what age do we begin yanking the geezers off the roads related to age?
#122. To: Original_Intent (#121)
It is not JUST the potential for harm though. It is an ACTION
which the individual voluntarily and of their own volition TOOK which was
irresponsible and the potential for harm becomes serious harm when that drunk
driver plows into a pedestrian, a car, or into the side of a bus at 70 miles
an hour (in a 45 MPH Zone against a Red Light) as happened near where I live.
What is being punished, or sanctioned, is the irresponsible action which
experience has taught us CAN kill.
#123. To: Original_Intent (#114)
Used Tires Albany, NY
#124. To: Critter (#123)
You want a nanny state so you can feel safe?
#125. To: Original_Intent (#124)
Used Tires Albany, NY
#126. To: Original_Intent (#124)
Used Tires Albany, NY
#127. To: HOUNDDAWG (#90)
many folks who drink to excess and drive recklessly do so because the govt and the anti marijuana lobby, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG FREE AMERICA (the alcohol and tobacco industries) insist that we can only self medicate with highly dangerous alcohol spirits.
#128. To: Critter, Original_Intent (#125)
There is no fool proof measure of one's level of impairment that can be administered by the police.
#129. To: Dakmar (#128)
1960
Used Tires Albany, NY
#130. To: Dakmar (#128)
Blood and Breath Alcohol Evidence in Los Angeles DUI Investigations
Used Tires Albany, NY
#131. To: Critter, Original_Intent (#130)
#132. To: Dakmar (#127)
(Edited)
Here in Indiana it's against the law to sell alcohol on Sunday except in bars and restaraunts - no carry out. Unless I stock up, which I rarely do as alcohol is not a necessity, in order to get a drink on Sunday I have to get in my car, drive to a bar, consume any booze I may want, and then drive home.
#133. To: HOUNDDAWG (#132)
(Edited)
hard liquor is purchased at state stores from a govt employee who wears a badge and who assesses the character of each sinner who buys "The Devil's Elixer")
#134. To: HOUNDDAWG (#132)
Most folks think of bootlegging as the sale of unbonded whiskey and that is true except in Sunday blue law states which created a demand for bonded liquor and beer...on The Lord's day.
#135. To: Jethro Tull (#122)
Now, add a bud light to the equation and MADD stains their pants.
#136. To: Dakmar (#133)
hard liquor is purchased at state stores from a govt employee who wears a badge and who assesses the character of each sinner who buys "The Devil's Elixer")
#137. To: Dakmar (#134)
Makes me sad I loaned out my DVD of Thunder Road to my supervisor at work.
#138. To: HOUNDDAWG (#136)
#139. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)
Makes me sad I loaned out my DVD of Thunder Road to my supervisor at work.
#140. To: Dakmar (#138)
#141. To: HOUNDDAWG (#140)
OH attract a lot of patrons from surrounding rural areas and states,
#142. To: Dakmar (#141)
I suggest we start with a list of major roads, cattle trails, and heliports, work backward from there...
#143. To: christine. the thread (#103)
i've always said i'd prefer anarchy over what we have now, but could it really work?
#144. To: PSUSA (#93)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#145. To: Artisan (#144)
"It is like a trance. So what can break a trance? The only thing that can break the trance is the light of truth."
~ Canadian Philosopher John McMurtry as he comments on the psychological warfare that has afflicted us all
#146. To: wudidiz (#145)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#147. To: Critter, JETHRO TULL, all (#125)
The ORIGINAL INTENT is that it is better to have guilty men run free than innocent men punished.
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
#148. To: Artisan (#146)
....what gives govt any authority to install and compel murikans to put breathing devices affixed to their autos? man thats right out of the twilight zone!
"It is like a trance. So what can break a trance? The only thing that can break the trance is the light of truth."
~ Canadian Philosopher John McMurtry as he comments on the psychological warfare that has afflicted us all
#149. To: Critter (#126)
It has happened to me about half a dozen times in two years. They are greeted with complete and total contempt by me. They ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" I say, "I have no FUCKING idea!". They say my tire touched the yellow line, I say, that it is because I had some asshole riding on my bumper with his high beams on. They invariably say, "I didn't have my high beams on."
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#150. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest