Arizona hate people who like to have a drink

Skibo · Post by **Skibo** » September 19, 2007 2:56 pm

I would rather that my tax dollars pay for one bullet to put between the eyes of the first time offenders. It would be a lot cheaper and it is highly unlikely that they would be second time offenders.

12vmanRick · Post by **12vmanRick** » September 19, 2007 4:03 pm

redwinemaker wrote:Being in a major in alcoholic beverage production back in the college days, we had a course on the physiology of alcohol. According to the info at the time, "Impared" for the average person is .12 to .14 % blood alcohol level. At the time, most states were calling .10 legally impared to cover for the minority of people who exhibit impaired behavior at a slighly lower level.

.08 as a legal level of impairment was a concession to get MADD and neo-prohibitionist votes. As with so many laws, there is no basis in science for it. What it has done is lined the coffers of municipalities with fine money, increased insurance company revenues and as stated before, beefed up the wallets of attorneys.

The increase in DUI arrests has been called a "victory" by countless law enforcement agencies and anti-alcohol groups. I call it a Machiavellian manipulation of the law to increase statistics. It has also created the problem of mixing those who have "had a few" with those who have "had a few too many", making it harder to get the real problem drunks off the road permanently.

great view of it!

mjeischen · Post by **mjeischen** » September 19, 2007 4:34 pm

All this is making me need a drink . . . who's driving?

redwinemaker · Post by **redwinemaker** » September 19, 2007 4:36 pm

mjeischen wrote:All this is making me need a drink . . . who's driving?

I will! The truth is, after saying the above, I can honestly say that I never drive drunk. Too many close calls as a stupid youngster taught me that

Bubbaphan · Post by **Bubbaphan** » September 19, 2007 4:42 pm

12vmanRick wrote:
redwinemaker wrote:Being in a major in alcoholic beverage production back in the college days, we had a course on the physiology of alcohol. According to the info at the time, "Impared" for the average person is .12 to .14 % blood alcohol level. At the time, most states were calling .10 legally impared to cover for the minority of people who exhibit impaired behavior at a slighly lower level.

.08 as a legal level of impairment was a concession to get MADD and neo-prohibitionist votes. As with so many laws, there is no basis in science for it. What it has done is lined the coffers of municipalities with fine money, increased insurance company revenues and as stated before, beefed up the wallets of attorneys.

The increase in DUI arrests has been called a "victory" by countless law enforcement agencies and anti-alcohol groups. I call it a Machiavellian manipulation of the law to increase statistics. It has also created the problem of mixing those who have "had a few" with those who have "had a few too many", making it harder to get the real problem drunks off the road permanently.
great view of it!

I'll drink to that.

12vmanRick · Post by **12vmanRick** » September 19, 2007 5:27 pm

mjeischen wrote:All this is making me need a drink . . . who's driving?

not me, I'm drankin'

Post by **SMLCHNG** » September 19, 2007 9:45 pm

Skibo wrote:I would rather that my tax dollars pay for one bullet to put between the eyes of the first time offenders. It would be a lot cheaper and it is highly unlikely that they would be second time offenders.

That's a bit harsh. Drinking and driving is just plain stupid. I'd venture to guess that almost all of us have done it when we shouldn't have. But I certainly wouldn't want my tax dollars spent as you want if it was a family member or close friend who made the stupid mistake...

Post by **SMLCHNG** » September 19, 2007 9:46 pm

12vmanRick wrote:
mjeischen wrote:All this is making me need a drink . . . who's driving?
not me, I'm drankin'

<------- Me too.

redwinemaker · Post by **redwinemaker** » September 20, 2007 3:14 pm

Sounds like we may have a few members of DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers

12vmanRick · Post by **12vmanRick** » September 20, 2007 3:26 pm

redwinemaker wrote:Sounds like we may have a few members of DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers

love those people

and I am always the DD = designated drunk

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » September 20, 2007 3:29 pm

SMLCHNG wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
mjeischen wrote:All this is making me need a drink . . . who's driving?
not me, I'm drankin'

<------- Me too.

I'll drive!!!

12vmanRick · Post by **12vmanRick** » September 20, 2007 3:46 pm

ph4ever wrote:
SMLCHNG wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
mjeischen wrote:All this is making me need a drink . . . who's driving?
not me, I'm drankin'

<------- Me too.
I'll drive!!!

no puff puff pass for you either

Migration Michelle · September 20, 2007 3:55 pm

Good for Arizona.

Could someone please change the title of this thread so that the grammar is proper?!

Thanks!! It's driving me crazy!!!

12vmanRick · Post by **12vmanRick** » September 20, 2007 3:57 pm

Migration Michelle wrote:Good for Arizona.

Could someone please change the title of this thread so that the grammar is proper?!

Thanks!! It's driving me crazy!!!

maybe the person posting it was drunk

Big Jimmy · Post by **Big Jimmy** » September 20, 2007 9:59 pm

Migration Michelle wrote:Good for Arizona.

Could someone please change the title of this thread so that the grammar is proper?!

Thanks!! It's driving me crazy!!!

I could, but I like the way it sounds.

Migration Michelle · September 21, 2007 12:22 am

Big Jimmy wrote:
Migration Michelle wrote:Good for Arizona.

Could someone please change the title of this thread so that the grammar is proper?!

Thanks!! It's driving me crazy!!!

I could, but I like the way it sounds.

Doesn't surprise me.

chrisintampa · Post by **chrisintampa** » September 21, 2007 2:12 am

So stopping fatalities caused by drunk drivers good idea

adopting laws based on ideas from neo-prohibitionists (madd) a bad idea

the courts are unable to deal with the current caseload if this is the law then every case will go to full trial and still yield the same result as the plea deal of the current laws.

offer better public transportation promote it ! make cab fares reasonable i do not defend anyone who drives drunk but i also do not want anyones life ruined by a stupid mistake. we have had presidents who have had duis (multiple)

bravedave · Post by **bravedave** » September 21, 2007 11:57 pm

Here's a guy who likes to drink and drive... alot!

Man Arrested Twice In 1 Night On DUI Charges

Police said McDonald was released to a sober driver at 2:10 a.m., and was found behind the wheel of a speeding car 15 minutes later.
McDonald was charged with a second DUI and driving within 12 hours of a DUI arrest.

In his defense, his BAC was measured at .08 -- a debatable level of intoxication, but 85 in a 55 with even a suspicion of DUI is enough for me to hand the keys to someone else.

Reminds me of a drunk I saw in OC, Maryland, one time. He tried, unsuccessfully, to ride a bike home after a bender. Crashed his bicycle four times in two blocks. He finally left it at the curb and started walking. (It was probably safer that way.)
Know when to say when.