I do not condone drinking and driving but I would like to ask a larger question. Why is it that so many people are ready to simply accept what the government has decided as the final answer to whatever the question may be? My point is this, the laws change from time to time......which one was right? The drinking age used to be 18....now it's 21. So if you had a beer before at 19 it was ok....now at 19 I'm supposed to convince myself that it's a criminal activity? I don't think so. The government is DEEPLY FLAWED and I am not bound by it's decisions when it's conflicts with my own personal beliefs. Here are some of my favorites from our warped legal system: 18 years old is too young to handle beer but can be trained to fight and die in the desert.....:huh: Same-sex marriage is on it's way to being legal in all 50 states....:insane: Young mother goes to an abortion clinic to dispose of her child..ok, say the wisemen in black robes......:rolleye33: Anyone who is going to base there judgement of other's behavior stictly by what our legal system says is being intellectually naive, lazy or dishonest. My .02 opcorn:
big dif between dui and driving while distracted. certainly both can kill, but distraction usually lasts 5 seconds, drunk lasts for the entire drive. but im ok with their being stiff penalties for both. this is serious stuff.
I think you're wrong. The reason rates are so high here is because there are so many uninsured drivers. It has nothing to do with drunk driving.
One thing I haven't seen anyone comment on in this thread is the fact that CD was arrested, not convicted, of DWI. At this point he's innocent. What I find grossly unfair is that all of the Regular Joes who got popped for DWI the same day (or the day before or after) CD also had their arrests reported but likely won't have the end result -- plea bargain, conviction or acquittal -- reported. CD likely will have his end result reported because of who he is. And does anyone else find it sort of ironic that we've currently got both this thread and another discussing what beer, or other adult beverage, most of us will be enjoying to kick off the college football season on the forum's front page? :geauxtige:geauxtige:geauxtige
"Implied consent" - driving on public roads is a priviliege, not a right. Is getting out of a DWI worth $3,000? For some it isn't, and that advice can really screw people. If the cop does everything right you WILL get convicted, whether you blow or not. Your attorney friend can only hope for the cops to make mistakes, but he won't tell you that (unfortunately some cops make mistakes in DWI arrests and a decent attorney can point them out). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
Good point. But I note that at least some of the folks over in the other thread have indicated that they either will be watching the game out somewhere or will be throwing parties, which, to my mind, brings the possibility of DWIs into play. And, yeah, the nearly constant march downward in BAC to trigger the presumption of intoxication worries me too. I don't think we'll get to .02, but .06? .05? Maybe. I also don't think the 21 year old drinking age is the answer. Neither do a number of college presidents. Amethyst Initiative ยป Signatories :geauxtige:geauxtige:geauxtige
All of the above are wrong if it affects the way you handle your vehicle. I'm not in favor of just pulling a person over just because a cop see's you on a cell phone but if you are slowing or using lanes improperly then you get the ticket. As it is an officer has to witness another violation before he can pull you over for suspected DUI. No other violation should be any different.
I want to actually know how much gets me over the limit. For example, I know one drink won't do it but I know a twelve pack will. Where is my limit. I may buy a breathalyzer and start breathing myself when I get drunk just to know. For the record, I don't drink and drive now that I have a daughter. Not that I made a common habit of driving around hammered before that, but I just take extra special caution now.
