So I'm going to Prison for 2 years

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and for those of you saying 0.8 is a stupid arbitrary line - 0.8 is pretty drunk - it definitely affects your ability to drive. there have been many, many studies done on this (none of which i'm going to look up cuz i'm lazy).

if it was at 1.0 you'd be complaining about the same thing when you blow 1.1.

there's a very good reason why the legal limit is much lower in almost every other country. the line has to be set somewhere, and you guys who love to drive drunk are lucky it's as high as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's funny that you said that 0.08 is pretty drunk. Go buy a breathalyzer and tell us how you feel at 0.08. Until then, stop making fabricated statements. I happen to know how I feel at 0.08, and it's not even close to "pretty drunk".

I also think that there should be different legal limits depending on whether you're driving in an urban, suburban or rural area.

[/ QUOTE ]

DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED DIFFERENTLY BY ALCOHOL. SURPRISE, SURPRISE.

An 80-pound 17-year-old anorexic cheerleader is going to get blitzed a lot faster than some 300-pound, beer-for-breakfast lardass who can't go a night without a six-pack.

I'm in no way against drinking, but .08 is a line set because it has to be set SOMEWHERE. If you don't give law enforcement officials room to go either way, then you have about as bad a system as you could possibly have. How is this so [censored] complicated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the 80 pound cheerleader will reach 0.08 much faster than the 300 pound slob. So what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that you have no idea what .08 will feel like to different people. Its not possible. Just because you don't feel anything there due to your years of experience doesn't mean nobody does.

Like I said - .08 is there because there has to be a line somewhere just for the law. Law enforcement officials are given the right to make judgment calls and are trained in how to do so. Is the system perfect? Of course not. Plenty of people get away with driving drunk just because they weren't swerving or there wasn't a cop or whatever. And I'm sure there are people who have DUI's at .08, but there's a very simple way to not have that happen....

Once again, I'm not anti-drinking, and I will drive home after drinking, but NEVER more than 2 drinks, and always with some time given to it. I do my best to stay away from shots too, but that's just because (even though I know they've got the same alcohol in them as a mixed drink) I think they affect me differently. That's all.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
Edge,

So did you actually read this [censored] thread or are you just coming in here guns-a-blazing with no [censored] clue whether this has been discussed ad nauseum already? Because it has.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I know it has.

2) Your last posts didn't seem to understand.

3) EVERY drinking and driving thread goes into discussions like that ad nauseum. I just didn't feel like coming in here and saying nothing but "OP is a [censored] moron" because, even though he is, there are people who are complaining about cops having judgment and things like that. You seemed ok with it, so I figured it would be ok if I commented on what you had to say.

If you don't like it, sorry. I thought we were here to discuss, and you seemed fine voicing your opinion which has also been discussed ad nauseum.

[CalledDownLight]

All of you should be thrown in prison the next time you do 5 over the speed limit too. That could potentially kill someone. Actually, next time you get in a car you should get a year in jail, because hell, people die in car accidents.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
the line has to be set somewhere, and you guys who love to drive drunk are lucky it's as high as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I've already said, there's been virtually no effect on the number of "alcohol-related" car deaths (which is a pretty skewed stat anyways) since the drop from .10 to .08 Yet the number of arrests has almost doubled. What the hell is the point of making laws harsher and penalties longer if it has no discernible effect except for hugely increasing the burden on the criminal justice system?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the 80 pound cheerleader will reach 0.08 much faster than the 300 pound slob. So what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]


I personally dont know anywhere near enough about studies of BAC to have an opinion re: 0.08 vs 0.1,0.12, etc, but I think the following it pretty clearly true:

There will be variation within the population as to how coherent they are 0.08 (ie. not the variation in amount of alcohol needed to hit 0.08, but ability to function at 0.08). Even if only 5% of the population becomes dangerous at 0.08, its probably more than enough of a % to make a strong case for the law of 0.08.


The problem here, is that the people in like the top 10% of the population are going be like "OMG WTF IM FINE AT 0.08," and you may very well be able to drive safely at 0.12, but a nationwide law of 0.12 might let a good chunk of people drive legally at a dangerous level. Assuming we all agree that an individualized BAC legal limit is just too difficult, there doesnt seem to be a lot of other great options here. There are probably some 13 year olds out there who are physically/mentally able to drive well, but the law doesnt care about them; it cares about all the ones that cant when it sets the arbitrary cutoff.


Obv all numbers in the post are pulled out of my ass to explain the concept.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the line has to be set somewhere, and you guys who love to drive drunk are lucky it's as high as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I've already said, there's been virtually no effect on the number of "alcohol-related" car deaths (which is a pretty skewed stat anyways) since the drop from .10 to .08 Yet the number of arrests has almost doubled. What the hell is the point of making laws harsher and penalties longer if it has no discernible effect except for hugely increasing the burden on the criminal justice system?

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. O but hay, let's lock people up anyway, force them to spend thousands on fines and lawyers and jacked up insurance rates and maybe lose their jobs and have them crowd up our jails, yeah that's a way better solution than us realizing that it's gone too far and now it's just cops pinching harmless drivers under the guise of "public safety".

[Kimbell175113]

[ QUOTE ]
All of you should be thrown in prison the next time you do 5 over the speed limit too. That could potentially kill someone. Actually, next time you get in a car you should get a year in jail, because hell, people die in car accidents.

[/ QUOTE ]
You play poker, right? I won't make any analogies, but we know that not all probabilities are equal just because they are probabilities.

[MuresanForMVP]

Hey how about this idea? After someone's 21st birthday they can go to the MVA and sign up for a drunk driving test. They can bring a DD or whatever with them, along with a case of beer. They can drink to a certain BAC level, and perform the standard driver's test. If they complete the test with a passing score, the MVA can then print the recorded BAC on their new driver's license. If the person is then pulled over by a cop they cannot be booked unless they have a BAC over the one printed on their license. Hell they could even make a new course designed specifically to test someone's proficiency at driving with alcohol in their system.

This is strictly in the planning stages,as I just thought of it, so tell me what you think.

[mrh86]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the 80 pound cheerleader will reach 0.08 much faster than the 300 pound slob. So what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]


I personally dont know anywhere near enough about studies of BAC to have an opinion re: 0.08 vs 0.1,0.12, etc, but I think the following it pretty clearly true:

There will be variation within the population as to how coherent they are 0.08 (ie. not the variation in amount of alcohol needed to hit 0.08, but ability to function at 0.08). Even if only 5% of the population becomes dangerous at 0.08, its probably more than enough of a % to make a strong case for the law of 0.08.


The problem here, is that the people in like the top 10% of the population are going be like "OMG WTF IM FINE AT 0.08," and you may very well be able to drive safely at 0.12, but a nationwide law of 0.12 might let a good chunk of people drive legally at a dangerous level. Assuming we all agree that an individualized BAC legal limit is just too difficult, there doesnt seem to be a lot of other great options here. There are probably some 13 year olds out there who are physically/mentally able to drive well, but the law doesnt care about them; it cares about all the ones that cant when it sets the arbitrary cutoff.


Obv all numbers in the post are pulled out of my ass to explain the concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point explains why we have a set limit of 0.08 for a DUI. The police have a skewed perception of what drunk is, and the offenders have an oppositely skewed perception. This is why there are lesser penalties for being impaired at < 0.08. I am just one of those people that believes that the limit should be greater than 0.08.

And I don't care if this has been discussed ad nauseum. I'm not reading through the entire thread. I have a hangover and I want to be oppressive.

[Kimbell175113]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem here, is that the people in like the top 90% of the population are going be like "OMG WTF IM FINE AT 0.08,"

[/ QUOTE ]
fyp

edit: I mean they say they're fine, not that they are fine, ldo