Posted on 03/08/2006 6:12:23 AM PST by Enterprise
"Fresno police are taking enforcement of drunken driving laws to a new level — which officers expect will bring both success and outrage. Saturday night, the traffic unit unveiled a new operation in which plainclothes police officers stake out bars and target drunk patrons. If the heavy drinkers get behind the wheel, officers in unmarked cars follow them and call in marked police cars to pull them over."
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
Interesting how you can judge everyone in an organization and the organization itself when you admit you have never met one. Well at least until now. I speak for MADD at victim impact panels on a regular basis.
I do not attempt to end your right to drink and I have not said anything in this thread that would be consistant with your charachterization of the MADD organization.
Are there things that can be said about some MADD members? Sure! does that mean the entire entity is filled with that ideology? NOPE.
I tell each panel that I would be happy to have a drink or several with them, so long as driving wasn't part of the plan. Tell me now, honestly, before I said that to you would have said that someone involved with MADD would have said such a thing?
It always makes sense to oppose drinking and driving at levels above .08 no matter who opposes it.
I have nothing to out bcause I hide nothing sir.
Minimally intoxicated drivers????? .08 is the limit. Deal with it.
I have never said I want zero limit, I have said on this thread and many others that I support .08.
What would you use to justify the limit you would set?
"science" is out right?
"...LMAO @ .58. Hardly..."
Why would you "LMAO" at the narrative about my alcoholic brother-in-law and the disgusting volume of liquor he consumes? He was obviously not driving in that instance because he was blacked-out on a sidewalk where he lives...and within a few percentage points of his life.
The last DWI/DUI he earned (of three) was with a .31 BAC reading. The guy is a mess and shouldn't be on our roadways at all, since he apparently believes the rules don't apply to him. He has no compunctions about driving without a license.
~ Blue Jays ~
You may believe that, but you have betrayed yourself at least once.
Do I believe MADD would rather completely zero-out the BAC for legal intoxication? Yes, I do. Nothing in their (and your) behavior shows me any different.
C'mon. If you believe the things you say and the sites you cite, impairment begins with the first drink and can lead to increased risk of injury or death. Why would you approve of that?
0.08 is a stopgap measure. 0.00 is the goal. How could it be otherwise? Does it help the mother whose child was killed by a 0.04 driver? Doesn't her pain matter?
It would help if you admitted it, at least to yourself.
SD
The difference is that I acually have to rob and stab someone for them to be dead.
DUI laws will put you in jail simply for owning a knife.
Maybe the people who get caught up in these stings should sit outside the cop bars and video the patrons coming out and then follow them as they drive home. Should be some interesting cases from that.
Because there is valid concerns that require a balance to form a comprimise between two opposing sides. Both sides bring proper arguments to the table and a comprimise is the only way forward. .08 is the line I accept that shows most clearly the line of comprimise.
If you are above .08 then you did not have one after work. You had several very very fast or you are just ignoring how much you really had and the impairment you really do have. .08 is where it should be now and where it should stay, IMHO.
.35 is comatose boderline.....to be .58 is simply something you will never get me to believe. Ever. It is unreasonable to accept that number.....hence my laughing.
.31 I buy, .58 I do not.
You really don't have clue. The BAL .08 has nothing to do with a person's actual level of impairment. It is an arbitrary limit that the MADD gang has pushed into legislation. Some people get drunk after 1 glass of wine. Other people don't behave intoxicated until they have consumed several glasses of wine. THe .08 is just a number.
Sure, a person wrongfully targeted by a cop can accuse the cop of lying. Not a good idea, however. Cops don't like troublemakers. In some places cops have been known to make life difficult for complainers.
The problem with the nanny-statists is that they keep moving the bar.
For instance, for some drivers, it is illegal to drive with a 0.02 BAC already in New Hampshire:
Driving While IntoxicatedAnd the government has been putting out all sort garbage studies to support lower the BAC to 0.05, even 0.02:
DWI NH RSA 265:82 is a driver who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug or has a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08 or more,
or if under the age of 21 a BAC 0.02 or more,
or if they are driving a commercial vehicle and have a BAC of .04 or more.
The many skills involved in driving are not all impaired at the same BAC's (3). For example, a driver's ability to divide attention between two or more sources of visual information can be impaired by BAC's of 0.02 percent or lower (3-5).Excuse me, but by BS meter beeps very loud when I read such junk science.However, it is not until BAC's of 0.05 percent or more are reached that impairment occurs consistently in eye movements, glare resistance, visual perception, reaction time, certain types of steering tasks, information processing, and other aspects of psychomotor performance (3,4,6,7).
FYI: I recently bought a BAC tester at an auto parts store for $10. that works pretty well.
I've also previously been responsible to administer the test with standard law enforcement equipment. When the officer has you blow the second or third time, the results go up each time due to the temporary (moisture) contamination from your previous. Just in case you wondered.
I can't wait till one of the stumblebums walks out, gets in his car and runs down another patron two blocks from the bar and then the lawyer for the dead guy's family gets the undercover cops on the stand and asks them to explain why they let this obviously impaired killer drive off to do the dirty deed.
This is codswallop. You may like gov't propaganda, but I don't. Where to begin.
First of all, the data about increased risks of fatality are based upon a review of fatalities, not upon an analysis of overall driving.
This is the same junk science methodology that gun grabbers use to claim that if you have a gun in your house, you are 47 (or whatever) times more likely to be killed. It's junk methodology.
Compare the amount of miles driven by people in various states of sobriety and drunkeness (and good luck getting that data) and see how many casualties result. That would be science.
The "Point-Counterpoint" section is pathetic. They don't reapond to the points raised, they just duck them. Example:
They abuse the wording of the GAO report (just like you did earlier) to ignore the fact that 0.08 laws take place not in a vacuum but "in combination with" other factors. Don't pretend to have isolated a factor when you haven't.
Also, I find it comical that they deny in a "counterpoint" that they are working incrementally to zero, yet in a later section they wax lovingly about how other countries and studies show 0.05 is a much better number. "Most subjects in these studies were significantly impaired at .05 BAC"
SD
Imapirment DOES start with the first drink you take. What part of that chemistry do you not understand? the difference between .01 and .08 is the accepted LIMIT of inmpairment.
You say I betrayed myself....care to point out how?
So I guess when I say that I approve of .08 that doesn't ring a bell with you that I am not in favor of .00?????
Sheesh man what will it take then?????
In a comprimise no opposing side gets everything they want. .00 will never be attained because it is unreasonable. Noone in the MADD organization that I deal with directly EVER says .00 is the goal, Though some around the country do. They have the right to say that is their goal, but that does make it everyones goal.
>08 is not a stopgap, .08 is a legit comprimise so that both sides get something out of the deal. .08 is proper.
Show me why it isn't.
Funny how you tell me to admit things to myself.
Maybe it is you that should admit to yourself that you called it wrong towards me. I do not support .00 and you think I do. UMMMM care to try again?
So actually driving drunk is not like using the knife then?
>08 is shown in many studies to BE impairment. OK so you oppose >)* BAC....what is your alternative? I bet you don't have one.
Sounds to me like you have a cop phobia. If you think in this day and age a person cannot nail a cop to the wall for "making your life difficult" then I guess you never heard of digital video.
Please reread the two or three earlier posts in this thread that I directed to you. I clearly supported you and your viewpoints. I subsequently shared a sad personal story on how alcohol and alcoholism wrecks people, careers, and families and you respond by "LMAO" at me and calling me a liar with regard to the disgusting BAC of my alcoholic brother-in-law? You had me fooled that you were a caring person, shame on me.
~ Blue Jays ~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.