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 ...
Laters jj
Yep, just like the propaganda tries to claim the 0.08 change led to decreased fatalities, when one of the other factors is laws mandating license suspensions.
When you know you will lose your license, this has a change in the mindset.
SD
Re: the Four points in your last message:
1. Drop the stupid Palestinian comparison. I enjoyed it while it was funny. Now, you've gone off the deep end again.
2. Your studies are muddied because of a social revolution that's had an even bigger impact on drinking than the .08 laws, the smoking ban which has emptied bars everywhere they've been adopted.
3. I do follow the law.
4. The spokesman over time became a friend and I won't give his name up to you because I don't trust you.
Sure that is a question. There was great debate prior to the level being moved. All sides made their case and .08 was decided. If you want to change it then by all means do so. But you still have to accept that it was debated and a decision was made. Until such time as it is changed you should abide by it. Right?
If you respect the powers of the state then you must accept the NH deal. Do you accept that? No there is no way you do....so I think you are treading a little less than you need to on this angle to stay above water.
If you want a states rights angle then you must be willing to see some states go 100% dry...and the advent of .00....are you sure you want to make the states rights argument?
This is another reason i feel that .08 was settled on. I truly beleive that it was a comprimise where all sides benefitted mutually to one extent or another and I think it will remain this way for the forseeable future.
I agree that made an impact. I am all for more of that.
Raising the fines isn't the right way to go IMHO. Raising the time you spend in jail and the time you spend without your license is a better way to go.....but understand jail costs moeny too....and who should have to pay for that?
Drivers that drink pay them dollars.
Easy way out here...if you had more than a drink or two with dinner, don't drive.
You are wrong on the .58 BAC, amigo. Harborview Hospital in Seattle used to have what was called "The 700 Club". Folks had to be a .7 BAC or higher to be in it. I read of one fellow that was a 1.2 BAC. I was a trooper on the south Seattle freeway for 8 1/2 years in the 80s. That's how I found out about the 700 club.
Any spokesman that says truth would have no problem standing by the truthful comments they made. Why does trust have anything to do with it? Truth not on your side?
What you call deep end I call end that you cannot overcome.
Look man, people are people and they are all responsible for the choices that they make. one day you might understand sucha thing.
I would like you to provide some studies that show how yoru claim is true. That the social revolution had an even bigger impact on drinking ( you forgot DRIVING)than the .08"
Maybe you will now say what you said your eventual friend said....There are none!
There is no moisture content problem if the mouth piece is changed after each sample as required. There is no moisture content problem with the BAC Verifier due to the mouth piece trap, heated breath tube, and purging system. What are you using? A chinese made piece of crap?
If I follow your "logic" to it's logical conclusion no traffic laws should be enforced until the smoke clears, and the bodies are tallied. Is that correct?
I would love to see some actual material on this.
I buy high threes maybe even pushing a four if your talking basically imobilized. High Fives and sevens??? I just cannot see it without some more information.
Ok. But it was the SCOM (Supreme Court of Mass.). Where I live (Calif.) it is apparently legal for the city to videotape citizens without asking first. They have cameras in the downtown area with recorders on them, and I have never been "officially" notified. My point is: "What is good for the goose, is good for the gander."
You seriously misunderestimate the ability of chronic alcoholics to tolerate alcohol. What might kill a novice college kid could be situation normal for a serious alcoholic.
SD
I'm sorry if I confused you. In Mass., any government entity can tape you. You can't tape them.
LOL! Good one.
Of course everyone should abide by the law. My argument is that Congress usurped the power of the states when they had this great debate.
That's wrong and remains wrong.
If you respect the powers of the state then you must accept the NH deal. Do you accept that? No there is no way you do....so I think you are treading a little less than you need to on this angle to stay above water. If you want a states rights angle then you must be willing to see some states go 100% dry...and the advent of .00....are you sure you want to make the states rights argument?
Yes, I accept the states' right to do as they see fit. I am not a hypocrite. I believe criminal justice, defining crimes of a purely intra-state nature, are within the purview of the states, not the federal gov't.
We don't have uniform laws on access to alcohol (other than the mandatory 21 age, another federal usurpation). The individual states can decide what they want to do. In California you can buy store-brand vodka in the supermarket, in PA you have to go to a state-operated store for liquor. In various states you can't buy on Sunday. I'm all for this kind of diversity, the true meaning of a federal system.
SD
Not at all.
Look: Some states (Montana for instance) have NO speed limits on certain sections of the Interstate. Here in Cali, the speed limits range from 55-75 on the Interstates (depending on the population density).
We could reduce traffic deaths in the US to almost zero by reducing the speed limit EVERYWHERE to 30 miles per hour (and forcing people to wear personal air-bags). Doesn't mean that we SHOULD do that (although one of the arguments against raising the limit from 55 after the '73 oil crisis was that "Hey! Look how many lives have been saved!").
I'm certain that as a FReeper you wouldn't turn in your guns to the authorities simply because they argue that "one of them may accidentally go off and injure/kill/maim somebody", yet you are quite ready to go to jail after two beers just because the government says "you may accidently injure/kill/maim somebody".
And as I undertand metabolism, it takes approximately 1 hour to burn off one drink from the BAC. So a 250 pound man could down a six pack in two hours and still be under because his first is burned off by the time he finishes the 6th.
Now project that out to the 350 pound lineman I mentioned. Unless he laid down with his mouth under the tap, it would be difficult to consume enough to put him over the line. I guess it can be done, but it would be unusual indeed.
Don't have the documentation. That's just how it was. I arrested and processed a fellow for DUI that was a .35 BAC, and he walked and talked like a typical .13 drunk. This was not uncommon, especially on the indian reservations.
Naaaah...I got it. BlueState just asked for a link to that effect, and I gave him this one:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/7_14_sb2.htm
All is good! :-)
You aren't going to jail because you had two beers. I'm not either, and I'm not turning in my guns, which is a red herring.
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.