Replies

The fact is that it isn't the drinking that people are coming down on. It is in FACT the DRIVING in combination with the drinking that is the issue. While you raise a fair point about 'blue hairs' and their ability to drive, that is, indeed, a seperate subject. Mixing the two only attempts to deflect the wrongs in one situation by pointing out the wrongs in another situation. If you could defend the right in the situation of driving when drinking you would not resort to such tactics as you have.

You sir, have every right to drink and I support that right 100%. When driving is added to the context things change. Do you think that you have a right to drive drunk? If so, where does that right come from? Where does it exist?

I laugh at folks that try to discount and dismiss one wrong by posing another, totally seperate wrong.

I would like to see you make the case that you have a right to drive drunk based on the merits of driving drunk.....as opposed to using examples of other things that are improper as well. My bet is that you cannot and will not do so.

Instead of using the 'blue hairs' or the cell phones or the sleepy driver as reasons not to address drunk driving, how about pushing for all these things to be addressed?

What SIR is your interpretation of drunk? Do you consider it to be .10? .08? .00? The FACT is SIR that the nanny state has been enacting ever more draconian laws, thereby making a common occurence (having a few beers) effectively illegal. AT THE SAME TIME, organizations such as the AARP and their lobbying arm block any attempt to hold older drivers accountable through such methods as more frequent testing and the mandatory license suspension. You see SIR, I am drawing a distinction between impairment. If the state is going to punish imparement, DO IT ACROSS THE BOARD. You're too obtuse to see my point is all.

What are the results of lowering the drinking limit from .10 to .08? Did it save lives? Does it justify the excess cost of policing and courts and does it justify the damage done to an individual's reputation when he was functioning quite well but slightly over the limit? Yet, under the old limit?
The answers are no and no. There was no need to drop the limit from sober to slightly more sober.
I know they passed this in New Jersey with absolutely no science to support it, the state cops said as much, but rather to satisfy the harpies.

When driving is added to the context things change. Do you think that you have a right to drive drunk?

You don't have a freak'in clue what you are talking about. No one has advocated driving drunk. Apparently, you don't understand or can't appreciate the difference between driving drunk and driving with a BAL in access of an artifical limit that may or may not correlate with a person's ability or inability to drive a motor vehicle. With regard to your other remark to "Mallardx," I have news for you: Cops lie all the time and as a result, they often require people to "blow" even if they pass the field sobriety tests. How do they gey away with it? Like I said, they lie, i.e., "He had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath," "she was unable to walk a straight line," "he slurred his words," etc. The cops can get away with lying because often they are the only witness other than the accussed and who are you going to believe, a cop or a "drunk guy." Well, my city finally did something about the lying cops and installed audio/video equipment on the cop cars. And guess what? The number of arrests are way down, and the number of convictions are way up.

The fact is that it isn't the drinking that people are coming down on. It is in FACT the DRIVING in combination with the drinking that is the issue.

Well, you are partially correct. Actually, driving is the issue.

We're all "impaired" by something when we drive, be it noises, conversation, pretty things on the side of the road, or any number of distractions that life brings.

Maybe we should just ban the wheel and go back to foot or saddle stock traffic.

That would be interesting.