U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-30-2008, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,861 posts, read 102,212,631 times
Reputation: 32935

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
It is not illegal to have a small amount of alcohol in a person's system. If you would like to arrest every person having a beer or wine while out to dinner you can fight for that despite the fact that studies show those people aren't a danger. Why not just return prohibition?
Prohibition didn't work. saganista, can you prove your claims? Most domestic violence involves alcohol, as does most date rape. There are NO factors that I know of that modest amounts of alcohol may actually help reduce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2008, 11:05 PM
 
630 posts, read 798,891 times
Reputation: 252
It seems strange to me that anyone would attempt to make a case for less discipline in a society that in many areas is stricken with a terrible void of the same. For every civil and criminal offense known to man, someone attempts to dismiss it as a money grab. In our society we no longer lynch and we don't cut body parts off--exactly what other commodity should be used for punishment besides jail?

As far as the offense, i simply look to the stats. that tell me that more people have been killed or maimed in the US by the auto than in all the wars our country fought in its history. The majority of places I drive in across the US, traffic law enforcement is severely lacking. I think it would be beneficial to have an officer earn his salary and more by nailing these arrogant offenders, especially the drivers under the influence and speeders. BTW, it is definitely a deterrent, and IMO raises the quality of the community by a substancial amount.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2008, 02:47 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,771,036 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by detshen
Quote:
I have no proof of degree of impairment, but I do know many accidents have been caused by those things and many others, but we allow people to have issues and still drive.
You have no control over when you sneeze, it's reaction. Drinking alcohol is a premeditated act, you could always say no.
And if I'm not mistaken the labels on most medicines tell you not to drive or operate complex machinery when you have taken it.
But I guess its all about making priorities; choosing for general safety or individual pleasure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2008, 04:21 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 28,303,809 times
Reputation: 4002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Prohibition didn't work.
The current paradigm isn't working either. It brutalizes a segment of society that is essentially preselected for "special treatment" while providing minimal if any actual increase in public safety. Big cost for very little if any gain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
saganista, can you prove your claims? Most domestic violence involves alcohol, as does most date rape.
These aren't associated with automobiles. They are associated with ONE of these TWO things: A) Use of alcohol, B) Abuse of acohol. Another of the things that many people tend to forget is that there is a significant difference between the meanings of the words "use" and "abuse". No one concerned about the out-of-control nature of of the DUI industry is advocating for alcohol abuse. No one has proposed that more people should go out and get plastered. Over-serving yourself to the point of being unable to recognize or control what you are doing has been endorsed by no one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
There are NO factors that I know of that modest amounts of alcohol may actually help reduce.
They are associated with the reasons why people tend to have a drink or two to begin with, particularly after work. Alcohol is a depressant. One of the things that it depresses is the sense of tension, stress, or anxiety that can build up over the course of a long workday and under other circumstances. These factors are associated with inattentiveness and with senses of anger and frustration that, if present in one behind the wheel, lead to accidents, some of which end up being fatal. Modest levels of alcohol reduce these factors. Eventually, alcohol will begin to depress other, more positive factors involved in the process of driving such as judgment and reaction times, but these start to become significant at BAC ranges that are beyond those induced by having a drink or two. There are data out there that show the overall odds of being involved in a fatal accident as being slightly lower for drivers with a BAC in the .02 to .04 range than for drivers who are at .00, but I need to be in the city early today and won't be back until late this evening, so won't have time to dig them up. If still topical, I will try to track down some of them the next time I have extended posting time available. Others could of course do so in the meantime.

By the way, it is a virtual certainty that I will have a drink or two...perhaps even three...over the course of the upcoming evening hours. The day itself will come to a close with my driving home, a process that will place no one at any more risk than did the exact same process carried out last night when I had not consumed any alcohol at all...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2008, 04:36 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,771,036 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by saganista
Quote:
By the way, it is a virtual certainty that I will have a drink or two...perhaps even three...over the course of the upcoming evening hours. The day itself will come to a close with my driving home, a process that will place no one at any more risk than did the exact same process carried out last night when I had not consumed any alcohol at all...
The thing is that drinking beer is seen as culturally accepted and often necessary, since everyone in the American (and European) culture drink it. Many people only drink to be part of the group and it is just unfortunate that the majority of the people in general are 'followers' who just can't say no because they are afraid to be left out.
Unfortunately the largest group who ends up being addicted are these 'followers' or so-called 'social' drinkers.
BTW I’m not proposing to ban alcohol altogether, just that they should not drive when they have had a drink.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2008, 05:54 AM
 
75 posts, read 187,104 times
Reputation: 43
All-right lets have a go at this one! SCRAM units. A alcohol monitoring leg unit that someone came up with to make money! You are arrested and plead "Not Guilty" although that was not one of the choices they gave you on first appearance. So you get out(on a ridiculous high bond) and are ordered to wear one of these things (so you can't drink) till you get into court(months later) at a cost to you of 12$ a day. Now is this justice! After I am found guilty then punish me! If a jury of my pears finds me innocent then what? Do I get my money back? I think if I want to drink that should be my choice. And what about personal freedoms? Innocent until proven guilty! Let my fellow citizens take a look at the case and decide. Not some Judge whom is in with the Scram folks and finds you guilty without a trial as promised in the Constitution!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2008, 06:04 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,771,036 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by dolphin3
Quote:
I think if I want to drink that should be my choice. And what about personal freedoms?
Rapists could claim the same, so how about their personal freedom?
BTW aren't your courts not already swamped?
Ours are so unless there is an accident involved we only fine people who drove while under the influence and forbid them to drive for a certain amount of time till the alcohol has exited their system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2008, 07:34 AM
 
39,974 posts, read 24,224,185 times
Reputation: 12568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by detshenI claim that alcohol does affect a person's reflexes, reasoning and decision making.
It is irrelevant how tiny or large the influence of alcohol is, because the affect is always negative on a person's driving style.

Age affects a person's reflexes, reasoning and decision making. What zero-tolerance policy are you going to impose on people 50 and over? When are you going to pass a law against people with fevers driving, or severe allergies? How about people who've just left the theater after a high adrenaline rush? Should we have a mininum IQ test to keep idiots from driving? Zero tolerance is about optimizing people's motor skills, but there are too many variables that impact those motor skills, so when you begin policing only one variable, you are actually discriminating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2008, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 35,102,200 times
Reputation: 4899
I will completely admit that I am 1000% biased AGAINST driving after consuming a[SIZE=3]lcohol[/SIZE]. The reason for this bias is, my wife, and my child, were killed by a person who only had "a couple of drinks with dinner" - a drunk driver.

For this reason, I cannot and will not, justify anyone driving a motor vehicle within a short period after consuming -
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2008, 07:43 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,771,036 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Quote:
Age affects a person's reflexes, reasoning and decision making. What zero-tolerance policy are you going to impose on people 50 and over?
I believe we already do; after a certain age they have to pass their driver's liscence annually. When they don't they lose their liscence.

Quote:
Should we have a mininum IQ test to keep idiots from driving? Zero tolerance is about optimizing people's motor skills, but there are too many variables that impact those motor skills, so when you begin policing only one variable, you are actually discriminating.
So?
We already 'discriminate' criminals so I don't see why we shouldn't discriminate people who have had alcohol. If ya ask me, everyone with alcohol in his veins but still crawls behind the steering wheel ARE criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top