i need a drunk for a experiment ....next time stopped
- Thread starter justugh
- Start date
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given their implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. These laws have generally been upheld by courts as a valid exercise of the states' police power, against challenges under the Fourth Amendment (as a reasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (as not violative of the right against self-incrimination). This is largely because in the United States, driving is considered a privilege rather than a right, and the state has a legitimate interest in keeping dangerously intoxicated drivers off the road, to prevent injury, property damage, and loss of life. In most states, however, the police must have reasonable grounds for administering a sobriety test.[1]
All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given their implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. These laws have generally been upheld by courts as a valid exercise of the states' police power, against challenges under the Fourth Amendment (as a reasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (as not violative of the right against self-incrimination). This is largely because in the United States, driving is considered a privilege rather than a right, and the state has a legitimate interest in keeping dangerously intoxicated drivers off the road, to prevent injury, property damage, and loss of life. In most states, however, the police must have reasonable grounds for administering a sobriety test.[1]
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
It's always in the fine print Amish. They own your ass, like it or not.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I never agreed to Wikipedia.
justugh
Well-Known Member
i am saying it is a right if it is needed to live.........they offer public transportation to everyone every where it then would be a privilege (if they used the school buses for adults it would be what u say )
i can not live with out driving .....the cost of cab at 60 dollars 1 way is unreasonable for someone to pay if they are only making 9/12 bucks a hour after taxes....it is a right for a person to drive and live
some ppl can not live in a city packed on top of each other like hives ....they offer no transportation at all to ppl outsie a city but a cab uber
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
And this is why it is ok for you to drive drunk? You have a thought process as muddled as your writing.
justugh
Well-Known Member
at .07 i am not drunk
if i have 4 beers and leave a place if they test me with in 20 mins i am going to jail if they test me with in 45 mins i am not
the limit is set to a lvl that is just ment to get fines send ppl to jail .....hell my first arrest in 13 years was for weed 65k bail the drunk caught for the 6th time (still drunk ) gets a ROR
i just want to have some method to get me those few mins .......drawling blood on me hurts due to stone veins they poke and poke and poke until finally they do a butterfly into the hand ....was never a addict from weekly blood test for 4 years due to doctor pills
Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
When I drink and drive, I use a method invented by myself. You have to learn simple precautions. One is to never to drive with both eyes open, one must be shut (either one will do, but if you are traveling north, usually the left one is more effective) Secondly, should eat about six cloves of garlic before you drive, and take a shit in a baggy. You MUST stay under the speed limit (very important), and with one shut eyeball (2 is not a good idea), that will definitely help with the driving in a straight line, as with both eyes open, one fucks with the other, and you don't know which one to believe. So, when I am 3 sheets to the wind, I will be ready to go. Then, if a cop pulls you over, eat another clove of garlic, take out the bag full of shit, sit on it and squish it around a LOT. The cop will then come up to your window, you roll it down and say officer, whats the problem (at this point breath very heavily at his face). He will probably say you were driving erratically, and then say, well I was shitting in my pants, and I must have swerved, and that you were sorry (make sure you are breathing right at him the whole time and wiggle a little more in your seat, dispelling as much aroma as you can from you bag of shit). He will probably then issue a warning at that point (holding back his vomit), and tell you to get the fuck out of there, and find a bathroom. It actually worked for me once, but I never used the baggy part, I just shit in my pants. Try it next time, it's foolproof.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Do you talk like this in real life? How do people react to you in person? Are they confused a lot? Do any of them call you on some of the ridiculous things that you say without foundation like "the limit is set to a lvl that is ment to get fines send ppl to jail"?
justugh
Well-Known Member
wow u do not retain history do u
back in the 90s the federal government got on all the states to change the drinking laws lowing the BAC in all states to .07 before states set own limit ...states had to accept and make the new limit law or the federal government would not give the state any funding from them (basically held the state hostage )
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-laws/08History/4_arguments.htm
haven't u been paying attention to what is going on to u ........u know they are talking about lowering it .05
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-want-to-lower-legal-driving-limit-to-one-drink/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/us/drunken-driving-blood-alcohol-limit/
hence the statement the limit is set to a lvl ment to get fines send ppl to jail
if u do not understand that i want to call u simplistic
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Your logic is so badly flawed. None of that considers the danger caused by some asshole like you driving around at 0.07%. The 'logic' that the federal government forced it down the throats of the states therefore the level is set to maximize fines and jail-time just does not hold up. Besides, drunk driving is not a federal crime - states reap the so-called benefits, so why did the fed have to force it on them?
You are wrong in pretty much all of your posts but have a single-minded pigheadedness that is all too common in this country.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Now I will get the usual bullshit argument about how your driving is not impaired at 0.07%. But guess what? It is. They used science to prove it. But Just Ugh knows better. Just Duh.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
justugh
Well-Known Member
u want to have some fun ....u want hard info factsNow I will get the usual bullshit argument about how your driving is not impaired at 0.07%. But guess what? It is. They used science to prove it. But Just Ugh knows better. Duh.
look at reaction times for sleepy/tired ppl ..........vs ppl that are .14 double the limit
driving tired is not jail-able ........fine yes for truckers but that is
it is not about safety it is about one set of ppl saying we know best for everyone......4 beers does not make me drunk 3 glass of wine in 2 hours for a lady does not make them drunk '
the limit is set at a low rate just to gain money and make angry ppl happy
i leave after 4 beers 1 hours 20 mins i am going to jail ......45 mins i am not ..........if it was about safety a short time frame like that would not be effective if u are impaired u are impaired for a good amount of time not 30/45 min window
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Lol. All groundless Ughisms. If the government's goal is to maximize fines and jail time, why isn't driving tired fined the same way? Sorry, you just provided specious 'evidence' that does not even support your argument.
As for your idea of impairment time, it is just false, demonstrably so. Your obsession with time intervals shows that you clearly miss the point about impairment and cannot grasp nuance.
Go learn something.
As for your idea of impairment time, it is just false, demonstrably so. Your obsession with time intervals shows that you clearly miss the point about impairment and cannot grasp nuance.
Go learn something.
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Why have I gotten into a logic battle with an unarmed person? An unwinnable fight.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Here is some data that exists some place other than your head Just Ugh.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/impaired_driving/BAC/results.html
This establishes the physiological degradation of driving skills as blood alcohol content increases. Now I will delve into the public policy side.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/impaired_driving/BAC/results.html
This establishes the physiological degradation of driving skills as blood alcohol content increases. Now I will delve into the public policy side.
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Ok, here is a paper from the American Journal of Preventative Medicine where it discusses the impact of adopting 0.08% on lives saved.
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/mvoi-AJPM-evrev-alchl-imprd-drvng.pdf
It seems pretty obvious to anybody who reads it that not only have the laws been intended to save lives but it has been successful at doing so.
I have presented evidence to support my claim and reject yours. Your turn @justugh . And using anecdotal or "just in justugh's head" evidence does not support your argument. You have made a bold claim and offered literally zero evidence of it's validity.
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/mvoi-AJPM-evrev-alchl-imprd-drvng.pdf
It seems pretty obvious to anybody who reads it that not only have the laws been intended to save lives but it has been successful at doing so.
I have presented evidence to support my claim and reject yours. Your turn @justugh . And using anecdotal or "just in justugh's head" evidence does not support your argument. You have made a bold claim and offered literally zero evidence of it's validity.
justugh
Well-Known Member
no no no
where is your debate where is your facts .......u go to insults skipping over the bulk of the posting .......u skip over the fact......u skip over govermental paperwork
u are not debating or talking logically about anything .....u are going on personal attacks .......weak game