Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I am going to ask you one more time before I disregard you entirely... What is in that link that supports your argument. I have read it, have you?
i need a drunk for a experiment ....next time stopped
- Thread starter justugh
- Start date
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Ok, I get it. You have the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader and cannot understand the werdz. Those nine studies do not support your argument - those studies are meant to refute the agrument that 0.08% does not save lives. And that's tangential to your premise anyway: that the 0.08% level was set to gain government revenue.
Then you give me some anecdotal horseshit where the judge throws a case out - in effect passing up a hefty fine for your sister in law. How does that support your argument? If anything, it supports mine!
You need to learn to read better. Society let you down and now you wander the Earth with the education of a child.
Then you give me some anecdotal horseshit where the judge throws a case out - in effect passing up a hefty fine for your sister in law. How does that support your argument? If anything, it supports mine!
You need to learn to read better. Society let you down and now you wander the Earth with the education of a child.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Well put. But you should put a spoiler on that bad girl
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
justugh
Well-Known Member
personal insults again ........have i once insulted u with a personal attack other then calling u simplistic
i count a 3rd one ....your not debating u are arguing .........sorry u go with the emotional answer like MADD
the proof i posted is there the actual arguments used in the case ...........the number are off they proved it and discredited (the actually filed in the court system/government paper work )
and what they said is already happening
.08 per se Is the First Step Toward Zero Tolerance
Opponents of the measure claimed that .08 per se was only the first step in an attempt to eventually lower the illegal limit of drivers to .00 BAC. The ABI sometimes referred to the .08 movement as "the new prohibition."
Advocates had a difficult time countering this argument. Several politicians, legislators and at least one Governor have publicly endorsed illegal limits of .05 BAC or lower. The American Medical Association has also publicly supported .05 BAC as the illegal limit. State BAC limits have been gradually lowered over the course of time, and supporters were not able to make assurances that in the future, lower BAC limits would not be sought.
NHTSA has officially indicated that, based on the scientific literature currently available, .08 BAC is a reasonable point at which to set the limit, and that the agency is not interested in pursuing a lower limit. However, opponents have countered that this is no guarantee, as it is always possible that new research findings may lead to a revision of the agency's position in the future.
While they could not make assurances that in the future lower BAC limits will not be sought, advocates of .08 per se did successfully emphasize that, contrary to the ABI's claims, no one is interested in bringing about "the new prohibition." They stressed that the .08 movement was not trying to limit the consumption of alcohol. The goal of illegal BAC limits for adults was not to restrict individuals from drinking alcohol; rather, advocates argued, these limits exist to prevent individuals from operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, putting their own lives and the lives of others at risk.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-want-to-lower-legal-driving-limit-to-one-drink/
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18250824-ntsb-recommends-lowering-blood-alcohol-level-that-constitutes-drunken-driving
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/
they lied waited 10 years and trying to get it lower ....... are u impaired at .05 no u are not .....money scam
.....u want to make fun of grammar ....spelling ....something else instead of debating go ahead ....just makes u look like a asshole
edit ....here is the cherry on the debate
the arrest .......if it was a safety issue why is the 6th time drunk releases ROR ....why not put in jail for 13 months until the trial comes up ......because they can make more money off them with breathalyzers for car starting probation for 2-5 years rehab at a state approved program (rem they take the car at the time of DUI/DWI tow and impound fees if u are even allowed to get it back other state take out right and sell for profit )
if it was about safety the 3 strike law would apply (given every one 2 mess up for the whole life ) the 3rd one u are looking at a long time locked up
every person deals differently with drink ......some ppl should not drive after one beer (lucky bastards cheap drunks) other ppl can handle it better why should those ppl pay for the dumb asses that know they can not handle it and hit someone
i limit myself beer when i eat out 4 beers with my meal in about 50 mins ....if i am drinking at a bar and i know i am dumb (put the keys 15 feet away from the car while having at least 50 bucks in my wallet at all time ) crawl into the car sleep it off if they cops check i am 100% legal no keys with in 12 feet of car i had no intend in driving and the money makes me not vagrant and the bar owner is ok as long as it is moved by opening next day no trespassing......if i need i got ppl that will come grab me let me sleep it off at their place then drop me off at car
but those 4 beers with a meal would still get me locked up if i leave to get back to what i was doing .....i am not impaired at 0.07 and the lvl of that is only going to be that for 30/45 mins at most (ppls guts empty out into large intestines every 15 20 mins ) .....this happened to a family member......test on site 0.07 test at station 20/25 mins later 0.05 (not guilty of anything in court but arrest record is still there for DUI)
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Nevermind Ugh. Learn to read better.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I do not really understand why, but I have a tiny soft spot for @justugh .
So here's the straight dope...
What you posted does not support your argument and I get frustrated that somebody with self-proclaimed knowledge of science and history and math would be so lacking in reading comprehension so as not to know it. The section in question merely states that 'this is one of the arguments against lowering BAC to 0.08%' and goes on to say that it is a difficult argument to counter. It is kind of like proving a negative. You state that there is the intent of lowering BAC to 0.00 and creating a New Prohibition. There simply is no way to prove such a thing. But that does not make the argument correct - nor does a further lowering to 0.05%.
Honestly I shudder to think of the conclusions you have reached perusing history with such an impaired set of skills. Have you ever read a book on formal logic? I suggest that you do.
It just amazes me that you can ignore the whole report and pull one tiny section of it - out of context - and formulate a world-view on it. So it was my mistake to even argue this point - and I knew it. I got sucked into it because it seems like the sort of 'logic' you employ seems to be in fashion in America as this is an election year.
Please tell me that you don't vote Ugh. Voting is for suckers. It gets you on jury duty.
So here's the straight dope...
What you posted does not support your argument and I get frustrated that somebody with self-proclaimed knowledge of science and history and math would be so lacking in reading comprehension so as not to know it. The section in question merely states that 'this is one of the arguments against lowering BAC to 0.08%' and goes on to say that it is a difficult argument to counter. It is kind of like proving a negative. You state that there is the intent of lowering BAC to 0.00 and creating a New Prohibition. There simply is no way to prove such a thing. But that does not make the argument correct - nor does a further lowering to 0.05%.
Honestly I shudder to think of the conclusions you have reached perusing history with such an impaired set of skills. Have you ever read a book on formal logic? I suggest that you do.
It just amazes me that you can ignore the whole report and pull one tiny section of it - out of context - and formulate a world-view on it. So it was my mistake to even argue this point - and I knew it. I got sucked into it because it seems like the sort of 'logic' you employ seems to be in fashion in America as this is an election year.
Please tell me that you don't vote Ugh. Voting is for suckers. It gets you on jury duty.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I liked the first one better.
justugh
Well-Known Member
again personal insults
god it is so simple
1 changing the laws to make it 0.08 was forced on ppl by federal government ( not picked and choicen by the ppl but by the federal government a small section of ppl)
2 the studies saying it stops ppl are flawed ( u can not break it down telling it is becuase of the 0.08 bac or the smooth operator program or the click or ticket pogram or the spider program or new car safety measures ).....that is what the reports say that is what the drunks say that is way the tea sippers say ....both of them are flawed all the reports none of them account for all the varaibles (they say what the side that paid for them wants them to say
3 they are wanting to drop it even lower from 0.08 to 0.05 where they said they had no wants to go there .......and they are saying it could save 500-800 more ppl a year so it is a good idea (500/800 in a country that has 230 million means nothing ).....basic logical and numbers
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/
8th paragraph "Lowering the rate to 0.05 would save about 500 to 800 lives annually, the safety board said."
4 if it was a safety issue they would lock ppl up on the 3rd strike instead of making it a money rotating door
5 the system they us to test a person is subjective ( the drunk test no way to pass 100% the time it is up to the cop choice ) and even those test can be refused with no trouble .....the reason they do it is to force u to take the breath test ....they seen enough to say i want u to blow
6 if it was about safety then why are smokes allows cigs.......they do nothing but make money for someone and kill ppl with thousands of studies linking to all kinds of stuff.......it kills more ppl each year then drunk driving .....but it makes so much money they do not want to do anything about it other then stigmatize it so ppl that do smoke feel like 3rd class citizen
7 u get more time for weed then u get for a DUI and DWI .......weed has never made anyone die of poisoning ....drinking if u get to 0.50 your dead
8 why not every drunk ever caught has to have a blow start to car ....that would be a better law and stop the ones drinking and driving that do it thousands of times in life time ....that would save more lives then a rotating jail policy
9 ppl that blow a onsite means nothing it is the test back at the station that is allowed in court........why should i take a test that can not be used in court but if i refuse i lose rights ( what about ppl with copd they can not blow hard enough to even register on the field test they lose right to drive )
say all you want it not about saving lives .......it is about a steady stream of income to the states .........just like traffic cameras tickets ( i have a right to confront my accuser how can i do that with a camera .....and the cameras in several places have been proven to be fucked up taken pics of cars not doing anything )
u know u get taxed 3 times on same money already
1 when it is made
2 when u pull it out of a retirement fund/investments (converting in cash)
3 when u die 33/50% of your total left goes to government
it is all a money game ........the system is broken the debt raises they need to find ways to tax use more to keep the whole scam going ..........if it was about safety other more effective ways to keep ppl from driving drink .......the breath lock u blow to turn the car on if has anything BAC it locks for 24 hours that would save more lives then all the shit put together and the results of it are clear (drunk car no start so no ppl driving no tickets no money so no blow start)
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
"personal insults" my ass.
Did not read the rest.
Did not read the rest.
Cut.Throat.
Well-Known Member
Fuck anyone that drinks and drives. I don't care about what % you perceive yourself as drunk. You do not have the right to put other peoples lives in jeopardy because you're too poor to afford a cab, uber, or public transportation.
No one cares what your living situation is.
No one cares what your tolerance is.
No one cares you're clearly an imbecile.
You are not special. You do not have the right to value your freedoms over random peoples lives. You're trying to argue you have the right to drive drunk. I've lost family/friends because of pieces of shit like you.
No one cares what your living situation is.
No one cares what your tolerance is.
No one cares you're clearly an imbecile.
You are not special. You do not have the right to value your freedoms over random peoples lives. You're trying to argue you have the right to drive drunk. I've lost family/friends because of pieces of shit like you.
lawlrus
Well-Known Member
Not sure if you've done your research...
In NC and most states I'm aware of: you are not legally obligated to blow on the side of the road and you don't have to submit to the SFSTs (sobriety tests) either, nor do you have to answer any questions. When you get to the station, you are given a 30 minute period from the time that you enter the station to contact your lawyer or a friend/family member to come act as a witness to your breathalyzer test at the station. When your 30 minutes is up, it's time to blow whether your witness/lawyer is there or not. At this point you will be compelled to blow at the station -- you can still refuse, but simply by doing so you will lose your license for up to one year automatically, without any sort of work privilege whatsoever, even if you get your case dismissed at a later date. This is the case even if you refuse the breathalyzer at the station and ask for a blood test instead because you are, say, concerned that the machine is not accurately calibrated -- you either take the breathalyzer at the station or you lose your license for up to (or more than) a year. This means that if you get pulled over in that situation without a valid license you will get a DWLR charge, will likely be taken into custody at that time and then be forced to undergo an additional assessment and 20+ hours of counseling, in addition to the fines levied for the DWLR itself.
DUI laws are based on the concept of implied consent (basically, you signed up for this when you signed up for a driver's license) and they are pretty damned cut and dry. You might be able to get the DUI charges dismissed eventually (likely with a jury trial as the district court judge that hears your case the first time will vote to convict 9/10 times and you will need to appeal), but if you chose not to blow at the station you will still lose your license for that 1 year period (maybe a couple months earlier if your lawyer makes the right moves and you get lucky enough not to have your case continued multiple times, but likely that full year). Again, that's without any sort of work privilege, so you can't even drive to your job and back -- I think driving for emergency medical treatment may be the only thing you can get away with but even that might not be allowed. Ask me how I know.
At the end of the day, be responsible and don't make the same mistake so many people have made. Even if you're not intoxicated enough to be a danger to anyone else, the law doesn't give a shit, you're getting the book thrown at you if you blow .08 or over, and especially if you blow .15 or over in most states (although at that point you're just being irresponsible by driving). Aside from the legal ramifications you will easily blow through 8-10 grand (or more) in legal fees, fines, and insurance increases. It's just not worth the chance of hurting or killing someone, nor the legal issues that come with it, by any stretch of the imagination.
In NC and most states I'm aware of: you are not legally obligated to blow on the side of the road and you don't have to submit to the SFSTs (sobriety tests) either, nor do you have to answer any questions. When you get to the station, you are given a 30 minute period from the time that you enter the station to contact your lawyer or a friend/family member to come act as a witness to your breathalyzer test at the station. When your 30 minutes is up, it's time to blow whether your witness/lawyer is there or not. At this point you will be compelled to blow at the station -- you can still refuse, but simply by doing so you will lose your license for up to one year automatically, without any sort of work privilege whatsoever, even if you get your case dismissed at a later date. This is the case even if you refuse the breathalyzer at the station and ask for a blood test instead because you are, say, concerned that the machine is not accurately calibrated -- you either take the breathalyzer at the station or you lose your license for up to (or more than) a year. This means that if you get pulled over in that situation without a valid license you will get a DWLR charge, will likely be taken into custody at that time and then be forced to undergo an additional assessment and 20+ hours of counseling, in addition to the fines levied for the DWLR itself.
DUI laws are based on the concept of implied consent (basically, you signed up for this when you signed up for a driver's license) and they are pretty damned cut and dry. You might be able to get the DUI charges dismissed eventually (likely with a jury trial as the district court judge that hears your case the first time will vote to convict 9/10 times and you will need to appeal), but if you chose not to blow at the station you will still lose your license for that 1 year period (maybe a couple months earlier if your lawyer makes the right moves and you get lucky enough not to have your case continued multiple times, but likely that full year). Again, that's without any sort of work privilege, so you can't even drive to your job and back -- I think driving for emergency medical treatment may be the only thing you can get away with but even that might not be allowed. Ask me how I know.
At the end of the day, be responsible and don't make the same mistake so many people have made. Even if you're not intoxicated enough to be a danger to anyone else, the law doesn't give a shit, you're getting the book thrown at you if you blow .08 or over, and especially if you blow .15 or over in most states (although at that point you're just being irresponsible by driving). Aside from the legal ramifications you will easily blow through 8-10 grand (or more) in legal fees, fines, and insurance increases. It's just not worth the chance of hurting or killing someone, nor the legal issues that come with it, by any stretch of the imagination.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Me, too. It just wouldn't show up, and I hate that little red x. The really amusing thing is that Ugh whined and complained about how far from town his home is, how expensive it would be not to be able to drive, how his municipality should pick him up and make transportation available to him, but not once did he acknowledge the option of NOT drinking when behind the wheel. Like it's not even an option. Amazing. I, too, am tired of all the cherry-picking and conspiracy theorists. It's like a nation of undisciplined and unthinking children, and it is becoming dangerous for the rest of us. The dude can't learn in his current mental state. When exchanging with him, I don't think for a second anything is getting through. I do it because other members are viewing his threads, and I'm hoping to put a protective layer of sanity between his concepts and the minds of others (if that is even necessary). I wish he would just go away, but that's not my call. So, I'll just play Kick the Retard from time to time, instead. I am missing the soft spot for him (and others like him), I'm not that great a person...
justugh
Well-Known Member
did not counter any of the 9 points .....i done with u ....go live your life untill u die
then install blow starts in all the cars .......not a rotating jail system to get money ....but they will not do that becuase they lose out on the money from tickets fines taxes court cost
if they wanted to stop it they have had the power too for many years now ...........that simple u have to blow on a tube any BAC in the system the car engine locks for 24 hours no driving no deaths for less then 1000 bucks a car (the price drop even more if was mass produced )
Cut.Throat.
Well-Known Member
It's not the governments job to force you to not be a shithead. How about just not drink and drive? It's that simple.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
maybe because most people have some self control and don't need a drink before they drive.
also the reason why cars don't have a toilet in them. normal people control their bodily functions.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
ugh is not normal
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
living under power lines will do that to ya!