Character Issues

How'd that alcohol get in the drunk driver's system? Guns don't give psychos an enhanced sense of self-esteem or courage, emboldening them to act more rashly or do things they might not do as quickly and easily with a less lethal weapon?

Those two statements are very much alike. It's all about personal responsibility. People can drink for the wrong reason just as people can own guns for the wrong reason.

I don't like anti-gun nuts pointing to handguns as a reason for society's ills just as I don't like neo-prohibitionists pointing to alcohol as a reason for society's ills. By themselves or used responsibly, they're harmless. Used irresponsibly, either can be deadly.

I'm sure you're not a neo-P, but as I wrote earlier, I just hate to see that kind of statement tossed around.

 

I hope nobody ever has a family member or friend killed by a drunk driver. That will change your views.

I can't believe how politically incorrect it has become to pray for people to act responsibly.

I have guns to protect my family. I am in a state of readiness to do so at any time. I do not see alcohol being a defensive weapon under any circumstances. Both guns and alchol can be offensive weapons in the wrong hands.

 

I hope nobody ever has a family member or friend killed by a drunk driver. That will change your views.

Or not. I still fully believe that alcohol by itself doesn't kill people, although irresponsible use of alcohol can and does.


I can't believe how politically incorrect it has become to pray for people to act responsibly.

Hey, it's politically incorrect to pray these days, never mind the reason why. 8)


I have guns to protect my family. I am in a state of readiness to do so at any time. I do not see alcohol being a defensive weapon under any circumstances. Both guns and alchol can be offensive weapons in the wrong hands.

The issue was never about whether alcohol is a defensive weapon. Red herring. How's alcohol an offensive weapon, anyway? In your drunk driver scenario wouldn't that be the car?

Again, the statement "You too would be reminded of the mangled bodies every time you look into a glass of ale" unfairly puts the blame on alcohol instead of irresponsible behavior. I'm not reminded of mangled bodies when I see cell phones, yet states are passing laws against using them while you drive because people are being injured and killed. Remember, when the cell phone is distracting the driver's thoughts and attention (and possibly thumbs), it IS the cell phone that is slowing his/her reaction time.

 

I have to believe that most social drinkers feel the same pinch as I do with regard to being extremely concerned about getting a DUI even when you are being responsible.

Again....responsible is just that and is not about having 10 drinks and declaring you are fit to drive 30 miles across town to your house after the golf outing.

Responsible is 2-3 drinks after work at an establishment near your house and/or the same before a big dinner out with coffee to follow.

The problem is that even with these small amounts a cop out to drag your ass in just might get to do that if you blow a .08 or maybe you could get an impaired for .06.

At that point you are seriously screwed by losing your license, paying fines and most definitely seeing your car insurance skyrocket.

Just like credit card issuers the car insurance companies just can't wait for you to screw up in any fashion so they can raise your costs exorbitantly.

 

My last post on this issue. I am not going to convince you and you certainly are not going to convince me. I have seen, first hand, peoples lives end and I have seen peoples lives ruined by the total lack of concern shown by drunk drivers.

Am I going to see the bad side of alcohol? Probably will for the rest of my life. I will still have a drink with friends but not if I must drive.

Will I speak out against alcohol in general? Absolutely not. I can be concerned with that which I equate alcohol abuse without being for prohibition.

Will I believe to my dying day that there are people out there that have convinced themselves that "it won't happen to me" and will kill themselves or some innocent person by their abuse of alcohol? Absolutely YES!

When this problem hits close to home, I believe you will think a little differently. I could be wrong and one of your family members being killed by a drunk driver will not affect you. However, I believe it will.

 

Well I didn't say it was my last post on anything... just last post on alcohol. :wink:

I guess the moral of the story, MCG, is: If you think the big bad wolf is waiting outside your front door... go out the back! :shock: 8)

 

Absolutely....every insurance company wants their policy holders to engage in high risk behaviors thereby materially increasing the risk that they will bankrupt the company in the process of paying out the billions of dollars in settlements as a result of the incredible destruction that their judgementally impaired policy holders have wrought......I can't imagine why they would need to raise premiums....fools, all of them. I can't see why anybody would not want to lower premiums in the face of higher risk. What could they possibly be thinking..... :roll:

 

not at all Tom

<r>I think that drunk driving should be illegal.<br/>

<QUOTE><s>

</e></QUOTE>

Its my contention that the MADD movement has been hijacked by prohibitionists who continue to push back the line of what constitutes 'drunk.' In some of these states, its literally to the point in which (depending on your size and weight) that cough medicine can land you in jail. Some states have zero tolerance legislation that will land you in the pokie if you have been behind the wheel at all while drinking previously...regardless of whether or not you are drunk.<br/>
<br/>
One of my good friends was killed coming to my house with a car full of booze. He was stone cold sober and not a drop of booze in his system. Yet his accident was ruled 'alcohol related' because there was booze in the car... One more statistic to boost the cause...<br/>
<br/>
As you well know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This has become yet another bastardized movement that has taken on a life of its own. Its a matter of where you draw the line. DUI enforcement has moved from pulling over suspected drunk drivers, to flat out unconstitutional police check points for DUI. Of course, those check points are no longer for DUI either.. they are now for seat belt, insurance, possible warrants etc.. Give an inch, they take a mile.<br/>
<br/>
I'm far from the black helicopter type, these are actions that have been taken and continue to be taken to this day. To me, it is about allocation of resources.. Do we really need 4 check points and a full patrol of officers in a city of say 40k??<br/>
<br/>
A little diddy for ya..<br/>
<br/>
A few weeks ago, we had a man executed in his front yard. His home just a few blocks from the court house. He was to testify that day in a fairly news worthy story in these parts. He was executed in broad daylight and within a few blocks of 2 police check points that were set up. Couldn't/shouldn't we spare the man hours to make sure that guy gets to trial??<br/>
<br/>
We are constantly chasing our tails in this country with legislation that does nothing but create more government and more ways for you to wind up 'in the system' while offering no real extra protection or benefit.. but the Governor's get to run nifty campaign ads surrounded by Troopers just to show you how many seat belt tickets were handed out in a given weekend.. <br/>
<br/>
So we are not that far off-base. I've literally had to pick up the corpse of one of my best friends who got drunk and took off on my motorcycle. I attempted CPR, was the first to find him and stayed with him.<br/>
<br/>
Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 5 VERY good friends of mine who died from drunk driving accidents. Not a law passed will bring them back and obviously, not a law passed will keep some people from doing stupid things.</r>

 

I have to say that I am with Tom all the way on this one!

When the DUI laws started coming in my first thought was that I didn't get a DUI. As a bit of time went by my thinking shifted to thank God I didn't do any damage to anyone in the past when I drove after drinking.

I think that is exactly what the DUI laws did to most of us, first self preservation, then a realization that but for the Grace of God I could have been one of those people causing the harm Tom talked about.

One of my good friends back in Kissimmee lost his girlfriend to a drunk driver. My attitude is to get them off the road, and it has certainly affected the way I think when out in the evening.

I have to disagree with Corey, what brought these laws about was MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Many of those mothers lost someone and I don't look at this as a PC issue.

Just my humble opinion.

 

OK, Corey just had to bring up the seat belt issue... :wink:

I see that as a total invasion of my right of choice. Why do I think differently about this? Because if I do not wear my seat belt, the only person I hurt/kill is myself. It does not affect the life of any other person involved in the accident. I think the push for wearing seat belts should come from the family, not the government. Cindy and I both wear seat belts. Not because it is mandated, but because we care to keep each other safe. :idea:

 

There's a new boss

<r>and it ain't the same as the old boss.<br/>
<br/>
MADD exploits those mothers. It isn't the organization that started off tugging at the heart strings of America.<br/>

<QUOTE><s>

</e></QUOTE>

by all means, please read the link. I can post more later.<br/>
<br/>
I gotta take the boy shopping.</r>

 

re: drunk driving.

"When this problem hits close to home, I believe you will think a little differently."

It has, and I don't. I am, however, sorry that you either lost a family member or they were horrifically injured due to a drunk driving incident. I still believe that irresponsible behavior, and not alcohol by itself, leads to drunk driving injuries and deaths.


re: seat belts.

"I see that as a total invasion of my right of choice. Why do I think differently about this? Because if I do not wear my seat belt, the only person I hurt/kill is myself. It does not affect the life of any other person involved in the accident."

But what about people not involved in the accident? You may have health insurance, but millions of people in this country don't. Who pays for their healthcare when they go to the county hospital with broken bones and head wounds because they've been thrown around in their car like a rag doll or even ejected? Taxpayers like me. Seatbelts reduce tax burden. Oh, and they save lives and reduce injuries, too.

 

Now we are equating the extra cost of healthcare with the act of drunken vehicular homicide?

I know that you are in agreement but take exception to my phrase making alcohol the evil demon. I realize it is not the alcohol but the act of uncaring person that chooses to drink to excess. I just can't help but think of the innocent victims, their faces burned into my mind, when I see someone drinking to excess. Maybe it is not the "ale" that does it to me but the acts of the person with the ale in their hand. Either way, the result is the same for me.

Please don't make me continue with this. You have backed me down to a compromise. That is as far as it will go.

 

"Now we are equating the extra cost of healthcare with the act of drunken vehicular homicide? "

Not at all, and we both know that. But again, the choice to wear or not wear a seatbelt can impact more than just the individual.


"I realize it is not the alcohol but the act of uncaring person that chooses to drink to excess."

Then we agree.


One last gratuitous remark: Regardless of archaic (and uninformed) Texas alcohol labeling laws, the strength of a beer does not determine whether it's an "ale". Ales are made with top-fermenting yeasts and lagers (such as the American Light Lagers Budweiser, Miller and Coors) are made with bottom-fermenting yeasts. There are low alcohol ales and there are high alcohol lagers. Ales and lagers are collectively referred to as "beer".

 

Have to say that BDR and I agree pretty closely on this one.

I think I know why in that in LA they will jack you up with the least bit of excuse and note I said excuse and not provocation.

This is not black helicopter stuff folks it is blatant reality and it is unforgiving and sometimes oppressive...at least where I live and in LA where BDR lives.

Sometimes the conservative factor in you guys only allows you to see black or white and that's why I can never claim to be a conservative more than anything else.

Life is never just black or white.

 

What nonsense, why the #$@!$!$ do you have to make this a political argument.

But since you did, some of the most closed minded people I know are liberals. But I am not going to say they are all that way.

We can agree on this.

 

Sorry for the politically charged statement Bill....might have been the couple of cocktails I had while picking up the carry out :wink:

In any event life sometimes presents rules and laws that are black or white and .08 is one of them. Purposely looking for drivers who might just blow a minimum .08 but who otherwise are doing just fine except for that 5 mph over the speed limit thing or having an expired license plate seems to be pretty aggressive.

I mean 5 mph is 5 over and an expired plate is just that but when a cop smells alcohol it becomes a huge huge problem and these days there is no looking the other way or letting you continue the other 3 blocks to your house.

I realize there has to be a cutoff point and it used to be .10 which maybe was a little more realistic. I do appreciate getting drunk driving drunks off the road but many good driving social drinkers have suffered great financial consequences for .08.\

On a side note I want to mention the time a couple of years ago when I actually called the Kalamazoo police and reported a drunk driver who obviously was very impaired and sitting at the green light with her lights off after she lurched and swerved to get there.

She was arrested that night not too far from where I saw her and they actually called me said I might have to testify but fortunately she wound up pleading guilty.

As I said....I am not defending drunk driving drunks here just questioning the emphatic...aggressive, across the board enforcement of .08 and especially as a revenue source for the local government and insurance company.

 

I have no idea why you would make such a statement and in no way agree.

 

Duplicate deleted

 

Of course driving without seatbelts kills and injures a whole bunch of folks too...

No effect on anybody else except in terms of car insurance rates, medical costs, and the inevitable lawsuits against the other driver who may or may not have been at fault but wouldn't have been involved in a fatal or injury accident had the first driver been wearing a belt.

Similar idea not involving a seatbelt; here we had a kid speeding on a pocket rocket motorcycle his dad bought for him...no experience...learner's permit...not legal to operate after dark (it was) and he was speeding...witnesses and reconstruction experts estimate 80 to 100 on a 35 mph street where kids "cruise"...showing off for his friends...another kid in a pickup truck turned left in front of him, not realizing his speed (there was 235 feet of clearance when he started to turn)...the kid on the cycle was killed

The rider's father pushed authorities to prosecute the driver of the truck...got an "expert" to estimate the cycle's speed at 29-35 mph. (Bull...the cycle hit the rear wheel drive pickup so hard that the drive shaft was cut in two...the cycle ended up inside the truck cab.)

Under Ohio law they really had no choice...you have a responsibility to yield to all oncoming traffic even if they are speeding and breaking the law...they claim the speed was irrelevant...they threatened the kid with vehicular homicide and got him to plead guilty to vehicular manslaughter.

I have a lot of strong opinions on this case but the point is that this kid's life is ruined...you can pay a price for somebody else's irresponsibility (such as them not wearing a seatbelt.)