willard

Attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder are also illegal. We don't wait until the act is completed before we consider a crime to have occurred. Almost every law in our society is aimed at deterence. Laws themselves never physically prevent a crime, they merely punish those who are found guilty of breaking them. To remove laws that deter people from doing something that is proven to be a menace would reduce our society to anarchy. Our DUI laws may not be perfect, but they are effective. Nothing we can do will ever prevent all drunk driving, the same as nothing we ever do will prevent all murder. See above. Once again I ask, where is the benefit? You are saying that in a healthy economy people drink more and therefore more people drive drunk. Some would argue just the opposite, that a poor economy leads to more drinking and hence more drunk driving. In either case, the drunk driving is a symtom of the economy, not a cause. If everyone stopped driving after they were done drinking the causative factor, the economy, would be uneffected. If you really want to help the economy by drinking, then hire a taxi service to drive you to and from the bar. It's safer than driving yourself, it puts money into our economy, you can sleep on the way home, no worries about the cops, and you get to puke in their car, not yours. I never said or implied that I did think it was funny. On the contrary I have, in the past, lost my job to a depressed economy.

Welcome back! I looked at the pics you posted and have seen those charts before. They are good for what they are intended, and that is estimating BAC and it's effects. The first shows a slide rule type device for BAC. Interestingly it is set for the conditions to match my body weight, etc. It shows a BAC of .006 one hour after consuming a beer. What it does not show is what impairment there would be at that level, or at any BAC level, just the estimated BAC. The second pic shows what impairment can be expected at various BAC. It clearly shows that there is a decline in visual function and a decline in the ability to perform two tasks at the same time. .006 is well below what any state considers the maximum BAC, but to say there is no impairment at all because the second chart stops at .02 is misleading. We can not make that assumption. If the charts are correct, then setting the limit at .08-.10 is more than fair to drinkers, since even at .02 and more so at .05 the effects are significant.

neener neener.. I stopped at the local dairy outlet store on the way home yesterday.. I just had a nice big glass of "whole" milk... and I do mean whole.. its only pasturized with ALL the cream and butterfat left in... MMMMMMMMMM That's the way it's supposed to be served.

I am. You may think it amusing when somebody loses a family member or close friend due to the actions of a drunk driver but, I can assure you, most, including myself, do not.

Exactly my point. Driving while intoxicated does not add value to our society, due to cultural norms. Of all the reasons you have offered in support of allowing people to drink and drive, not one can be considered anywhere close to reasonable.

Yes. Like pollution and poop, DUI has benefits. It's transportation after all--it is commerce. People value it, or else they would not persist in doing it despite all the inherent costs and the legally induced risks associated with getting caught. Cannibalism is valued by many people...does that mean we should make it legal?? Maybe we should just quit enforcing all traffic laws. Let people drive as fast as they want and only punish those who hurt cause a wreck. Do away with CDLs and let anyone who wants to drive 18-wheelers for a living. As long as they don't cause a wreck we'll let them drive as many hours and miles a week as they want, as fast as they want, and overloaded as much as they want. We won't even require them to have any kind of lighting on their trucks and trailers. Maybe then you would be happy.

Exactly. That's essentially how legal BAC/driving limits have been set. Such laws need to have a degree of consistency that applies equally (in the legal sense) to everyone, so that there will be a common standard that everyone can predict without having to guess what applies to them. What I mean is this: any statutory BAC limit – be it 0.10%, or 0.08%, or whatever, is essentially a compromise out of necessity. They take studies that show that people's driving performance tends to become substantially impaired at, say, somewhere in the 0.07% to 0.11% range, depending on the individual. Person A may be able to drive safely at 0.11%. Person B has a low tolerance, and becomes an unsafe driver at 0.06%. So the legislature decides to compromise at a mid-range. The law may be unfair to the guy who can drive safely at 0.11%, and may place the public at risk from the lightweight who's unsafe at 0.07%, but hey – it's all part of the social compact. Well stated.

Hey Man...you gonna eat that thing? I got the munchies.

I know what you are going through, having had to put down two dogs of mine that became very unpredictable. As long as you have tried to find a solution to the problem then you are doing the right thing both for your family and your dog.I know it's not an easy thing to do, but you will know that it's the right thing. The sister dog will have an adjustment period to go through. She may be fine for a couple days and then not eat for a couple. It's sad, but they do go through a grieving period much like we do. She will need a little extra attention during this time, as well as time alone. She'll let your family know what she wants. Hang in there, you'll get through this.

If you're into country... http://www.roughstock.com/cowpie/songs/

If you could have a guaranteed 100% save your butt from anything reserve for only $100,000,000, would you tax the drunks so you could have it? We need protection from people who would tax us for their own risk insensitivity. You haven't answered the question.

No misunderstanding at all, I agree with you 100%.

Excellent point. To some people eating beef is a sin. To others not eating all the beef you put on your plate is a sin. It's a very subjective concept. One biggie, though, is spilling good beer. That is just a sinfull waste.

You can count the total number of moving infractions on my driving record with zero fingers--I'm one of the people that doesn't particularly like a BAC even as high as .08 because of the subjective experience. I do think there's a big philosophical aspect to ex ante regulations that's substantially contrary to our founding social principles, apart from the economic implications which are in turn substantial. It's a naive and costly way of thinking, that we can improve society by them. And I think that it draws an amusingly PC-compatible reaction from a usually PC-hostile crowd. Until a way is developed to test each and every driver for their own tolerance to alcohol and other drugs we have no choice but to go by past experience and other available data to make an educated decision as to where we draw the line. Just saying that one should be allowed to drive intoxicated just because he has somehow managed to do it before doesn't quite cut it. How long would you allow a staggering drunk to pack both your main and reserves? You may be able to get away with it for years, you may pay the price the first jump. The only way to make sure a drunk doesn't pack your chute incorrectly is to not let him in the first place. What do you consider in this discussion to be politically correct? This is one case where, truly, if you aren't doing something to help prevent it, then you are contributing to it. I'm glad to see that you don't drive if you feel your BAC is near .08. It shows that you are doing something to help prevent an intoxicated driver, even if it is just yourself.

My tent got run over by a pickup truck once. But it wasn't the truck's fault, it was a government conspiracy! I know because I found unexploded canisters of propane nearby! And satellite images showed hotspots on the ground! (Some said they were from the campfires, but I know better!) This thread is totally rediculous

In an anarchy you would be able to do as you wish. But this isn't an anarchy. Our society balances the rights of people. "The right to swing your fist stops where the next guys nose starts". We have a right to free speech, but not the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Get the picture? The right of the majority of the public to drive on the streets and do so in a relatively safe environment outweighs your right to drive on the same highways in an inebriated state.

Like I said in my post, the FAA. The numbers are there. Whether you choose to accept them is up to you.

Gee, I guess I am getting old. I thought everyone knew she was hurt in a skydive accident. If I remember correctly the whole story line started in the pilot for the series. She had the accident, Steve Austin was her boyfriend and had all his bionic parts by then. He managed to convince his boss (owner?) that she would make a great secret agent and that he should spring the dough to get her the upgrade. He shouldn't have got her the ear though. It's bad enough that women can read our minds and our lips, but to enable one of them to hear us whisper from 1000 yards away?

Not sure if it's what you're looking for, but http://www.wunderground.com has a section titled Historical & Almanac. Hope this helps.

What is tenuous about it? Any amount of alcohol causes diminished capacity. The limit has to placed somewhere, most states place it at .08 to .10 since that is slightly below where the effects of alcohol on most people take a very sharp turn for the worse. It amazes me how, with all the research that has been done, with all the studies to have proven the effects of alcohol, with all the warnings out there by everyone from MADD to the police, from AAA to the producers of alcoholic beverages, some people cling to the idea that they can drive as well drunk as they do sober and, in some cases such as juveniles and totally irresponsible so-called "adults", they claim to be able to actually drive better drunk than sober. In interesting study is one done by the FAA of the effects of alcohol on pilots. I won't go to the trouble of posting a link here since I don't think you would use it, but instead will give a brief overview. What they found is that, even several hours after the BAC had returned to normal the pilots' capacity to deal with even normal emergency procedures (those that are trained for and practiced regularly) was greatly reduced, even by as much as 90% 24 hours later. If you want the rest, go look it up.

If you assume that to start off with, circular logic will bring you back there. Why do you think it is so to start off with? Apart from your assumptions, that is. No assumptions needed. Drinking and driving is reckless from both a sociological and physiological standpoint. Consumption of alcohol causes, among other things, slowed reaction times, poor judgement, degraded eyesight, loss of concentration. These are by no means the only effects, just a few to make a point. Any of these can be caused by a mulititude of other activities, including those you have listed in other posts. However, alcohol can and does cause all of these symptoms and more, and all at the same time. This is not an assumption, it is fact proven time and time again through stidies by many foundations, including those representing brewers, distilleries, and wineries. For anyone to ingnore these findings is nothing short of reckless and irresponsible.

As an older student at OSU, I've been telling the young 'uns not to be too sure about the outcome of this game. Of course I'm cheering for the Bucks, but the fact is Florida had a much tougher schedule, due mostly to the SEC. There is also the very real chance that if Florida hadn't lost that game, they would be ranked #1. No matter how it turns out, it's gonna be a great game! Oh, one other thing....it don't matter what the conferences bowl records are, the only thing people will remember is who wins the game next Monday night.

Wow According to your way of thinking it is ok for someone who is so drunk they can barely walk to get in a car and take off down a 6 lane highway jst because they forgot to put the cat out. Makes perfect sense to me But the decision is made without full information. They have no idea what may happen on the drive home that will require them to take evasive action. They don't know for sure if, when they leave the bar, the streets will be covered in ice. They can't possibly know if a child will be out late at night and step out from behing a parked car. News Flash! Driving while drunk is by it's very nature a reckless act! By that rationalization a person who fires a rifle at the heads of people walking down the street should not be arrested or even stopped until he actually wounds or kills someone, regardless of how close the misses are.

And just what benefit would that be that it is so important to be worth risking innocent lives? If it is that important that they go somewhere then they shouldn't drink...that simple. Driving while under the influence of alcohol has no benefit to anyone! A rational person would know that if they have to drive then they shouldn't drink. It's that simple. Just because a decision is made while sober doesn't mean it is rational. In fact, those who go to a party or out to drink, knowing they will get drunk, and decide beforehand to drive home anyway are the worst offenders. They are demonstrating that they don't care about anyone else on the road. They don't care if they cause an accident and hurt or kill someone as long as they don't have to get a ride from someone else or calla taxi. I have nothing against drinking. Hell, I get shit-faced once in a while just like I did Sunday night. And I have nothing against driving. I average app. 36,000 miles/year on my car. If I go somewhere and end up drinking I let my car sit. I have never had a problem getting a ride home or back to get my car the next day, even before I moved into the city and lived 1000 miles from nowhere. If I have to be somewhere the next morning, it's simple...I don't drink. It is what is called REPONSIBILITY, something that most people get when they grow up and realize it's not all about them.