Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

Friend got a DUI....

  • Thread starter Thread starter UA_Iron
  • Start date Start date
U

UA_Iron

Guest
This was a while back actually...

Of course he was underage, 20 years old to be exact. His BAC measured in at 0.01%. He wasnt pulled over for driving erratically, just having no front license plate...

License suspended for 10 months (kind of random number)
10 years probation!!!! (Thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger)

My DUI was 3 years ago...glad it happened then and not now!!!! 10 years probation!!! My license was never suspended, restricted or touched in anyway either.

Now is there anyone here that cant tell me thats fucked up? 10 years probation for that shit?
 
Last edited:
its only probation, considering the number of people who are killed in alcohol related accidents, I have no problem with that.
 
There's no better learning experience than getting one DUI to never to do it again.

But tired drivers are just as dangerous if not more than drunk drivers...remind me if there's any laws against that?
 
UA_Iron said:
There's no better learning experience than getting one DUI to never to do it again.

But tired drivers are just as dangerous if not more than drunk drivers...remind me if there's any laws against that?
Click to expand...

You have to be fucking kidding me? I am not saying that tired drivers isnt good. But seriously no better learning experience, get a life. no offence
 
I don't want to touch this thread.

DUI is dumb

Getting caught is dumber.

The .08 is sheer insanity.

10 years probation for a 0.1 BAC is otherworldly in its stupidity.
 
daisyduke6 said:
You have to be fucking kidding me? I am not saying that tired drivers isnt good. But seriously no better learning experience, get a life. no offence
Click to expand...


I dont know what you're trying to argue here, but my statement was 100% correct. Maybe it wasnt worded to your liking.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
I don't want to touch this thread.

DUI is dumb

Getting caught is dumber.

The .08 is sheer insanity.

10 years probation for a 0.1 BAC is otherworldly in its stupidity.
Click to expand...

Yeah coming from someone that thinks drinking and driving is completely fine. :worried:
 
Without trying to cause a debate I was trying to show that 10 years probation for a 0.01% is fucken ridiculous.

Daisy, no one on this thread condones drinking and driving.
 
lol!

Know what the comedy is? This is a liberal state.

Amazing how this "police state" gets legislated by liberals when, stereotypically, it's republicans who should be creating these laws.

Shows how little americans know about their own politicians.

Pure comedy out here in cali. Ahnold's got his work cut-out here. Land where no one gives a shit about one another.
 
daisyduke6 said:
Yeah coming from someone that thinks drinking and driving is completely fine. :worried:
Click to expand...

it is. The problem arises when you cause a collision. I think you said you lost a family member to a DUI driver, and I am very sorry to hear that. It sucks. My cousin died when a wrench fell from a skyscraper and hit him in the head. As much as that hurts, I don't feel like banning skyscrapers.


NHTSA data supports the contention that the overwhelming majority of DUI fatalities happen at high BACs, and the AMA recommended that the original DUI threshold be .15, because below that, impairment was minimal.

Every subsequent reduction has been politically motivated and had zero impact, in fact, DUI fatalities are actually higher 2002-2004 than they were in the three years preceding the implementation on DUI laws.

0.01 BAC is a threat to no one. Punishing this cat is a waste of state resources.
 
I know someone that got a dui for having cough medicine in his car, course nothing ever came of it, they didnt press charges, but Ive heard of other people getting duis for like taking a normal prescription doses and other lunacy. I knew a guy in a frat that drove around the frat house on a motor scooter and got a dui. Regardless, millions and millions of people have gotten dui's. I still think alcohol sux, the probation Im sure requires people to not drink while on it so giving them a ten year break from drinking alcohol is a good thing.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
it is. The problem arises when you cause a collision. I think you said you lost a family member to a DUI driver, and I am very sorry to hear that. It sucks. My cousin died when a wrench fell from a skyscraper and hit him in the head. As much as that hurts, I don't feel like banning skyscrapers.
Click to expand...


The problem arises when you get behind the wheel and drive. Yes my uncle was killed by a drunk driver on his wedding rehersal, and it wouldnt of happend if that punk didn't get behind the wheel after he was drinking. Now would it? Or would it happen if he was solber anyways? I am sorry your cousin died like that, that must have been awful, but compairing the two is complete non sense? How do they have anything what so ever to compare too?
 
UA_Iron said:
I dont know what you're trying to argue here, but my statement was 100% correct. Maybe it wasnt worded to your liking.
Click to expand...
I just don't agree with getting a DUI once is the best learning experience to never do it again. Sorry didnt mean to be a bitch or sound like one.
 
hun but he is talking about his BAC being like 0.01 thats is maybe a beer. thats wrong for that high of punishment. but people that zget behind the wheel when they are completely wasted should be fuckin shot
 
UA_Iron said:
There's no better learning experience than getting one DUI to never to do it again.

But tired drivers are just as dangerous if not more than drunk drivers...remind me if there's any laws against that?
Click to expand...
and elderly who can't see and react about as if they're ~.15+
or those on the cell
or eating while driving
drinking hot beverages
disciplining the kids(i.e. turned around with eyes off the road not to mention distracted)
 
Wootoom said:
hun but he is talking about his BAC being like 0.01 thats is maybe a beer. thats wrong for that high of punishment. but people that zget behind the wheel when they are completely wasted should be fuckin shot
Click to expand...
he said .1 dude
 
daisyduke6 said:
The problem arises when you get behind the wheel and drive. Yes my uncle was killed by a drunk driver on his wedding rehersal, and it wouldnt of happend if that punk didn't get behind the wheel after he was drinking. Now would it? Or would it happen if he was solber anyways? I am sorry your cousin died like that, that must have been awful, but compairing the two is complete non sense? How do they have anything what so ever to compare too?
Click to expand...

The problem occurs when people drink alcohol period. Its a drug that solely affects judgement and reasoning. Good people can drink alcohol and be intoxicated making the stupid decision to drive. Its a problem of having access to this dangerous drug rather than putting social drinkers on probation for ten years. As long as alcohol remains llegal, people will drink and drive, good, honest hardworking people that make a stupid decision after consuming alcohol, which is what the effects of alcohol primarily effects. If anything should be illegal, its alchol
 
Eringobraugh said:
The problem occurs when people drink alcohol period. Its a drug that solely affects judgement and reasoning. Good people can drink alcohol and be intoxicated making the stupid decision to drive. Its a problem of having access to this dangerous drug rather than putting social drinkers on probation for ten years. As long as alcohol remains llegal, people will drink and drive, good, honest hardworking people that make a stupid decision after consuming alcohol, which is what the effects of alcohol primarily effects. If anything should be illegal, its alchol
Click to expand...
everyone should just smoke weed instead
 
Wootoom said:
hun but he is talking about his BAC being like 0.01 thats is maybe a beer. thats wrong for that high of punishment. but people that zget behind the wheel when they are completely wasted should be fuckin shot
Click to expand...

.01 bac for an average male is six beers in an hour.
 
daisyduke6 said:
The problem arises when you get behind the wheel and drive. Yes my uncle was killed by a drunk driver on his wedding rehersal, and it wouldnt of happend if that punk didn't get behind the wheel after he was drinking. Now would it? Or would it happen if he was solber anyways? I am sorry your cousin died like that, that must have been awful, but compairing the two is complete non sense? How do they have anything what so ever to compare too?
Click to expand...

The point is, the laws in place did not prevent this tragedy, and as a result of over-politicization of something, hundreds of thousands are harmed for not doing anything.

What these laws do is excessively punish minor offenders without changing behavior. Most DUI fatalities, as I pointed out in the last post, are caused by the extremely drunk driver. This driver usually drinks to severe impairment on a regular basis, to the point that punishment is not going to change his behavior.

This is why the AMA recommended the .15 threshold. The .08 is like three or four drinks; that person in not remotely impaired 99% of the time. Even NHTSA misrepresents the data, calling an "alcohol-related fatality" a fatality in which anyone involved had a BAC of .02 or higher. In other words, if a designated driver is driving three people home and is struck by a truck, killing all 4, that's 4 alcohol related fatalities. Statistical lies to support an agenda.

By any real metric, speeding kills many many more than DUI.


The end result illustrates the worthlessness of these policies:

(1) Fatalities are HIGHER now than they were in the years preceding DUI laws of any kind.

(2) Hundreds of thousands have DUIs on their record.

If (2) is not impacting (1), then the laws are just plain stupid....just like it would be stupid to ban skyscrapers because one moron dropped a wrench.

Again, I am truly sorry for your loss. But punishing the innocent makes things worse, not better.
 
UA_Iron said:
that'd be 0.1%
Click to expand...
yeah,but I think more like .125
for a 200lb guy each drink equates to about .02
factor in a metabolization rate of a drink per hour
and our thereotical drinker would be .125
 
4everhung said:
yeah,but I think more like .125
for a 200lb guy each drink equates to about .02
factor in a metabolization rate of a drink per hour
and our thereotical drinker would be .125
Click to expand...

you're probably closer - I just corrected his decimal point without looking it up.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
What these laws do is excessively punish minor offenders without changing behavior. Most DUI fatalities, as I pointed out in the last post, are caused by the extremely drunk driver. This driver usually drinks to severe impairment on a regular basis, to the point that punishment is not going to change his behavior.
Click to expand...
in my 12 years as a mortician
they call me when they're dead at the scene
I've pulled perhaps 50-60 people from wrecks
not a single person killed by a drunk
but about 2 dozen either for sure had been drinking,and some suspected

I draw blood from the victims for forensics

I think I read once that 10% of alcohol related fatalities are an innocent
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
The point is, the laws in place did not prevent this tragedy, and as a result of over-politicization of something, hundreds of thousands are harmed for not doing anything.

What these laws do is excessively punish minor offenders without changing behavior. Most DUI fatalities, as I pointed out in the last post, are caused by the extremely drunk driver. This driver usually drinks to severe impairment on a regular basis, to the point that punishment is not going to change his behavior.

This is why the AMA recommended the .15 threshold. The .08 is like three or four drinks; that person in not remotely impaired 99% of the time. Even NHTSA misrepresents the data, calling an "alcohol-related fatality" a fatality in which anyone involved had a BAC of .02 or higher. In other words, if a designated driver is driving three people home and is struck by a truck, killing all 4, that's 4 alcohol related fatalities. Statistical lies to support an agenda.

By any real metric, speeding kills many many more than DUI.


The end result illustrates the worthlessness of these policies:

(1) Fatalities are HIGHER now than they were in the years preceding DUI laws of any kind.

(2) Hundreds of thousands have DUIs on their record.

If (2) is not impacting (1), then the laws are just plain stupid....just like it would be stupid to ban skyscrapers because one moron dropped a wrench.

Again, I am truly sorry for your loss. But punishing the innocent makes things worse, not better.
Click to expand...


Okay, well you continue to drink and drive all you want. But when you kill someone, and get put in jail for life, I would hope. Have a nice life.
Isnt it just much easier to pick up a phone and call a cab? Or must you insist on telling yourself, "im okay to drive" Or what if a drunk hits you and puts you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life? Will you be saying the same thing? and quoting all of these bogus statistics? Nothing is going to change my mind on this subject.
You are stating your thoughts and opinions, and I am merely doing the same we obviously dont agree so I will walk one way, and you walk the other. I am done with this post.
 
so many other factors should be weighed into intoxication levels than a mere recording of BAC
biologically I read once that as a person consumes alcohol over the years
the meninges(the membranes surrounding the brain)become less permeable to alcohol over time
hence people that have more experince drinking alcohol have more tolerance
at least this is a biological basis for tolerance
I think other factors such as presence of mind etc factor into "tolerance"

you can't expect an 18 year old consuming alcohol for the first time at .08 and a 50 year old man who has been drinking for 30 years at .08 to be similarily intoxicated
 
Eringobraugh said:
The problem occurs when people drink alcohol period. Its a drug that solely affects judgement and reasoning. Good people can drink alcohol and be intoxicated making the stupid decision to drive. Its a problem of having access to this dangerous drug rather than putting social drinkers on probation for ten years. As long as alcohol remains llegal, people will drink and drive, good, honest hardworking people that make a stupid decision after consuming alcohol, which is what the effects of alcohol primarily effects. If anything should be illegal, its alchol
Click to expand...

Lets make alcohol illegal?


Hmmm....prohibition possibly increased consumption. At best, it was a terrible failure.
 
Modern DUI *laws* were not created to *punish* drunk drivers.

They were created (at least in the public eye) to PREVENT drunk driving. Protect the innocent.

In that respect -- they are not working.

So what _are_ they doing?

*PUNISHING* drivers who drink any resemblence of alcohol. Funny, i could've sworn it was to PREVENT drunk driving.

I find it asinine that one who gets 2 drinks and can drive fine, and even has valid scientific studies that show that his state is perfectly fine for driving..

gets the same type of record and punishment as another goon who has gone over the hill and clearly is in a state to kill innocent people.

is that fair? Hell no.

But that's how our laws our.

Wacky.
 
Testosterone boy said:
Lets make alcohol illegal?


Hmmm....prohibition possibly increased consumption. At best, it was a terrible failure.
Click to expand...

Thats b/c the justice system in the US when there was prohibition was woefully inadequate at the time so youre comparing apples and oranges at best. If you were to make it illegal, consumption would drop to single digits percentage of what it is now and all of those traffic deaths would be nearly eradicated. Saving ten times as many lives as were killed in the world trade center attacks in one year alone, not to mention non driving deaths from alcohol which are even greater. Alcohol is a poison and should be illegal regardless, are you arguing against that. Its killing people en masse, stop the insanity of it all.
 
Last edited:
I tihnk its a bad punishment,but this person should have known the consequences of drinking under age then driving,I dont feel sympathy however it is a bit far fetched
 
Eringobraugh said:
Thats b/c the justice system was woefully inadequate at the time so youre comparing apples and oranges at best. If it were made illegal consumption would drop to single digits percentage of what it is now and all of those traffic deaths would be nearly eradicated. Saving ten times as many lives as were killed in the world trade center attacks in one year alone, not to mention non driving deaths from alcohol which are even greater. Alcohol is a poison and should be illegal regardless, are you arguing against that. Its killing people en masse, stop the insanity of it all.
Click to expand...

I can think of a lot of illegal things that hum along in spite of the justice system.

Cigarettes kill about 300,000/people a year without any argument in their favor. Alcohol does have arguments in its favor.

Red wine is actually good for the cardiovascular system in moderation.

Plus I would be close to a virgin without alcohol. :worried:
 
Prohibition would be the worst thing to do. Crime rates would increase exponentially - a new black market would be created, more people imprisoned, more man hours spent trying to prevent it.

It just wouldnt work.

MADD is a prohibitionist movement btw.
 
Testosterone boy said:
I can think of a lot of illegal things that hum along in spite of the justice system.

Cigarettes kill about 300,000/people a year without any argument in their favor. Alcohol does have arguments in its favor.

Red wine is actually good for the cardiovascular system in moderation.

Plus I would be close to a virgin without alcohol. :worried:
Click to expand...

They should ban tobacco too as well as fast food joints and fattening foods, they should put fat people into forced manual labor until they lose weight. People should only be allowed to leave their house to go to work. Ban oxygen also.
 
UA_Iron said:
Prohibition would be the worst thing to do. Crime rates would increase exponentially - a new black market would be created, more people imprisoned, more man hours spent trying to prevent it.

It just wouldnt work.

MADD is a prohibitionist movement btw.
Click to expand...

Everyone should work for the state enforcing laws, neighbors reporting neighbors of suspicious behavior. Cameras in homes and on all street corners. If they break the law then they should be in jail. 80% of the people admit to driving after consuming alcohol, they should all be locked up retroactively
 
Eringobraugh said:
Everyone should work for the state enforcing laws, neighbors reporting neighbors of suspicious behavior. Cameras in homes and on all street corners. If they break the law then they should be in jail.
Click to expand...

no, wrong, not right, incorrect

~pulls out his thesaraus~
 
Eringobraugh said:
They should ban tobacco too as well as fast food joints and fattening foods, they should put fat people into forced manual labor until they lose weight. People should only be allowed to leave their house to go to work. Ban oxygen also.
Click to expand...

I'm down with squeezing out tobacco. I can't say how many hot chicks were spotted with a stogie hanging on their lips. So they missed out on some mad loving.

Well...at least they were spotted with a stogie.
 
daisyduke6 said:
Okay, well you continue to drink and drive all you want. But when you kill someone, and get put in jail for life, I would hope. Have a nice life.
Isnt it just much easier to pick up a phone and call a cab? Or must you insist on telling yourself, "im okay to drive" Or what if a drunk hits you and puts you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life? Will you be saying the same thing? and quoting all of these bogus statistics? Nothing is going to change my mind on this subject.
You are stating your thoughts and opinions, and I am merely doing the same we obviously dont agree so I will walk one way, and you walk the other. I am done with this post.
Click to expand...

Being closed minded is like being dead.

I have stated a series of empirical facts. You have given me a lot of opinions all deriving from one sad incident.

You might be surprised to know what my opinion of drunk drivers are. But you won't find out, because you're blind to anything that upsets your perception of the world. Why even get out of bed in the morning?
 
Its about time we finally just submit to BigBrother and all be safe and productive for the greater good of the state.

In his classic novel, 1984, George Orwell described a totalitarian society in which the government, referred to as the Party, had almost complete control over the people. The supreme ruler of the Party was Big Brother. Posters announced that "Big Brother is Watching You". Telescreens, which could not be turned off, droned endlessly with brainwashing propaganda about wondrous government programs. Coins, stamps, books, films, and banners proclaimed the three slogans of the Party: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

Police Patrol helicopters darted among the roofs of the buildings, allowing police to snoop in people's windows. As insidious as the Police Patrol was, the government agents most feared by the people were the Thought Police. The telescreens not only transmitted governmental policies, they also transmitted back to the Thought Police both sounds and pictures from inside the homes.

Distinctions between people were reduced through referring to them as "Comrade" rather than as "Mr." or "Mrs.". People were taught to hate their enemies through thought-control from the telescreens that drove the people into frenzied displays of rage and hate. Neighbors were enlisted by the Thought Police to spy on each other to root out unorthodoxy from society.

People lived by rigid schedules dictated by the Thought Police. Loud alarms were transmitted from the telescreens to announce when people should be doing the tasks that were specified by the Party, such as their daily exercises.

I see this as the only solution.
 
We also have to make sure we are Three Laws Safe.
 
He knew the risk and he took it. I had one last year and learned my lesson.

It could have been much worse. See my thread on this page.

Thing is, the laws don't change a persons habits until they get caught, and then some still do it over and over again.

I think 10 years probation is a little harsh, buthe did know this going into it right?
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Being closed minded is like being dead.

I have stated a series of empirical facts. You have given me a lot of opinions all deriving from one sad incident.

You might be surprised to know what my opinion of drunk drivers are. But you won't find out, because you're blind to anything that upsets your perception of the world. Why even get out of bed in the morning?
Click to expand...


I really don't like you. I said I was walking away, please do the same.
 
daisyduke6 said:
I really don't like you. I said I was walking away, please do the same.
Click to expand...

You're free to leave.

You don't even know me, so your opinion of me means as much whether or not my neighbor took a shit this morning. Save yourself the typing.

It is AMAZING...how I post a few facts about the origins of DUI laws and I am demonized.

What color is the sky in your world?
 
its interesting how perspectives can be changed by life experiences.

case in point, someone who has gotten a minor DUI arguing with someone who lost a loved one in an alcohol related auto accident.
 
Lestat said:
its interesting how perspectives can be changed by life experiences.

case in point, someone who has gotten a minor DUI arguing with someone who lost a loved one in an alcohol related auto accident.
Click to expand...

I have yet to take a side. All I did was post facts.
 
bro he got 10 yrs of informal probation no seeing a po or anything only if he fucks up again will it come into play . so i does not matter if he stays straight and fuck cell phones i hate them no place in driving or at the store ban all cell phones
 
Matt...did you laugh while implying that wrenches dropping from skyscrapers were similar to DUI's.

Your argument has no end. Papers cause cuts. Cuts get infected. People die from infections. Should paper be outlawed?
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
I have yet to take a side. All I did was post facts.
Click to expand...
its pretty apparent what side you are on when you make staments like:

"The point is, the laws in place did not prevent this tragedy, and as a result of over-politicization of something, hundreds of thousands are harmed for not doing anything."

The laws did not prevent the tragedy. Wow, really? It happened, so NOTHING prevented it. Praying to Jesus every night didn't prevent it, does that prove praying is futile?

Hundreds of thousands are harmed for not doing anything? I think they are punished (you say harmed) for drinking and drivng. We as a people set the laws, or at least elect the people that do. Sure, .08 is debatable, but its certainly not NOTHING. I can't remember the last time my blood alcohol was .08 when I did nothing.
 
Testosterone boy said:
Matt...did you laugh while implying that wrenches dropping from skyscrapers were similar to DUI's.

Your argument has no end. Papers cause cuts. Cuts get infected. People die from infections. Should paper be outlawed?
Click to expand...

it's not my argument. It is how the state rationalizes DUI laws.
 
Lestat said:
Sure, .08 is debatable, but its certainly not NOTHING. I can't remember the last time my blood alcohol was .08 when I did nothing.
Click to expand...

You are brainwashed on this issue, I am not surprised, as they start young with that MADD nonsense. I'll summarize these facts:

AMA says .15

Congress says .08.

Now I will editorialize:

Next time you need surgery, call a Congressman.
 
Eringobraugh said:
Damn decimal points, I dont see how that is even remotely possible for him to get a dui with .01%
Click to expand...


Yeah cuz that is fucking rediculous. I'm curious as to if it was the portable PBT that he blew into or the more accurate one at the station? There has to be some kind of margin of error. I remember when I was around 16 I had to blow because the police thought I was drinking, but I wasen't. It said .01 and they acted like that was normal and let me go.

10 fucking years!?!?!? That is insane. How the hell did that pass? I can see maybe after 2 or 3 DUI's because then you aren't learning your lesson, but the first DUI? 10 years? Cmon! 1 beer too many and you get your privacy violated for the next 10 years. Great.
 
ChewYxRage said:
Yeah cuz that is fucking rediculous. I'm curious as to if it was the portable PBT that he blew into or the more accurate one at the station? There has to be some kind of margin of error. I remember when I was around 16 I had to blow because the police thought I was drinking, but I wasen't. It said .01 and they acted like that was normal and let me go.

10 fucking years!?!?!? That is insane. How the hell did that pass? I can see maybe after 2 or 3 DUI's because then you aren't learning your lesson, but the first DUI? 10 years? Cmon! 1 beer too many and you get your privacy violated for the next 10 years. Great.
Click to expand...

Bout time someone summed it up.
 
I doubt it was .01
people foul up the decimal placement regularly
his punishment is more comensurate with .10
and btw it's .10
not .10%
.10% would be 1/tenth of .10

e.g. half of one is .5 or 50%
not .5%
 
I calculated it out using a bac calculator online, for a 160lb male, .01 is four ounces of budweiser or one third of a beer. Zero tolerance laws are grand arent they?

I forgot which side Im arguing here
 
Last edited:
4everhung said:
I doubt it was .01
people foul up the decimal placement regularly
his punishment is more comensurate with .10
and btw it's .10
not .10%
.10% would be 1/tenth of .10

e.g. half of one is .5 or 50%
not .5%
Click to expand...


no, it is in fact .10%

meaning 0.10% of your blood is alcohol.

a number like 0.10 has no meaning at all without units. If it meant 10% of your blood was alcohol then you'd surely be dead and the IV would keep pumping alcohol into your body after you died.
 
UA_Iron said:
no, it is in fact .10%

meaning 0.10% of your blood is alcohol.

a number like 0.10 has no meaning at all without units. If it meant 10% of your blood was alcohol then you'd surely be dead and the IV would keep pumping alcohol into your body after you died.
Click to expand...
yeah I screwed that up
but .10 is 10% regardless of units
so in my estimation though he was .10
not .01
 
Eringobraugh said:
and .01% is .0001 right?
Click to expand...
that's what I'm thinking

but the point is if it's allowable to drink to some extent
and drive

but only the most educated have an idea of what thier BAC is at any given moment
than what's the "real" barometer of driving ability?

and I've had field tests given to me that I know about at least 40% of the drivers on the road at any given moment couldn't pass

such as hold one leg up and jump on one foot in a straight line for 10 yards
I had the officer's laugh and claim they couldn't do it either
 
the huge problem with drink driving (imo) is the huge variability in test results that you get between people, and the varying impact the same dose of alcohol will have on a person - this is what has led to the creation of the .08 or .05 limit imposed by police - to limit everyone to the BAC of the person most affected at the minimum dose, taking into account also tiredness etc

im all for a legal BAC, but i dont think a blanket level for all people is ever going to work

personally im one of htose people who can drink quite a lot and not register anywhere near the BAC other people would. if i have 3 double drinks in the space of an hour, im still legal to drive (under .05) while some of my mates are over .1 ...which i suppose is always nice :)
 
GoldenDelicious said:
the huge problem with drink driving (imo) is the huge variability in test results that you get between people, and the varying impact the same dose of alcohol will have on a person - this is what has led to the creation of the .08 or .05 limit imposed by police - to limit everyone to the BAC of the person most affected at the minimum dose, taking into account also tiredness etc

im all for a legal BAC, but i dont think a blanket level for all people is ever going to work

personally im one of htose people who can drink quite a lot and not register anywhere near the BAC other people would. if i have 3 double drinks in the space of an hour, im still legal to drive (under .05) while some of my mates are over .1 ...which i suppose is always nice :)
Click to expand...
it's those meninges I mentioned earlier
basically someone who has some drinking history
their brain isn't receiving the alcohol as quickly as the novice
eventually yes the alcohol will eventually be metabolized and/or excreted
but there will be more circulating alcohol in the "experienced" drinker that is not bombarding the brain as that of the acolyte
 
Yarg! said:
bah if you drive drunk, you deserve to be castrated then stoned to death.
Click to expand...
that's what this evolved into
what is "drunk"?
various states have their BAC definitions
what's drunk in Mississippi is not drunk in Wyoming
so know your state's acceptable BAC you say?

well how many know?
and that breathalyzer is fraught with error
 
well i believe the symptoms of "drunk" is

slurred speech, unable to walk in straight line, blurred vision, unable to form coherent sentences, etc. if you meet anyone of those, you're drunk.
 
Yarg! said:
well i believe the symptoms of "drunk" is

slurred speech, unable to walk in straight line, blurred vision, unable to form coherent sentences, etc. if you meet anyone of those, you're drunk.
Click to expand...
unable to walk a straight line while holding one leg up behind you
and then requested to walk that straight line on one leg,while calculating the weight distribution necessary to accomplish such task

can your mother do that?
 
my other "one" was to extend my arms out,look up
and then extend one foot "EXACTLY" 9 inches above the ground
and then count from a 1000

when I asked if I should descend my counting or increase
I got berated
I had to explain whether I was to go from 1000,999,998 or 1000,1001,1002
when I asked this question I was informed my elevated foot wasn't at 9 inches
they were loud too
 
GoldenDelicious said:
the huge problem with drink driving (imo) is the huge variability in test results that you get between people, and the varying impact the same dose of alcohol will have on a person - this is what has led to the creation of the .08 or .05 limit imposed by police - to limit everyone to the BAC of the person most affected at the minimum dose, taking into account also tiredness etc

im all for a legal BAC, but i dont think a blanket level for all people is ever going to work

personally im one of htose people who can drink quite a lot and not register anywhere near the BAC other people would. if i have 3 double drinks in the space of an hour, im still legal to drive (under .05) while some of my mates are over .1 ...which i suppose is always nice :)
Click to expand...
Yes, unfortunately in this case we have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

at .08 I'm still a better driver then most, but its not ME I'm worried about, its the other fucktards on the road... they are already dangerous, get a little booze in them and its me and my family who are at risk.
 
4everhung said:
it's those meninges I mentioned earlier
basically someone who has some drinking history
their brain isn't receiving the alcohol as quickly as the novice
eventually yes the alcohol will eventually be metabolized and/or excreted
but there will be more circulating alcohol in the "experienced" drinker that is not bombarding the brain as that of the acolyte
Click to expand...
they potentially have something to do with it

the body is full of negative feedback loops that limit the response, over time, to the same dose of a drug.

i probably have the best of both worlds in the case of alcohol, because i feel quite intoxicated after 3 double drinks, register a low BAC, but am still very good on the road ("driving miss daisy" describes my driving style...im not in a rush to get anywhere so i drive defensively :) ) meaning i get max effect for minimum calories, minimum dollars, minimum hangover, and without the DUI risk others have

i get fairly annoyed with the government over drink driving legislation, because they try to 'educate' the population via a "two drinks in the first hour, one drink for every hour after that" guideline, but you dont hvae to be a clinician to realise that there is a hell of a difference between a 100lb girl and a 240lb male drinking the same number of drinks over time, and see that the advice given to us is severely flawed

furthermore, when i first got a breathalyser for my car, i went up to a police car after a big night out and said to them that my breathalyser showed me to be legal to drive, but i still felt my toes tingling, and could i please use their breathalyser to double check before i risk getting behind the wheel - now being a well dressed polite kind of guy, i xpected them to have no problem with it, but the bastards turned around and said "no, we cant do that" because apparently if their breathalyser is wring, they could potentially "get in the shit" :mad: i was fuming - so you dont trust your breathalyser to help out a forward thinking, responsible driver, but youll happily use that same measurement to book me, send me to court, and take my license? pricks.

the system we have at the moment is bullshit, but id rather pay $20 for a cab in an environment of nazi cops, than as Lestat said, have a bunch of useless uncoordinated bastards behind the wheel being a danger to me and mine
 
In my state dui laws are no longer about saving lifes, it's all about making $$$ for the state...their is even talk of lowering the bac to .05 :rolleyes:
 
people forget how many non-alcohol related fatalities their are...you would think that every fatality was booze related but the percentage is really low

the only viable option is to ban motor transport
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sheshredz
Female Log Recomp and Training Log
2 3
Replies
205
Views
8K
RegenexPharma
R
FishyAnchovy
Approved Log My Orals-Only Pre-Cycle LOG
Replies
21
Views
5K
MUSTANG_18
MUSTANG_18
GetToDaChoppa!
Approved Log Pre-Gear Training Log, Cardarine then Testosterone
2
Replies
169
Views
28K
Noah Wixx
Noah Wixx
Richardbrown
Napsgear: Steroids: Why They Should Be Legal
Replies
14
Views
5K
RoySimpson
RoySimpson
Richardbrown
Napsgear: 19 Moves to Amplify Your Grip Strength
Replies
12
Views
3K
Tiger Salman Khan
Tiger Salman Khan
Top Bottom