And for the last time, my point wasn't that the two are the same. My point was that the guy is already under a lot of stress, knows he fucked up big, ask for some advice, and a bunch of guys who aren't so squeaky clean themselves, keep repeating the same shit. Ether answer his question or move on. This isn't exactly the board of latter day saints.
Impaired driving
- Thread starter cerevro
- Start date
Compared to a drunk driver everyone here is squeaky clean.And for the last time, my point wasn't that the two are the same. My point was that the guy is already under a lot of stress, knows he fucked up big, ask for some advice, and a bunch of guys who aren't so squeaky clean themselves, keep repeating the same shit. Ether answer his question or move on. This isn't exactly the board of latter day saints.
I'm with Northern Bear with this one. In this day and age, there's no excuse for driving impaired.Thanks for being so supportive to a brother who reached out. Maybe someone will be as kind one day in your time of need...
About 20 years ago, I came literally within 3" of being killed, along with my then wife and three kids. A drunk came over the crest of a hill, passing another car. I swerved to the shoulder, and so did he! I pulled back and went right between the drunk and the car he was passing. The drunk lost control in the gravel and put his car in the ditch. I pulled over as did the guy being passed.
It turned out his blood alcohol was more than double the limit. This was at 7:00 in the evening. He was a young and my guess is he stopped in "for a few beers" after work, which was likely construction or something, based on what he was wearing.
He wasn't an evil monster, but the reality is he almost killed my entire family. The cops figured he was doing 110 in an 80. I was doing about 90 and this was because I was pulling a boat trailer up a hill. I've often thought that that POS boat probably saved my life...
So no sympathy here... Glad nobody was hurt and hopefully the OP will look back on this at some point as a lucky break. His insurance is going to go through the roof though...
At
That's horse shit.Compared to a drunk driver everyone here is squeaky clean.
Yes it is because young people do get enslaved and killed in the sex trade geez. I don't agree that ALL prostitution is victimization or exploitation, but the fact is mostly women and children DO get enslaved and victimized in the trade, they also get beaten, murdered, tortured etc etc. The question is, since the trade cannot be stopped, how to we remove its worst elements. And that is 100% the same situation with DUI. It is ridiculous to expect people to act responsibly when consuming substances that lower their inhibition and alter their thoughts...that can in fact render them unconscious. And as I have shown, the bulk of the carnage from DUI come from highly intoxicated drivers (over 0.15). So why not just make the not so serious offenders subject to a stiff financial penalty (say min $5000 fine to 5% of net worth), and leave the criminal penalties (including 1 months jail for first offense) for those over say 0.13. Repeat offenses of the ilk will include 10K to 20% of net worth fine to the crown and 5 years in prison.Do you agree with that idea?
The worst things that happen in the sex trade are not worse than killing all the young children in an innocent family.
I would also make it mandatory for all pubs to be equipped with e breathalyzer that allows patrons to test their BAC before leaving and produces a time stamped records. If someone gets pulled over they can show the officer the proof with their license number on it. If the officer still feels the driver is impaired he may administer a road side test. If the person is over they get a 24 hour suspension and no fine. (receipt is good for 1 hour to drive STRAIGHT home)
How about you stop spouting off your hair brained ideas with massive flaws in them and just follow the law?Yes it is because young people do get enslaved and killed in the sex trade geez. I don't agree that ALL prostitution is victimization or exploitation, but the fact is mostly women and children DO get enslaved and victimized in the trade, they also get beaten, murdered, tortured etc etc. The question is, since the trade cannot be stopped, how to we remove its worst elements. And that is 100% the same situation with DUI. It is ridiculous to expect people to act responsibly when consuming substances that lower their inhibition and alter their thoughts...that can in fact render them unconscious. And as I have shown, the bulk of the carnage from DUI come from highly intoxicated drivers (over 0.15). So why not just make the not so serious offenders subject to a stiff financial penalty (say min $5000 fine to 5% of net worth), and leave the criminal penalties (including 1 months jail for first offense) for those over say 0.13. Repeat offenses of the ilk will include 10K to 20% of net worth fine to the crown and 5 years in prison.
I would also make it mandatory for all pubs to be equipped with e breathalyzer that allows patrons to test their BAC before leaving and produces a time stamped records. If someone gets pulled over they can show the officer the proof with their license number on it. If the officer still feels the driver is impaired he may administer a road side test. If the person is over they get a 24 hour suspension and no fine. (receipt is good for 1 hour to drive STRAIGHT home)
First of all, several provinces including B.C. and Ontario have administrative driving prohibitions for first time offenders,
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired-driving.shtml
http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/tickets/Pages/Driver-prohibitions.aspx
Drunk driving has produced more case law than any other crime in Canada. 0.8 has been held up by the Supreme Court and is one of the highest levels allowed in the world. It's not going to change.
You aren't drunk before you make the decision how much to drink. If you don't have the self discipline to not drink more after one or two drinks, you deserve what's coming to you.
Breathalyzer at the bar to give you a free pass to drive valid for 1 hour? Holy shit! You could blow at a low level, then drink for another half hour before getting in your car and drive from London to St. Thomas with time to spare!
Especially the guys barebacking who expose their unsuspecting wife / SO to syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia and trichomoniasis or viral infections that are incurable: hepatitis B, herpes simplex virus (HSV or herpes), HIV, and human papillomavirus (HPV).Compared to a drunk driver everyone here is squeaky clean.
Well they can tweak it for sure, but the bar would have to stop serving a patron once they take the breathalyzer. The time provided could be based on distance to home on the drivers license. Deliberate attempts to cheat the system will come with draconian financial penalties. I don't think people make the DECISION to drive drunk. They go out with the intention of having one or two.. then then before you know it they lose track of time and consumption... well, because they become impaired ...geez. A conviction is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE even if the penalties are administrative. This should not be the case for first time offenders unless they are extremely drunk. So what if the levels are low, high whatever vs other jurisdictions?. The data points to a different conclusion now that there has been more study of the issue. The supreme court does not rule on the technical correctness of legislation, but the constitutionality. The govt has the legal right to set that threshold, regardless if its the correct one or not. Based on the continued carnage, clearly some changes in focus are required... or maybe you can just stick your head in the sand and continue on a failed course of action.How about you stop spouting off your hair brained ideas with massive flaws in them and just follow the law?
First of all, several provinces including B.C. and Ontario have administrative driving prohibitions for first time offenders,
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired-driving.shtml
http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/tickets/Pages/Driver-prohibitions.aspx
Drunk driving has produced more case law than any other crime in Canada. 0.8 has been held up by the Supreme Court and is one of the highest levels allowed in the world. It's not going to change.
You aren't drunk before you make the decision how much to drink. If you don't have the self discipline to not drink more after one or two drinks, you deserve what's coming to you.
Breathalyzer at the bar to give you a free pass to drive valid for 1 hour? Holy shit! You could blow at a low level, then drink for another half hour before getting in your car and drive from London to St. Thomas with time to spare!
So now you want a private business to help regulate the law over their patrons? What if they don't? You going to introduce even more legislation to hold them accountable? Who is going to pay for these breathalyzer machines? You know that people can take a taxi, walk or call a friend if they have more than 2 drinks? Why should the bar limit their profits and incur costs of buying and maintaining a machine when there are at least 3 alternatives available? If they don't blow into the machine, who is going to stop them from leaving?Well they can tweak it for sure, but the bar would have to stop serving a patron once they take the breathalyzer. The time provided could be based on distance to home on the drivers license. Deliberate attempts to cheat the system will come with draconian financial penalties. I don't think people make the DECISION to drive drunk. They go out with the intention of having one or two.. then then before you know it they lose track of time and consumption... well, because they become impaired ...geez. A conviction is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE even if the penalties are administrative. This should not be the case for first time offenders unless they are extremely drunk. So what if the levels are low, high whatever vs other jurisdictions?. The data points to a different conclusion now that there has been more study of the issue. The supreme court does not rule on the technical correctness of legislation, but the constitutionality. The govt has the legal right to set that threshold, regardless if its the correct one or not. Based on the continued carnage, clearly some changes in focus are required... or maybe you can just stick your head in the sand and continue on a failed course of action.
I'm the one with my head in the sand? You are the one that hasn't done your research. An administrative driving prohibition is NOT a criminal offense. You do not get a criminal record that will prevent you from crossing the border. It's a PROVINCIAL act.
Administrative driving prohibitions have reduced deaths by over 50%. They have also been upheld as constitutional since this article. I'd say that is pretty effective legislation.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...es-spared-bc-government-says/article17069711/
In post 60, you said I was spreading disinformation by posting government supplied statistics, implying they were inflated. Now you're saying there's carnage on the roads?
You need to do more research on the law. Not having the intention to do something (i.e. drinking and driving) does not absolve you of being criminally responsible. That's why there are Criminal Code charges of Unlawful Act and Criminal Negligence to cover off crimes other than drinking and driving. It's all on the internet and free.
This is usually the case with you once you don't have a point you resort to name calling. You have always been, and you always will be a troll trying to bait people into arguments to make yourself feel better, which leads me to question your mental capacity.Absolutely. I have never driven under the influence. You obviously have which makes you dirt.
Again even if you have one drink do not get behind the wheel of a car, the average male take 2 hours to burn off a standard drink. Unless you have a drink and wait at least two hours prior to getting behind the wheel there is a chance that you will blow over 0.0 in BAC.
Not mental capacity - mental health. I suspect serious mental illnesses.This is usually the case with you once you don't have a point you resort to name calling. You have always been, and you always will be a troll trying to bait people into arguments to make yourself feel better, which leads me to question your mental capacity.
Again even if you have one drink do not get behind the wheel of a car, the average male take 2 hours to burn off a standard drink. Unless you have a drink and wait at least two hours prior to getting behind the wheel there is a chance that you will blow over 0.0 in BAC.
Drunk drivers directly threaten the lives of strangers. No one here does that. It's an obvious difference and you are only trying to debate the point to justify your own poor behavior .That's horse shit.
It's a myth that SP's spread disease. SP's are much more likely to practice safe sex than a civilian. Particularly things that are fatal like HIV, the rate of transmission through the sex industry is very nearly zero.Especially the guys barebacking who expose their unsuspecting wife / SO to syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia and trichomoniasis or viral infections that are incurable: hepatitis B, herpes simplex virus (HSV or herpes), HIV, and human papillomavirus (HPV).
The same cannot be said of drunk drivers who kill a significant number of innocent people, including children, every day.
You are so desperate to justify your poor behavior that you have taken to attacking every SP on this board.
The limit is 0.05, I have certainly never driven with BAC anywhere near that limit. If you have then you deserve to be judged for it.This is usually the case with you once you don't have a point you resort to name calling. You have always been, and you always will be a troll trying to bait people into arguments to make yourself feel better, which leads me to question your mental capacity.
Again even if you have one drink do not get behind the wheel of a car, the average male take 2 hours to burn off a standard drink. Unless you have a drink and wait at least two hours prior to getting behind the wheel there is a chance that you will blow over 0.0 in BAC.
Uh - NO. There is nothing "very morally wrong" or even slightly morally wrong about hobbying. Hobbying is good wholesome fun and is a positive good. It is very moral.... but my point is that a bunch of people who engaging in something that is very morally wrong, ...
Uh - NO. There is nothing "very morally wrong" or even slightly morally wrong about hobbying. Hobbying is good wholesome fun and is a positive good. It is very moral.
Tell that to the wives and kids that most of these guys have. We'll see if they share your views, and believe me, most of the guys on this board that are bashing the OP, are married with kids fucking escorts, don't kid yourself pal.
So you believe prostitution is immoral and should be banned? Answer yes or no.Tell that to the wives and kids that most of these guys have. We'll see if they share your views, and believe me, most of the guys on this board that are bashing the OP, are married with kids fucking escorts, don't kid yourself pal.
for married men yes with kids, yes.So you believe prostitution is immoral Answer yes or no.
You probably don't belong on terb, then.for married men yes with kids, yes.
Question, if you had (or have) kids, would you prefer:
A) You separate from your wife and see your kids every weekend
or
B) Your wife and kids are killed by a drunk driver
ONLY those two options. Do you know ANYONE who prefers B?
