Zero tolerance for drunk driving is CRAZY.

[iprint]

shit - guys go out partying on a Thursday and are driving to work on Friday morning yet they still have alcohol in their blood.

That is drinking and driving. You have to make a concious decission when you start to drink, how long will it be in my system and when do I need to drive again, it is very simple.

 

[Rylan]

That is drinking and driving. You have to make a concious decission when you start to drink, how long will it be in my system and when do I need to drive again, it is very simple.

I understand that, but it shows my point. Many don't know how long it will be in their system. And for everyone it is different. They wake up in the morning, no hang-over, feeling fine, no impairments, and go to work.

So the system needs to take all these things into consideration when making these laws. Not only that but road blocks and DUI busts should not just be done at night, but all the time.

If you really want to crib drinking and driving, then do it right. Not half-assed like most things are done in this world.

 

[basketcase]

I sympathise, but they are infringing on my civil liberties. ...

I love the civil liberties argument.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

These are the tragic deaths that started this whole new legislation .


http://santaclausfund.ca/News/Ontario/article/456916


IMHO, from what I read in the news at a later date. These teens were served a total of at least 31 alcoholic beverages at a posh Lake Joseph golf and country club.

The father of the driver was the person who wrote a letter to Dalton etc.

And this just proves my point. People on this board think having one drink and five or six is the same and should treated equally. I don't think they're the same.

 

[jwmorrice]

And this just proves my point. People on this board think having one drink and five or six is the same and should treated equally. I don't think they're the same.

Five or six doesn't equal one. That's obvious. That wise public policy in the field of drinking and driving should be based your arithmetic distinction is not.

jwm

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

Five or six doesn't equal one. That's obvious. That wise public policy in the field of drinking and driving should be based your arithmetic distinction is not.

jwm

I'll bet it's a virtual certainty that 95% of all alcohol-related collisions/fatalities are over the legal limit. And yet we adopt zero tolerance policies because we are so horrified (and rightly so) by the carnage, when the people that are over the limit are going to drink anyway. You're criminalizing the responsible people who get behind the wheel well below the legal limit, in which case you'd have to arrest about 10% of the population on a Friday night in Canada. Let's get real.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

They are not. Some people on this board are the biggest hypocrites you will ever find in your life! The people who support such harsh laws and who argue here against you, are people who are either non-drinkers, or just plain selfish. There is no fucking way I can see anyone who enjoys having a beer with his dinner at a restaurant, going out to support such ludicrous laws.

Now, let the hypocrites speak.....

Thank you. A little sanity.

 

[STASH]

I agree strongly that driver distraction is the giant elephant in the room. It will dwarf drunk driving's impact in the near future (not saying one should be consider more important than the other). It does show you the power of MADD.

Madd is a real problem. They are a prohibishionist group that wants no alcohol anywhere anytime.

See this link for some real numbers

http://www.getmadd.com/

Madd won't be happy till they run your life completly

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

Madd is a real problem. They are a prohibishionist group that wants no alcohol anywhere anytime.

See this link for some real numbers

http://www.getmadd.com/

Madd won't be happy till they run your life completly

Speaking ill of MADD is like Christopher Hitchens slagging Mother Theresa. Sacred cows and all.

 

[Esco!]

And this just proves my point. People on this board think having one drink and five or six is the same and should treated equally. I don't think they're the same.

Remember though, its very hard for teenagers to have just one drink.
Usually they have more, at that age they're just discovering alcohol

When they get pulled over and say they just had one beer, they're probably lying

 

[jwmorrice]

I'll bet it's a virtual certainty that 95% of all alcohol-related collisions/fatalities are over the legal limit. And yet we adopt zero tolerance policies because we are so horrified (and rightly so) by the carnage, when the people that are over the limit are going to drink anyway. You're criminalizing the responsible people who get behind the wheel well below the legal limit, in which case you'd have to arrest about 10% of the population on a Friday night in Canada. Let's get real.

See pages 3,4, and 5 of the first source I cited http://www.madd.ca/english/research/zerounder21.pdf for the effects of increasing BAC on young drivers. You're just making stuff up.

jwm

 

[jwmorrice]

Madd is a real problem. They are a prohibishionist group that wants no alcohol anywhere anytime.

T'would appear they've failed in your case!

jwm

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

See pages 3,4, and 5 of the first source I cited http://www.madd.ca/english/research/zerounder21.pdf for the effects of increasing BAC on young drivers. You're just making stuff up.

jwm

I'm sorry, I don't trust anything on MADD's website. Who's making things up?

Let me tell you something. I had a woman who came to my door many years ago. Her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. It was a very high profile death, tragic of course. I was heartbroken by her daughter's story. Over time, we became friends, and she told me of her continued involvement in MADD, and then her increasing disgust the way the organization used tragic deaths to raise money and distort facts to their end goal.

If you remember:

http://www.businessethics.ca/blog/2006/12/trust-efficiency-at-non-profits.html

"People who donate to Mothers Against Drunk Driving are told by the charity that most of the $12 million it raises annually is spent on good works — stopping drunk driving and helping families traumatized by fatal crashes.
But a Star investigation reveals most of the high-profile charity's money is spent on fundraising and administration, leaving only about 19 cents of each donor dollar for charitable works."

Now I'm not saying they don't do good work, but I am always suspicious of zero tolerance policies as substitutes for alternate means of enforcement, and I find the enforcement of a law that essentially prohibits responsible alcohol consumption and motor vehicles terribly worrying. It looks as though no one else thinks so--at least not publicly on TERB.

 

[STASH]

I'm sorry, I don't trust anything on MADD's website. Who's making things up?

Let me tell you something. I had a woman who came to my door many years ago. Her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. It was a very high profile death, tragic of course. I was heartbroken by her daughter's story. Over time, we became friends, and she told me of her continued involvement in MADD, and then her increasing disgust the way the organization used tragic deaths to raise money and distort facts to their end goal.

If you remember:

http://www.businessethics.ca/blog/2006/12/trust-efficiency-at-non-profits.html

Now I'm not saying they don't do good work, but I am always suspicious of zero tolerance policies as substitutes for alternate means of enforcement, and I find the enforcement of a law that essentially prohibits responsible alcohol consumption and motor vehicles terribly worrying. It looks as though no one else thinks so--at least not publicly on TERB.

Must get laid now.

I agree with you Tongue. Madd is out of control. I resent their tactics and methods.
Have you seen the salaries they pay themselves. There are many making more than 300k per year.
They disgust me as a group because they lie, lie, lie

 

[jwmorrice]

I'm sorry, I don't trust anything on MADD's website. Who's making things up?

You don't have to trust MADD. You just have to google around. For example, see this abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=a32e54bd11fd76fcaeff398cd6876d6b

jwm

 

[Aardvark154]

Hey everybody enjoys some booze. It's not the drinkers who are bad people.

*Quite true! However, the point isn't the drinking. It's drinking and then operating a motor vehicle.





Presumably Tommy posts this tougne in cheek

 

[Aardvark154]

I sympathise, but they are infringing on my civil liberties. They need to find a more productive way to deal with their grief. Maybe volunteer in alcohol rehab or to drive people home, they just criminalizing productive members of society for minor misdemeanors.

Would you mind explaining in what manner you feel you have a civil liberty right to operate a motor vehicle after drinking?

 

[tboy]

I will admit I didn't read the 7 pages of responses and there's probably many arguments for and against but I am 100% for a zero tolerance policy.

I forget who said it but when you're a new driver, your skill set is pretty much nil so you shouldn't be impaired in any way.

Even though, I'd fully support a zero tolerance policy for ALL drivers of any experience.

Yeah yeah yeah, our freedoms, I was trying to argue that in the smoking thread and got runroughshod over so welcome to the club!

Next thing will be banning alcohol, then red meat, just wait, it's coming (but hey, don't listen to ME what do I know?)

Btw: I'm all for seizing a vehicle for a week like the racing law, and if you're caught again blowing a warning or over the limit? You lose the car, your licence and if you're caught driving again (drunk or not) you lose your freedom.

 

[Esco!]

I am 100% for a zero tolerance policy

Yup, me too

Although perhaps a .0001% grace level in case someone still had blood alcohol content from the night before

 

[tboy]

I hope people realize they can have alcohol in their system from things like mouthwash and cough medicine. A LOT have alcohol in them......