Confessions of a drunk driver

Oh yes, I meant only while under the influence of whatever. Although I do hold concern about acknowledged mentally ill or deranged individuals possessing things such as firearms. But, in general, simply because somebody is on medication (say because they cannot sleep, have been feeling depressed lately, were suicidal in the past, suffer from OCD, etc.) they should not be stripped of their rights.

Why would mental health practitioners have gun permit information though (that seems rather odd no)?

Mental health practitioners do not have gun permit information.

The NYC cops get copies of the psych records and run names. If a patient shows up in the gun permit DB, they look for what meds they are on.

On one hand I agree with this. 90-95% of mass shooters have been on SSRI's (anti-depressants). However, these things only seem to happen when: 1) Just placed on the drug. 2) Recently changed dose 3) Just got taken off the drug. There are a few other drugs that will set a person off too - for example a smoking cessation aid. Rx.

On the other hand, I really do not. Someone gets stable, into a regular drug regime - why strip them of their 2A rights? The windows of trouble are pretty small.

-t
 
Personally, I think it should not be so cut and dry, for example, it should be scientifically formulated based upon the driver’s listed height and weight (as noted on their license—which is legally required to be accurate within small degree of error), should account for distinct tolerances between male and female, should account for the person being of drinking age (e.g., under 21-years of age with a BAC of .02, they would be deemed legally intoxicated), and it should be required that the driver exhibits one or more signs of intoxication that would attribute to diminished motor-skills or physical reaction (excluding from this requirement—as a singular indication: scent of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, verbal admissions, flushed skin, unkempt appearance, etc.)

* While on the issue, I also think that it should perfectly lawful for people to drink alcohol while driving, so long as the driver is able of maintaining their BAC below the legal limit. If you can handle a coffee, pop, or juice while driving you can just as well handle a can of beer, a sip of vino, or a swig of Black Label.
.02 huh? It's already that way, and many lives are ruined as a result. Keep perpetuating putting people into the system. I am sure you favor probation, and classes, and plate colors and mandatory days. Not to mention heavy fines. Smdh. I really wish I could scream in some people's ear, "THERE ARE 10,000 DEATHS YEARLY, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DRIVE DAILY, 112,000,000 A YEAR, 15% ADMIT TO DRIVING DRUNK IN THE LAST MONTH" Do you not see how ridiculously low of a figure that is?

And FFS, when you say it shouldn't be so cut and dry, what you are actually promoting is it being lowered for some people.

This is exactly why I will one day move to the mountains. Not because of the drunk drivers and all the carnage they cause (you know, one fifteenth as many deaths as medical malpractice deaths.. we really ought to ban medicine) but because people can't mind their own goddamn business.

What has this world come to? Particularly, the United States. Sacrificing freedom for safety is a damn epidemic. Boston bomber throws grenades? Submit to the use of armed drones. A school gets shot up by a lunatic? Submit to background checks and further restrictions on who can own a gun. They could tell you anything, and half of you would be walking to the grave blindly sucking your thumb. All it takes is a little fear. And life's uncertainties definitely are a good place to start.

I drove 'drunk' for years. My father drove 'drunk' for decades. I don't think I know one person who doesn't drive drunk or stoned at least many times monthly if not daily. None of them have had an accident, some have had incidents. (because of nosy pig fucks who can arbitrarily stop you for any reason they see fit) Put me down. Or financially enslave me. It doesn't affect you so why should you care? Don't ask for my sympathies when the next thing is banned. I can't wait.

AF has the right idea. Half steps are for pussies. Kids are dying daily. Bubble wrap will save lives. Our stated goal is to get the amount of people who die yearly to zero. Not for the MedicalIC or PIC or the MIC of course. Deaths there are tragic but a necessary evil. Consider it civilized collateral damage.

Sigh.
 
Because there is a line that once one crosses they should no longer possess or manage anything that might possibly harm others in society, including but not limited to: firearms, explosives, automobiles, heavy equipment or machinery, etc.

Exactly.

And once having granted the premise, that BAC limits set by the FedCoats and unconstitutional random roadblocks and checkpoints and now the drawing of blood on the side of the road, are "permissible", then you have already crossed that line, marched right over that fucker, and there is now no logical or legal reason to not set a .00 - Zero Tolerance - limit.

No reason other than not wanting to spook the herd into resisting, that is.
 
Are you sarcastically arguing for prohibition or did you loose someone close to you due to ETOH?

-t

Both.

I've lost friends and family to drink, to drugs and to death by firearm.

Which, of course, has only stiffened my resolve to declare that all of these laws and prohibitions, and the police state we have erected to enforce them, are all useless for the purpose of preventing such things.
 
SHUT YOUR LOGICAL MOUTH MUNDANE.


Both.

I've lost friends and family to drink, to drugs and to death by firearm.

Which, of course, has only stiffened my resolve to declare that all of these laws and prohibitions, and the police state we have erected to enforce them, are all useless for the purpose of preventing such things.
 
AF has the right idea. Half steps are for pussies. Kids are dying daily. Bubble wrap will save lives. Our stated goal is to get the amount of people who die yearly to zero. Not for the MedicalIC or PIC or the MIC of course. Deaths there are tragic but a necessary evil. Consider it civilized collateral damage.

Glad to see you on board!

C'mon, step up, everybody: BAN ALL THE THINGS!

Zero Tolerance in all aspects of life.

What a great way to live.
 
Glad to see you on board!

C'mon, step up, everybody: BAN ALL THE THINGS!

Zero Tolerance in all aspects of life.

What a great way to live.
I can't wait. The little joys of my life (cruising country roads and tipping a few back) don't appeal to anyone so why wouldn't I support the little joys of their lives being stripped away as well? We can all be miserable. It's the American way.

I don't drink pop. So, no one should drink pop. I think I'm off to start a crusade. (for the children of course, not because I am a miserable little bitch)
 
I can't wait. The little joys of my life (cruising country roads and tipping a few back) don't appeal to anyone so why wouldn't I support the little joys of their lives being stripped away as well? We can all be miserable. It's the American way.

I don't drink pop. So, no one should drink pop. I think I'm off to start a crusade. (for the children of course, not because I am a miserable little bitch)

Mayor Doomberg approves.

Life in AmeriKa, where a bunch of frightened and emasculated busybodies, peer out from behind closed blinds and shuttered windows, with 911 on speed dial.

See Something Say Something.

Which, btw, brings up another point.

Somebody, somewhere, had posted a whole slew of "bad habits" Gauleiter Doomberg engages in.

As is usually the case, the one yelling loudest for restrictions on everybody else, does so because they have issues they cannot control, and thus project that onto everybody else.
 
Last edited:
Both.

I've lost friends and family to drink, to drugs and to death by firearm.

Which, of course, has only stiffened my resolve to declare that all of these laws and prohibitions, and the police state we have erected to enforce them, are all useless for the purpose of preventing such things.
This is the point the freedom trampling hoard seems to overlook. If the natural possible consequences of drunk driving doesn't stop the individual from getting behind the wheel of car, then a 1000 new laws or a lower BAC limit will have zero effect.

We already have reckless driving laws.......no DUI laws needed.
 
I want somebody to explain to me why the BAC should not be .00

In my experiences it's been jobs/money/control. Surprised? lol

If there's a law there's probably a racket.

My experiences with death/destruction and folks I knew/know using inanimate objects and actual crimes:
(All on "safe" regulated government roads -go figure :rolleyes:)
3 acquaintances killed by others in "DUI incidents".
2 of those victims (motorcycle driver & rider killed together) were also drunk at the time and found not at fault. Big whoop. The driver of the truck that crossed the line got a giant fine but less than 3 years. It was a bullshit case as they often are when the victims are drunk as well or engaged in some "illegal" activity with inanimate objects. :mad:

2 acquaintances who have killed others and served time. 5 years vehicular manslaughter and 10 years vehicular manslaughter. 1 alcohol related and the other prescription meds.
The one who served 5 years still drinks and drives. Good job there state.:rolleyes: Don't know the current behavior of the one who served 10 -lost track of him.

I don't know the details of the 5 year-alcohol related case but the 10 year-prescription meds one IMO should've gotten life w/parole/release left up to the victim's family. -A life sentence IMO not because he was high but because he through his actions killed somebody -he knew better. (distracted driving -he drove well onto the shoulder and ran over a bicyclist who died hours later) Of course if the family of the young father killed wanted to see their father's killer released after or before 10 years I could abide by that. They would know best.

My friend's meds addiction was one thing, his manner of carelessness was another. I had warned him many times about both as did his wife.:(:mad:

Monetary "warnings" issued by the state concerning inanimate objects are a joke and do nothing to incentivize mutually beneficial behavior/relationships. Want to do is tossed out for have to support state if caught. Seriously, WTF is that? How could that possibly be good for mine or others rights?

If behavior is the problem then shouldn't the solution focus on behavior and not the use of something without a will of it's own?

Let the punishment fit the actual crime against property or person. My condolences to those who have lost family/friends and have not seen justice done. My condolences for those who are continually tyrannized for inanimate objects. My condolences for those still serving time who are truly changed. My condolences to victim's families who are retarded by the state concerning forgiveness or reconciliation for those who have wronged them.

Way more than I intended to write, but hey, screw the state pushed-law-racket "solutions".
 
Just an FYI, relevant to this thread:

I'm a long-time Ron Paul supporter. I was his NY election lawyer in 2008, and I was the 2010 LP candidate for Governor. I'm the admin of the Ron Paul Revolution is Now page on Facebook (over 12K likes).

I just wrote a new book - Fair DUI: Stay safe and sane in a world gone MADD

Would love to hear comments on it. And of course, I'd appreciate it if people would share it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top