Confessions of a drunk driver

[Origanalist]

Indeed.

The argument being made for that, is the same argument that is being used to eviscerate the last shreds of liberty left everywhere else.

Doing a damn good job of it, too.

And on that depressing note I bid you all a good night.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

night

-t

 

[Jamesiv1]

Nah, you know, if you have one half of a mind you know. I don't really care, but it is what it is.

you know, hear here and all that. This does not belong here, and fuck me if I brought it here. End of it, mmmkay?

what you're referring to is called breaking someone else's anonymity. "Who you see in here and what you hear in here, stays here."

If I see you in a meeting, then go tell others I saw you in a meeting, then I'm breaking your anonymity, which is a no-no.

If I tell people that I'm an active member of AA, I'm breaking my own anonymity, which is fine. I'm not very "anonymous" as you can see - and that's fine, too. I don't put it on my resumé, but I like to be available if someone is looking for some help.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, we are at .08

The FedCoats are moving to achieve global compliance and reduce it .05

But why would anybody be in favor of that?

It should be .00

Zero Tolerance.

Damn straight. Ban mouthwash and communion wine.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I want somebody to explain to me why the BAC should not be .00

 

[Anti Federalist]

Damn straight. Ban mouthwash and communion wine.

Grape Juice and non alcoholic mouthwash.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.

Amen bro.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Grape Juice and non alcoholic mouthwash.

As the lawrd would want it, amen. /sarc

 

[Anti Federalist]

Amen bro.

LOL - Thanks for bringing that back up.

I had totally forgotten King Knows Nothing trolled me in this thread.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Why isn't driving in and of itself considered reckless endangerment?

It will be.

Here is your driverless car, Citizen.

You can no longer be trusted to drive at all.

Now, sit quietly for the surveillance cameras while this safe and sane "people pod' drives you to your government approved destination.

Have a nice day Comrade.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Grape Juice and non alcoholic mouthwash.

Ban them too.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Damn straight. Ban mouthwash and communion wine.

Ummm... I think that might effect the human population growth curve...

I want somebody to explain to me why the BAC should not be .00

Because PROBATION WORKS!
AND THE GVMT NEVER DOES ANYTHING THAT WORKS!

lol!

-t

 

[Weston White]

I want somebody to explain to me why the BAC should not be .00

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.

 

[Anti Federalist]

* 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.

Why?

Buzzed driving is drunk driving.

Zero tolerance.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

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.

What LEA do you work for?

-t

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why?

Buzzed driving is drunk driving.

Zero tolerance.

Are you sarcastically arguing for prohibition or did you loose someone close to you due to ETOH?

-t

 

[Weston White]

What LEA do you work for?

-t

Sorry, I cannot divulge that; it is against departmental policy. (I am not LEO though, but do work with LEO in a “civilian” capacity.)

 

[Weston White]

Why?

Buzzed driving is drunk driving.

Zero tolerance.

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.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

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.

And that is a slippery slope. Take for example NYC raiding psych docs offices for patient records and then raiding any patients home that had a gun permit and was on certain meds.

I generally agree with you on this one... Except the "should no longer possess" part. Possess, yeah, use while on meds or whatever - no.

-t

 

[Weston White]

And that is a slippery slope. Take for example NYC raiding psych docs offices for patient records and then raiding any patients home that had a gun permit and was on certain meds.

I generally agree with you on this one... Except the "should no longer possess" part. Possess, yeah, use while on meds or whatever - no.

-t

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)?