|
Nevvy Z posted:This is mostly a false dichotomy. You are responsible for things you do, not for things that are done to you. I've never heard of a twice as drunk man being charged with raping a drunk woman when both seemed consenting. That sounds like an MRA line. Most everyone maintains that neither party can consent at that point. It's one of those things that sounds really super believable, and why would anyone lie about that, so you can't help but empathize with them yourself and feel outraged. I used to do this all the time myself until I realized that the kinds of people who rape women are also the kinds of people who would make up stories pushing the blame if they ever got caught raping a woman. It's like people who claim that they ended up on sex offender's watchlists because they got caught pissing in public. No, they ended up on the watchlist because they were showing their penis to kids on a train, they told you they got caught pissing in public so you wouldn't immediately write them off for being awful people. quote:As for the original question, it is kind of an interesting one. The problem is that .08 is at the same time too high and too low. It is too high in that some people are impaired below .08. Impairment starts for some people as soon as .05. However, for many people .08 is too low -- too impaired for driving may fall higher. The problem is that the "legal limit" is supposed to be a limit at which no one is safe to drive, which is why it is a quasi-strict liability law. For those impaired below that limit basically everywhere has a parallel law that prohibits driving impaired. Which is exactly why DUI laws aren't strict enough to begin with, because they operate on an assumption that it's ever okay to drive at any level of intoxication. It would be like writing a gun control legislation that only counts after the third gun you buy, operating on the pure assumption that everyone owns the first two guns and knows how to use the first two guns and plans to use the first two guns the same way. I mean, those assumptions the law makes are awful dumb but what was the point of the law to begin with if it only kicks in when the stockpile starts? If it's illegal to drive while intoxicated, it should just be illegal. Don't put an arbitrary marker in for when you're "just intoxicated enough" to not be able to drive anymore. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Oct 19, 2014 |
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No tolerance. We must stamp out the scourge of Catholics getting behind the wheel after a sip of communion wine. Yes, because a sip of communion wine at 11:30 AM on Sunday Morning is the same thing as getting pulled over at 11:30 PM on Friday Night when you've had a couple of beers in you.  Drinking is a purely voluntary practice. You can volunteer not to drink if you want to drive. If you're catholic and a cop wants to get on you for .01 on your bac I guess you can take them to court and fight it out on religious grounds? But no, I agree, you're right: We should keep DUI laws exactly where they are, with the huge, unacceptable body count associated with them, purely to cater to a subsect of a specific religious group. If a few vans full of toddlers need to be t-boned to keep your twice-yearly sip of sacramental wine, so be it. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Or we could go off of impairment, since there are other substances that impair your ability to drive rather than putting people away who have barely detectable amounts of alcohol in their blood. But how do you measure impairment? Who decides what impaired is? And how impaired is too impaired? Wouldn't basing laws on impairment open the door to the "Well, I know my limits, officer, and I was not impaired." defense in court every time a drunk rams into an ambulance? Going off BAC is a foolproof method to say, "Hey, you drank recreationally and then got behind the wheel, that is a thing you are not supposed to do." Shrink that number in .03 to account for mouthwash and communion wine and then stick to the rhetoric that "one beer is enough to be significantly impaired". The taxicab lobbies would overjoyed and maybe people would stop thinking stupid poo poo like "I know how many beers I can drink without being impaired". The number is 0. Take a bus or drink at home. Shbobdb posted:The only good zero tolerance policy is my zero tolerance policy. People who would be hurt: 1. Alcohol Producers 2. People who drink and drive or drive immediately after drinking 3. Auto Body Shops Mirthless fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 22:43
|
|