Why Drunk Driving Laws Suck to High Heaven

[bobevenson]

You can take two people with the identical blood-alcohol levels, and one may be totally incapable of driving, while the other is able to drive better than the arresting officer.

[Felasco]

Don't drink and drive.

If that's too complicated...

Don't drive at all.

[bobevenson]

Don't drink and drive.

If that's too complicated...

Don't drive at all.

Sure, don't drink and drive, don't listen to the radio, don't converse with anybody else in the car, don't daydream, don't... Sorry pal, you miss my point entirely. Blood-alcohol levels are meaningless.

[Felasco]

Sorry pal, you miss my point entirely. Blood-alcohol levels are meaningless.

If we don't drink and drive, we don't have to worry about blood alcohol levels, as they don't exist.

[Piltdownbrain]

You can take two people with the identical blood-alcohol levels, and one may be totally incapable of driving, while the other is able to drive better than the arresting officer.

One of the pleasures of life in the country is to get behind the wheel and sip alcohol with friends as one drives at a slow pace along deserted dirt tracks, free of any regulations. With a firearm onboard one may also bag one's dinner for the day. Drinking, driving and hunting are social events which city folk unfortunately cannot experience, since they are enslaved to a dependent process of labor and its wages for the procurement of their sustenance, within the capitalist paradigm.
Of course the liberal capitalists will ban this activity, because it is a threat to their own hierarchical bureaucratically sustained ideology of wage slavery and the topdog salary it provides for them sitting righteously behind a desk sober and discontented and telling everyone else they also must be sober and discontented.

[mickthinks]

mediochre trolling!

[Piltdownbrain]

mediochre trolling!

Or irony, like god, is dead?

[Arising_uk]

Too much alchohol also causes long-term memory loss apparently.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7779&hilit=drunk

[bobevenson]

Too much alchohol also causes long-term memory loss apparently.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7779&hilit=drunk

Again, you make absolutely no sense at all. To quote your link, I said, "If everybody drank and drove, would all accidents be alcohol-related?" In other words, you will have a certain number of accidents whether people drink or not. To say all accidents are alcohol-related just because all accidents had drivers who had been drinking, is to say that none of those accidents would have occured if none of those drivers had been drinking. Of course, this is falls into the category of logic.

[edited by iMod]

[Ginkgo]

Bob, you are not making the necessary and important distinction between DUI (driving under the influence) and PCA (prescribed concentration of alcohol). Most legal systems make this distinction for the reasons you have outlined.

[bobevenson]

Bob, you are not making the necessary and important distinction between DUI (driving under the influence) and PCA (prescribed concentration of alcohol). Most legal systems make this distinction for the reasons you have outlined.

People are arrested for DUI with absolutely no proof they are "driving under the influence" except for blood-alcohol level, which isn't proof at all.

[Ginkgo]

Bob, you are not making the necessary and important distinction between DUI (driving under the influence) and PCA (prescribed concentration of alcohol). Most legal systems make this distinction for the reasons you have outlined.

People are arrested for DUI with absolutely no proof they are "driving under the influence" except for blood-alcohol level, which isn't proof at all.

Where I come from proof of driving under the influence is required by police observations of driver behaviour. This is why I am pointing out that DUI and PCA are different offenses. It's different to where you are?

[Ginkgo]

Too much alchohol also causes long-term memory loss apparently.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7779&hilit=drunk

Again, you make absolutely no sense at all. To quote your link, I said, "If everybody drank and drove, would all accidents be alcohol-related?" In other words, you will have a certain number of accidents whether people drink or not. To say all accidents are alcohol-related just because all accidents had drivers who had been drinking, is to say that none of those accidents would have occured if none of those drivers had been drinking. Of course, this is falls into the category of logic.

[edited by iMod]

Yes, it would be a matter of logic. It would be an argument for direct causation which is often impossible to provide when there can be multiple variables. In other words, taking two events and place them together in order to show that is a necessary casual relationship is not always possible.

So to answer your question. All accidents involving alcohol are not always regarded as being caused by alcohol if the person involved was drinking. It may or may not have been a contributing factor to the accident.