Yes, certainly. It just irks me anyway. I don't see how any school, period, can penalize students for being at a supervised party with alcohol...unless it has to deal with sports or a certain policy the student agreed to. At the same time, I can't see how any school, period, can completely ignore events like the one I mentioned before. Although I suppose if I want one matter to not be the school's business, then that school is right in saying it isn't their business.
I guess it just boils down to me not agreeing with our underage laws at their current position (although, if it were 18, which seems slightly more just, then it would still be the same case for highschools with the exception of most seniors by the second half of senior year), and in addition, substance controls in general.
Granted, I am not against DUI penalties (even strict ones), as endangering others is certainly the place I draw the line at.
I am of the viewpoint that the United States Government should not regulate the sale of alcohol whatsoever. DUI laws on the other hand are necessary as protection from a legitimate domestic threat and should be kept strict with strict punishments that are enforced, however on a state level.
In most other countries, liquor laws are loose and drinking is a part of their culture that is more of a tradition and form of enjoyment than an outlet for recklessness that it is adopted as by most American youth. Being a drunk is more shameful in many parts of the world, and those individuals are shunned as a result of their choices often times. There is not as much of an abuse problem among young people because drinking does not hold the lure of a form of rebellion.
For the better or worse, I do believe that this like any other substance that is detrimental to oneself if abused is the responsibily of the potential user to forsee consequences and assess whether or not it is a good choice. The government should not be in a place to determine what should be done to prevent you from harming yourself and thus impairing your freedom. When this extends the the road however, other people are put in danger and that makes it a different ballgame.
In most other countries, liquor laws are loose and drinking is a part of their culture that is more of a tradition and form of enjoyment than an outlet for recklessness that it is adopted as by most American youth. Being a drunk is more shameful in many parts of the world, and those individuals are shunned as a result of their choices often times. There is not as much of an abuse problem among young people because drinking does not hold the lure of a form of rebellion.
For the better or worse, I do believe that this like any other substance that is detrimental to oneself if abused is the responsibily of the potential user to forsee consequences and assess whether or not it is a good choice. The government should not be in a place to determine what should be done to prevent you from harming yourself and thus impairing your freedom. When this extends the the road however, other people are put in danger and that makes it a different ballgame.
Instead of starting a new thread, I just thought I would ask it in this one. Does anyone know of any anti-drinking age law website or organizations? I have searched for them on a few search site with no luck.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Here's the thing if you get arrested for a DUI the process is totally unconstitutional. You are guilty until proven innocent.
I was arrested pulling into my driveway, I had 4 beers (I had my receipt with me) over a 4 hour period....I blew a 0.168 which is pretty much impossible based on that alcohol level unless there is blood in your mouth I found out and that morning I ran into a shelf that totally opened up the inside of my lip, pretty bad. It was one of the reasons I didn't drink so much that night, everything tasted like blood.
You are also forced to spend at least 8 hours in jail which in reality is more like 16.
You'd think it's be an easy case, however, most lawyers will only plead you guilty for less than $5,000....they are hoping there is some glaring misconduct, but usually there is not. For a real defense you are going to have to put up about $10,000 per trial (there can and probably will be about 3), you will also have to actually hire an expert and they want about $2,000-10,000 per day + expenses....using their book or a scientific write up is no good, an expert must be present.
The next thing is your license is suspended until the trials are over...this can take at least a year, more than likely about 1.5 years start to finish (sometimes up to a year for just the first trial).
My choice was to pay about $4k in all the fees, classes, etc and be done with it and hope not to get another one ever. The worst 'case' in my class was a New York or New Jersey guy...he just bought a $50,000 car cash and was in his garage detailing it up and having a beer....they arrested him for drinking while driving and impounded his car (permanently)...he tried to defend himself and it cost him about $50,000 also....+ a ton of other costs he had....he was over $150k.
MADD has a powerful lobby, it's hard to say no to a mother showing her messed up kid, but the bottom line is it's about the political power for other issues.
I was arrested pulling into my driveway, I had 4 beers (I had my receipt with me) over a 4 hour period....I blew a 0.168 which is pretty much impossible based on that alcohol level unless there is blood in your mouth I found out and that morning I ran into a shelf that totally opened up the inside of my lip, pretty bad. It was one of the reasons I didn't drink so much that night, everything tasted like blood.
You are also forced to spend at least 8 hours in jail which in reality is more like 16.
You'd think it's be an easy case, however, most lawyers will only plead you guilty for less than $5,000....they are hoping there is some glaring misconduct, but usually there is not. For a real defense you are going to have to put up about $10,000 per trial (there can and probably will be about 3), you will also have to actually hire an expert and they want about $2,000-10,000 per day + expenses....using their book or a scientific write up is no good, an expert must be present.
The next thing is your license is suspended until the trials are over...this can take at least a year, more than likely about 1.5 years start to finish (sometimes up to a year for just the first trial).
My choice was to pay about $4k in all the fees, classes, etc and be done with it and hope not to get another one ever. The worst 'case' in my class was a New York or New Jersey guy...he just bought a $50,000 car cash and was in his garage detailing it up and having a beer....they arrested him for drinking while driving and impounded his car (permanently)...he tried to defend himself and it cost him about $50,000 also....+ a ton of other costs he had....he was over $150k.
MADD has a powerful lobby, it's hard to say no to a mother showing her messed up kid, but the bottom line is it's about the political power for other issues.
With respect to what people have suggested about lowering the age to 18... I agree that if you can vote, die for your country, etc, then it is absurd to prohibit alcohol consumption. However, the problem with putting it at 18 is that then it is in high school. Most kids turn 18 in their senior year of HS. Lower it to 18 and you might as well just throw in the 14 year old freshman too, as far as social situations will go. Although I really hate the idea that when you are 18 you don't have full rights, I think that setting the age at 19 might be better because it would keep the age limit to covering college aged kids without including high schoolers.
yukichigai
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 76
I think we need a system like Scotland, who has no true DUI problem to speak of:
1) Drinking age should be 18. Maybe even 16 with a driving age of 18. Get all that drinking out of your system before you start learning to drive.
2) The BAC laws... meh... I think 0.08 is fine where it is. The only reason you'd want it higher is so you can cram in more alcohol before you get behind the wheel which I think is a bad thing to encourage.
3) Yes, absolutely, zero tolerance. In other countries (Scotland, England, etc) you can have your license revoked for a year on the first instance, and those countries have the lowest DUI rates among the world. As for the argument about what if you somehow didn't mean to get that drunk or didn't realize? Tough. You should be more aware. That is the kind of mistake that can kill someone in a most literal fashion.
4) Open container rule should be changed somehow to make allowances for when you're carrying a bunch of people who are all drinking. If I'm hauling around my 3 friends and they all want to get wasted in the backseat then I say why not? If there's open beer in the back and I'm the only person in the car however... well yeah, that's gonna be pretty obvious what's going on. I think the open container would probably be done away with if a zero tolerance law came into effect.
By the way, do empties count as an open container? If I'm hauling recycling and some cop decides he's going to be a jerk can he get me for every beer bottle I'm taking in for 5¢?
1) Drinking age should be 18. Maybe even 16 with a driving age of 18. Get all that drinking out of your system before you start learning to drive.
2) The BAC laws... meh... I think 0.08 is fine where it is. The only reason you'd want it higher is so you can cram in more alcohol before you get behind the wheel which I think is a bad thing to encourage.
3) Yes, absolutely, zero tolerance. In other countries (Scotland, England, etc) you can have your license revoked for a year on the first instance, and those countries have the lowest DUI rates among the world. As for the argument about what if you somehow didn't mean to get that drunk or didn't realize? Tough. You should be more aware. That is the kind of mistake that can kill someone in a most literal fashion.
4) Open container rule should be changed somehow to make allowances for when you're carrying a bunch of people who are all drinking. If I'm hauling around my 3 friends and they all want to get wasted in the backseat then I say why not? If there's open beer in the back and I'm the only person in the car however... well yeah, that's gonna be pretty obvious what's going on. I think the open container would probably be done away with if a zero tolerance law came into effect.
By the way, do empties count as an open container? If I'm hauling recycling and some cop decides he's going to be a jerk can he get me for every beer bottle I'm taking in for 5¢?
I want somethin' in my car that is keyed to the person driving. Won't let the car start without a satisfactory breathalyzer reading. That way it puts more information infront of the folks with no idea how much they've had. No punishment needed, but you're not driving yourself anywhere. Would probably piss me off if I showed up at .11, but in that case, tough luck, I've gotta sit in the parking lot for another 20-30 minutes or go get a cup of coffee while I "sober" up.
The inconvenience vs. the value and safety makes it a no-brainer to me.
The inconvenience vs. the value and safety makes it a no-brainer to me.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Keep in mind also the BAC is a bad indicator of inebriation. Some people can perform perfectly at over the BAL and some cannot even at half of it.
The #1 purpose of the fieldside tests is not to see if you are intoxicated, as many people cannot do the tests properly anyway...it's to provide more evidence via the video tape of the performance.
We were shown 50 people both drunk and sober performing the tests, the class averaged less than 50% of determining who was really drunk and who wasn't.
The #1 purpose of the fieldside tests is not to see if you are intoxicated, as many people cannot do the tests properly anyway...it's to provide more evidence via the video tape of the performance.
We were shown 50 people both drunk and sober performing the tests, the class averaged less than 50% of determining who was really drunk and who wasn't.
Hmm, so maybe on my car I'll want some series of lights/buttons. So I have to repeat some random series of lights (A la "Simon") in order for the car to work. Takes the BAC out of the picture and, instead (at least to a point) tests my ability to react.
Then how about something to test my reasoning.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
That would test you definitely, but in the eyes of the law it's your breath reading that's the end all be all. Also another flaw in it is some have much lower blood alcohol levels than their breath shows (some much higher)....the test reads the parts per million of COH in the blood in your expiration...it's an indirect / non invasive test. Many lawyers instruct their clients not to refuse being tested for alcohol, but to demand it be tested via a blood test. This is your right. The benefit is 1) you get more time to 'sober' up if you need it and 2) it's a lot more accurate.
For my 'test' it was conducted on the middle line of a two way street with the officer on the side of the road and me in the middle. Cars were passing on both sides and it was dark as hell....it was a bad deal, it was windy and I couldn't hear half the instructions given to me and he couldn't hear my answers so good either. I was told to say the alphabet forwards and I thought he said backwards (why even say forwards?) I said it 3 times as he keep saying wrong, do it again. On the report it was perfect letter for letter in reverse except a few he didn't hear.
For my 'test' it was conducted on the middle line of a two way street with the officer on the side of the road and me in the middle. Cars were passing on both sides and it was dark as hell....it was a bad deal, it was windy and I couldn't hear half the instructions given to me and he couldn't hear my answers so good either. I was told to say the alphabet forwards and I thought he said backwards (why even say forwards?) I said it 3 times as he keep saying wrong, do it again. On the report it was perfect letter for letter in reverse except a few he didn't hear.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter