Torsell too drunk to consent to sobriety test

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: chambersc
No, imbibing alcohol wasn't made illegal by the constitutional amendment but rather the processing, transporting, and selling of alcohol was.

Tell me how that would make any difference.

It is clear that the prohibition didn't work then, so on what basis do you suppose that it would work today or in the future?

The faith that society, or at least the western world (which is the only society I care about), will develop into a more enlightened on and not have to resort to drugs to pass the time/dull the pain/etc.

...

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: chambersc
No, imbibing alcohol wasn't made illegal by the constitutional amendment but rather the processing, transporting, and selling of alcohol was.

Tell me how that would make any difference.

It is clear that the prohibition didn't work then, so on what basis do you suppose that it would work today or in the future?

The faith that society, or at least the western world (which is the only society I care about), will develop into a more enlightened on and not have to resort to drugs to pass the time/dull the pain/etc.

...

I mean seriously... if we are gonna ban alcohol, we may as well go ahead and ban most food items as well. Since technically food is a drug. And we are obviously so enlightened, so we shouldnt be consuming any types of food that dont benefit our health in a direct way. Lets go ahead and ban all desserts, all fast food, and all soda too.

and sadly, this is already happening in New York :disgust:

BRING BACK PROHIBITION!

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jman19
Drunk drivers are scum. Anyone remember the thread a while back where some posters were saying that the currently legal limit is BS beacuse they "can drive fine with a few beers in them?" :roll:

What does that possibly have to do with a .242 alchohol level???
Oh, that's right, NOTHING! :disgust:

Umm, I wasn't talking about the guy with a .242 alcohol level
I'm talking about how people shouldn't be allowed to decide when they are or are not too drunk to drive.

Most people shouldn't, 'tis true, but you heaped scorn on those who think, and I quote, "the currently legal limit is BS".
I disagree vehemently.
The current drive in states to reduce the legal limit from .10 to .08, as they did here in Pa., is almost purely politically driven, and IS bullsh1te.
It's a big sop to the idiot law and order crowd, pandering to the peanut gallery, and will prove mostly to be more of a big revenue producer for local police forces than anything else, imho.
All hail Big Brother and the nanny state! Surely THEY know what's best for us in ALL situations. :disgust:

I dont always agree with Perknose but in this case he is 100% correct.
Lowering the legal blood level doesnt reduce drunk driving any more than banning guns reduces shootings.
The only people who are going to obey gun laws and booze laws are the already law-abiding citizens. The ones who are going to go out and destroy our society dont give a damn about the laws anyway.
Case in point: the drunk driver here was under 21, which accounts for a big fat chunk of DUI's in America.
Lowering the BAC level isnt going to clean up the roads. The people who cause accidents and take lives are the ones who avoided the cops entirely. The cops arent allowing dangerous people to drive around but they can only screen so many folks in one night.
Those of you who live in a college town know exactly what I'm talking about. Even if they get volunteers from the sheriff and highway patrol, they cant possibly test every single college kid on a friday night. Its not realistic. Sooner or later one of them will find a way around, (or just drink away from the campus) and they will cause an accident.

I think we need to put greater effort into preventing problems rather than finding more and more half-assed methods to fix them after the fact. (Especially when those methods violate civil liberties and cost more tax dollars.)

/rant