NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got back from the hospital, my best friend has been involved in a drunk driving accident. She wasn't drinking, but the jackass in the other truck was. Hit her fucking head on. Luckily she only has a broken femur and some scratches and bruises.

Here's what I want to know, how fucking drunk do you have to be, to think that driving home, while drunk is a good idea?! At what fucking point, does it enter into a jackass's nimron of a fucking brain does "Driving while Drunk = Good idea"? Also, the punishment we have for drunk driving in this city is fucking ridiculous! You don't even get any damn jail time until your 2nd offense! First offense is a fucking slap on the damn wrist! First offense, you get a fine and your license taken away for a year. Big-Fucking-Whooping-Doo!

Sorry for the language, but I am just pissed right now, I am royalty pissed. I hope my friend makes this jackass and idiot of the year pay out of the fucking ass!

I know your angry but you cant understand the motivation until your in the mind set of a drunk.
Its a slippery slope, first you start out never driving if you drink at all.
then you have 1 and drive. then 2. (most people are legal at those points)
then you push it with 3 or 4. Eventually your stuck at a bar after having had 7 with no ride home. luckily when i drove into the court house no one was hurt.

I just got back from the hospital, my best friend has been involved in a drunk driving accident. She wasn't drinking, but the jackass in the other truck was. Hit her fucking head on. Luckily she only has a broken femur and some scratches and bruises.

Here's what I want to know, how fucking drunk do you have to be, to think that driving home, while drunk is a good idea?! At what fucking point, does it enter into a jackass's nimron of a fucking brain does "Driving while Drunk = Good idea"? Also, the punishment we have for drunk driving in this city is fucking ridiculous! You don't even get any damn jail time until your 2nd offense! First offense is a fucking slap on the damn wrist! First offense, you get a fine and your license taken away for a year. Big-Fucking-Whooping-Doo!

Sorry for the language, but I am just pissed right now, I am royalty pissed. I hope my friend makes this jackass and idiot of the year pay out of the fucking ass!

The American law basically treats alcohol as an excuse.

A friend of mine was hit by a drunk driver about two years ago. He had had his license revoked for DUI before, and actually - had a DUI accident about two months AFTER the incident with my friend, also.

He wrote off her car. She was eventually cut from the car and airlifted to hospital. Total medical costs (to her) so far have been about $70,000. She's had to sell her house to pay medical bills, and he's still out driving (admittedly, in a different truck - his wealthy father buys him a new truck each time one gets written off).

I have no time for drink-driving. I have no time for the American legal system that refuses to deal with it.

I know your angry but you cant understand the motivation until your in the mind set of a drunk.
Its a slippery slope, first you start out never driving if you drink at all.
then you have 1 and drive. then 2. (most people are legal at those points)
then you push it with 3 or 4. Eventually your stuck at a bar after having had 7 with no ride home. luckily when i drove into the court house no one was hurt.

Motivation be damned.

Anyone that drives drunk should be charged with attempted murder, just for getting behind the wheel.

He wrote off her car. She was eventually cut from the car and airlifted to hospital. Total medical costs (to her) so far have been about $70,000. She's had to sell her house to pay medical bills, and he's still out driving (admittedly, in a different truck - his wealthy father buys him a new truck each time one gets written off)..

That what happened to my friend, she had to be cut from the truck and airlifted to a hospital. Her truck is totaled. So far her, and her boyfriend are counting on the guy or his insurance to cover the truck, the medical expenses, and whatever she lost due to having to miss out on work, and some extra money.

I don't know how much they're going to be able to get though. If he doesn't have insurance, then isn't she pretty much fucked on the financial front?

I know your angry but you cant understand the motivation until your in the mind set of a drunk.
Its a slippery slope, first you start out never driving if you drink at all.
then you have 1 and drive. then 2. (most people are legal at those points)
then you push it with 3 or 4. Eventually your stuck at a bar after having had 7 with no ride home. luckily when i drove into the court house no one was hurt.

You know what, fuck the motivation. I've really tried to see things from others perspective, more so lately, but honestly, I will never understand why someone would do something this fucking stupid, and not only put himself at risk, but put everyone else on the road at risk!

Here's what I want to know, how fucking drunk do you have to be, to think that driving home, while drunk is a good idea?!

You'd be amazed at what seems like a good idea when you're drunk. That's why they call it 'impaired judgment.' It's like the old joke 'I've never taken an ugly woman home from a bar, but Lord knows, I've woken up with a few.'

That what happened to my friend, she had to be cut from the truck and airlifted to a hospital. Her truck is totaled. So far her, and her boyfriend are counting on the guy or his insurance to cover the truck, the medical expenses, and whatever she lost due to having to miss out on work, and some extra money.

I don't know how much they're going to be able to get though. If he doesn't have insurance, then isn't she pretty much fucked on the financial front?

Yeah, that's what happened to my friend. He didn't have insurance (obviously - since he was driving illegally) and her own insurance coverage basically paid for her replacement car.

I just got back from the hospital, my best friend has been involved in a drunk driving accident. She wasn't drinking, but the jackass in the other truck was. Hit her fucking head on. Luckily she only has a broken femur and some scratches and bruises.

First, I'm sorry to here about what happened to your friend, and I'm glad it wasn't any worse.

Here's what I want to know, how fucking drunk do you have to be, to think that driving home, while drunk is a good idea?! At what fucking point, does it enter into a jackass's nimron of a fucking brain does "Driving while Drunk = Good idea"?

Their quite possibly too drunk to think it through coherently.

Also, the punishment we have for drunk driving in this city is fucking ridiculous! You don't even get any damn jail time until your 2nd offense! First offense is a fucking slap on the damn wrist! First offense, you get a fine and your license taken away for a year. Big-Fucking-Whooping-Doo!

To be honest, losing your license for a year would probably be quite crippling for some people.

I'm wondering, do they require drunk drivers to pay for any medical bills/property damage they cause? That's a sentence I could support. No point clogging the prisons and churning out more hardened criminals when we can impose sentences that actually do the victims some good.

Of course, those who couldn't/wouldn't pay could be required to do a lengthy period of community service.

Sorry for the language, but I am just pissed right now, I am royalty pissed. I hope my friend makes this jackass and idiot of the year pay out of the fucking ass!

Suing can take a while and be costly. Another potential reason for making restitution an automatic part of the sentences.

You'd be amazed at what seems like a good idea when you're drunk.

If you can't make the right decisions drunk, don't drink.

It's really not that difficult.

Yeah, that's what happened to my friend. He didn't have insurance (obviously - since he was driving illegally) and her own insurance coverage basically paid for her replacement car.

She has medical insurance through the city, so hopefully that'll curtail the medical expenses some.

First, I'm sorry to here about what happened to your friend, and I'm glad it wasn't any worse.



Their quite possibly too drunk to think it through coherently.



To be honest, losing your license for a year would probably be quite crippling for some people.

I'm wondering, do they require drunk drivers to pay for any medical bills/property damage they cause? That's a sentence I could support. No point clogging the prisons and churning out more hardened criminals when we can impose sentences that actually do the victims some good.

Of course, those who couldn't/wouldn't pay could be required to do a lengthy period of community service.



Suing can take a while and be costly. Another potential reason for making restitution an automatic part of the sentences.

Taking away the driver's license is only harmful to them if it stops them driving.

You can only get payment from the drunkdriver if he has money (or she, of course).

Drunk-driving is indulged in American law. It's given no real weight, and there's no real intent to frown on it, much less punish it.

After the local judge drunk-drove through my front yard last year, and left his pick-up burning in the trees, I have come to understand why.

Motivation be damned.

Anyone that drives drunk should be charged with attempted murder, just for getting behind the wheel.

Doesn't attempted murder require an intent to kill? But I suppose we should throw that out and treat each drunk driver as if they set out with murder in their hearts.:rolleyes:

When someone is extreemly drunk, can they really be said to be making a rational choice? Of course, they chose to get drunk, but by that logic shouldn't we make it an act of criminal negligence (or attempted murder:rolleyes:) simply to drink past a certain blood alcohol level?

I'm all for cracking down, but the legal system should be above tough guy posturing or the desire for revenge. The legal system should serve the public good, and clogging the prisons with more people than nessissary does not do that.

She has medical insurance through the city, so hopefully that'll curtail the medical expenses some.

You can hope. My friend and I were both working for the city when she had her wreck, and it did help with the medical some (I hate to think what her medical bills would have been like without it... the helicopter lift cost her $13,000 on it's own).

You can hope. My friend and I were both working for the city when she had her wreck, and it did help with the medical some (I hate to think what her medical bills would have been like without it... the helicopter lift cost her $13,000 on it's own).

Fuck....Man and she was trying hard to get out of debt too.....well apparently she may have more debt piled on top of her...

Doesn't attempted murder require an intent to kill? But I suppose we should throw that out and treat each drunk driver as if they set out with murder in their hearts.:rolleyes:


I argue that getting behind the wheel drunk IS intent to kill.

It means deliberately putting yourself in a position where you will probably cause harm. Drinking, then driving, is intent to kill.


When someone is extreemly drunk, can they really be said to be making a rational choice? Of course, they chose to get drunk, but by that logic shouldn't we make it an act of criminal negligence (or attempted murder:rolleyes:) simply to drink past a certain blood alcohol level?


Because being DRUNK isn't what kills the crocodile of schoolchildren - it's the being drunk AND behind the wheel of a huge chunk of metal.

Without a driver, a moving car basically is a ballistic missile. With half a driver, it's a slightly aimed ballistic missile. It's the reason we have licensing requirements.


I'm all for cracking down, but the legal system should be above tough guy posturing or the desire for revenge. The legal system should serve the public good, and clogging the prisons with more people than nessissary does not do that.

Horseshit. It's that kind of argument that is the reason so many people drive drunk. It's not cracked down upon, because it's not 'serious'... and so, when someone dies (and they do, a lot) it's EXCUSED by the drunken state.

In vino veritas.

People who drive drunk are usually flat-out irresponsible, terrible people to begin with. I cannot name a good person who ever thought it was a good idea to drive drunk...even at their most inebriated level they still knew it was a bad idea and acted accordingly. The whole "impaired judgement" aspect really just shows what kind of person you actually are; if at heart you're actually a responsible, good person you're really going to act that way when drunk and if not, well, you're going to act like the bad person you really are.

And this is coming from someone who is in fact drinking right this moment.

*wince* I remember when a friend of mine's roommate was struck and hospitalized by an uninsured drunk driver...

Here's hoping that your friend recovers quickly.

Fuck....Man and she was trying hard to get out of debt too.....well apparently she may have more debt piled on top of her...

Hopefully your friend has better luck.

The City we both worked for basically doesn't give a shit. They deliberately gave her bad legal advice, and she was touch-and-go just for re-employment there for a while. That's the kind of smalltown mentality she was dealing with - which is why I don't work for that city anymore.

Hopefully, your friend will actually get some help, some good advice, and a decent crack at some recompense.

Were I a religious man, I'd pray for her.

Were I a religious man, I'd pray for her.

Would it be religious for you to keep her in your thoughts?

In vino veritas.

People who drive drunk are usually flat-out irresponsible, terrible people to begin with. I cannot name a good person who ever thought it was a good idea to drive drunk...even at their most inebriated level they still knew it was a bad idea and acted accordingly. The whole "impaired judgement" aspect really just shows what kind of person you actually are; if at heart you're actually a responsible, good person you're really going to act that way when drunk and if not, well, you're going to act like the bad person you really are.

And this is coming from someone who is in fact drinking right this moment.

I just put the finishing touches to a litre and a half of Kosher wine I've been nursing this evening. But, I'm not going to drive. Because I'm not an asshole.

There is no excuse for drunk-driving, 99% of the time... we should allow it to be excused.

Would it be religious for you to keep her in your thoughts?

She has my well-wishes. If there's any karmic consequence to forwarding goodwill to other people, I'm doing all I can for her. :)

I'm so sorry for your friend, Wil, and I hope she does manage to get insurance money from the bastard and heal quickly.

I have driven once while drunk. That was one more time than it should have taken. I'm exceedingly lucky that the drive was without incident, and I didn't kill myself, my best friend in the passenger seat, or anyone else. It's indefensible. I can only say that I was a dumb, self-destructive kid who didn't think enough about what she was doing to see she was risking more than her own skin. Since then I've never put myself into a situation where that could even happen again. There's no need to even be in that position in the first place.

Japan has a zero tolerance policy for DUI. You legally cannot have any alcohol in your system and drive. God help you if the police catch you driving with a beer in you. There IS no help for you if you end up in an accident while drunk and driving. It's one of the few times I approve of Japan's draconian laws.

Japan has a zero tolerance policy for DUI. You legally cannot have any alcohol in your system and drive. God help you if the police catch you driving with a beer in you. There IS no help for you if you end up in an accident while drunk and driving. It's one of the few times I approve of Japan's draconian laws.

I approve this message.

Japan has a zero tolerance policy for DUI. You legally cannot have any alcohol in your system and drive. God help you if the police catch you driving with a beer in you. There IS no help for you if you end up in an accident while drunk and driving. It's one of the few times I approve of Japan's draconian laws.

What is the punishment for drunk driving in Japan?

You know what, fuck the motivation. I've really tried to see things from others perspective, more so lately, but honestly, I will never understand why someone would do something this fucking stupid, and not only put himself at risk, but put everyone else on the road at risk!

because most of the time nothing happens.
and for me even when it does i get lucky.
because how my car went through the glass doors of the court house and came to rest in the lobby with front wheels on a couch. all i needed to do was repaint my car.

I argue that getting behind the wheel drunk IS intent to kill.

It means deliberately putting yourself in a position where you will probably cause harm. Drinking, then driving, is intent to kill.

I'm not an expert on legal technicalities, so could you explain how you can have intent to kill unless you acutally plan to kill someone?

Or you could admit that you're trying to justify a blatant falsehood on the grounds that drunk drivers are bad people so that makes it ok.:rolleyes:

Because being DRUNK isn't what kills the crocodile of schoolchildren - it's the being drunk AND behind the wheel of a huge chunk of metal.

"crocodile of schoolchildren?" Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Horseshit. It's that kind of argument that is the reason so many people drive drunk. It's not cracked down upon, because it's not 'serious'... and so, when someone dies (and they do, a lot) it's EXCUSED by the drunken state.

First, I never said it wasn't serious. That is a strawman. Now, I'm going to ask right now, can you conduct yourself honestly in a debate on this subject?

You could also argue that people steal because we no longer hang petty thieves. It doesn't make it true. And no, I am not equating drunk driving to petty theft.

You have to ask yourself how the legal system best serves the public good. By deterrence? Yet when, even during the age of executions for petty theft, has deterrence ever been shown to work? By revenge and dick-waving? Sure, it may make you feel like a big man, but if its result is an overcrowded prison system and more hardened felons on the streets, is it really worth it? Or does it best serve the public good by restitution, rehabilitation, and saving the jail cells for repeat or violent offenders?

Now, I suppose you could argue that drunk drivers are a danger to public safety, and should be locked up on those grounds. However, there's still the practical difficulties surrounding prison overcrowding to take into account if you lock up all first-time offenders. Take away licenses, fine. Jail repeat chronic cases of repeat offenders, most definitely. Jail people who drive when their license is suspended, sure as hell. But I question the practical wisdom of jail for all first time offenders, especially minors.

because most of the time nothing happens.
and for me even when it does i get lucky.
because how my car went through the glass doors of the court house and came to rest in the lobby with front wheels on a couch. all i needed to do was repaint my car.

Ok, you're an idiot and a jackass. It's people like you that put people like my best friend in hospitals.

Ok, you're an idiot and a jackass. It's people like you that put people like my best friend in hospitals.

He's probably just trolling. The part about crashing through the court house doors is a big tip off.

Ok, you're an idiot and a jackass. It's people like you that put people like my best friend in hospitals.

i thought i was pretty smart. I went and hid at a friends(friend is Chiropractor) place until the next day when i was sober. when i came to get my car i said i blame the accident on a patch of black ice and said i was seeking medical treatment hence why i didn't remain at the accident scene.

What is the punishment for drunk driving in Japan?
Edit: The BAC in Japan is less than .03, slightly less than 1 beer.

1. Driving Under the Influence, BAC .08 or higher
Imprisonment with hard labor not to exceed 5 years or fine not exceeding 1,000,000 yen ($10,000).
2. Driving While Impaired, BAC .03 to .79
Imprisonment with hard labor not to exceed 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000)
3. Providing an intoxicated person with a vehicle
Maximum sentence: Same punishment as a drunken driver receives shall be applied.
4. Providing a person with alcohol who subsequently gets a DUI or DWI
Maximum sentence: Imprisonment with hard labor not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000) for DUI; 2 years imprisonment, 300,000 yen ($3,000) fine for DWI
5. Riding as passengers in a vehicle operated by an intoxicated person
Maximum sentence: Imprisonment with hard labor not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000) for DUI; 2 years imprisonment, 300,000 yen ($3,000) fine for DWI
6. Rejecting balloon (sobriety) test
Confinement not exceeding 3 months or fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000)
7. Hit and run
Confinement not exceeding 10 years or fine not exceeding 1,000,000 yen ($10,000)

The moral of the story here folks is don't drink and drive in Japan.

He's probably just trolling. The part about crashing through the court house doors is a big tip off.

Some posters here are always trolling. I won't name them, because that would be flaming, but it's best to not take the bait when they come out.

1. Driving Under the Influence, BAC .08 or higher
Imprisonment with hard labor not to exceed 5 years or fine not exceeding 1,000,000 yen ($10,000).
2. Driving While Impaired, BAC .03 to .79
Imprisonment with hard labor not to exceed 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000)
3. Providing an intoxicated person with a vehicle
Maximum sentence: Same punishment as a drunken driver receives shall be applied.
4. Providing a person with alcohol who subsequently gets a DUI or DWI
Maximum sentence: Imprisonment with hard labor not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000) for DUI; 2 years imprisonment, 300,000 yen ($3,000) fine for DWI
5. Riding as passengers in a vehicle operated by an intoxicated person
Maximum sentence: Imprisonment with hard labor not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000) for DUI; 2 years imprisonment, 300,000 yen ($3,000) fine for DWI
6. Rejecting balloon (sobriety) test
Confinement not exceeding 3 months or fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000)
7. Hit and run
Confinement not exceeding 10 years or fine not exceeding 1,000,000 yen ($10,000)

The moral of the story here folks is don't drink and drive in Japan.

Maybe the USA should adopt these laws for Drunk Drivers here in the states.

4. Providing a person with alcohol who subsequently gets a DUI or DWI
Maximum sentence: Imprisonment with hard labor not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000) for DUI; 2 years imprisonment, 300,000 yen ($3,000) fine for DWI

So is it illegal to sell someone enough alcohol to intoxicate them? Because otherwise, unless you're making your own alcohol, someone else is always going to be charged with "providing a person alcohol" before they get a DUI.

First of all, get involved with a group like M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) - there are all sorts of associated groups (Teens Against Drunk Driving, etc.). Then lobby like mad to get the laws changed to something far more reasonable.

I doubt that drunk driving will ever constitute an attempted murder charge, but you can get them for vehicular assault, depraved indifference, etc.

Wilgrove, your friend needs to get a lawyer - M.A.D.D. might help her find one who does pro-bono work.

First of all, get involved with a group like M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) - there are all sorts of associated groups (Teens Against Drunk Driving, etc.). Then lobby like mad to get the laws changed to something far more reasonable.

I doubt that drunk driving will ever constitute an attempted murder charge, but you can get them for vehicular assault, depraved indifference, etc.

Wilgrove, your friend needs to get a lawyer - M.A.D.D. might help her find one who does pro-bono work.

I recommend the lawyer that my family uses. His client list includes some of the more famous Nascar drivers, such as Richard Petty and the Earnhardt Family. He's a great attorney when I had to go to court after someone assaulted me.

First of all, get involved with a group like M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) - there are all sorts of associated groups (Teens Against Drunk Driving, etc.). Then lobby like mad to get the laws changed to something far more reasonable.

I'm suspicious of these groups, partly because the anti-drinking organizations have a way of being fronts for promoting religion. Can you tell me weather any of these that you know of are secular (not atheist, just not overtly religious)?

I'm suspicious of these groups, partly because they anti-drinking organizations have a way of being fronts for promoting religion. Can you tell me weather any of these that you know of are secular (not atheist, just not overtly religious)?

Here's a list of sponsors for M.A.D.D. I don't see any overtly religious organizations among them - of course, these are corporate sponsors.

http://www.madd.org/Corporate-Sponsors/Corporate-Sponsors/Meet-Our-Sponsors.aspx

I'm not an expert on legal technicalities, so could you explain how you can have intent to kill unless you acutally plan to kill someone?


I would argue that deliberately placing yourself in a position where you are aiming a potentially deadly weapon towards the general public, launching it, and instituting only the absolute minimal control (i.e. apparently, 'hoping') IS intent to kill. The fact that it's a generalised intent, not targetted on one specific person shouldn't make a difference.


Or you could admit that you're trying to justify a blatant falsehood on the grounds that drunk drivers are bad people so that makes it ok.:rolleyes:


I didn't say that. My argument is that a car is a potentially deadly weapon, and that DELIBERATELY impairing your own capacity to control it, and then STILL using it, means you are launching a potentially lethal strike on some random victim, with only your optimism - if that - as safeguard.


"crocodile of schoolchildren?" Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm not sure what you are talking about.


Drink-driving is not new, not unique to this situation. The 'crocodile of schoolchildren' refers to a specific case where a young mom mand three children were killed by a drunk-driver, but that's almost irrelevent. The point is that alcohol is treated like mitigation in the causing of death to innocents.


First, I never said it wasn't serious. That is a strawman.


You were arguing that it was basically wasting court time, etc.

I don't consider it a strawman to extract 'not serious' from that.

Or are you arguing that serious issues waste time?


Now, I'm going to ask right now, can you conduct yourself honestly in a debate on this subject?


Apparently, more honestly than some.


You could also argue that people steal because we no longer hang petty thieves. It doesn't make it true. And no, I am not equating drunk driving to petty theft.

You have to ask yourself how the legal system best serves the public good. By deterrence? Yet when, even during the age of executions for petty theft, has deterrence ever been shown to work?


Petty theft tends to be about need. Obviously 'deterrence' is going to be less effective on some 'crimes' than others. If I need to feed my family, and theft is the only way, it's likely I'll think about illegal means.

I'm interested to see how you're going to justify the parallel.

Who needs[ to get drunk, then drive?


By revenge and dick-waving? Sure, it may make you feel like a big man, but if its result is an overcrowded prison system and more hardened felons on the streets, is it really worth it? Or does it best serve the public good by restitution, rehabilitation, and saving the jail cells for repeat or violent offenders?


I advocate the death penalty for rape and murder. It's a different issue, but it would clear out a lot of prison overcrowding, so I'm mentioning it. Thus - the prison overcrowding argument fails - if prisons are overcrowded, it just means our sentencing isn't harsh enough.


Now, I suppose you could argue that drunk drivers are a danger to public safety, and should be locked up on those grounds.


Could argue? Drunk drivers ARE a danger to public safety - no argument.


However, there's still the practical difficulties surrounding prison overcrowding to take into account if you lock up all first-time offenders. Take away licenses, fine.


Which only works if it stops them driving...


Jail repeat chronic cases of repeat offenders, most definitely. Jail people who drive when their license is suspended, sure as hell.


...which you admit here.

Punishment that doesn't punish is irrelevent.


But I question the practical wisdom of jail for all first time offenders, especially minors.

Why are minors drinking and driving? Where is that legal?

The problem is - the 'first time offender' thing is something of a strawman. Drink-drivers tend to be habitual.

I'm suspicious of these groups, partly because the anti-drinking organizations have a way of being fronts for promoting religion. Can you tell me weather any of these that you know of are secular (not atheist, just not overtly religious)?

You don't have to be against consumption of alcohol to be against it's use in conjunction with vehicles.

Me - I'm not offended if religion ends up being at the vanguard of stopping drunk-driving. The means justify the end.

The big arguments that religious groups tend to be able to use against alcohol... are the obvious harms that alcohol CAN be involved in. Drunk-driving is an evil both sides can agree on... and reducing that statistic would actually strengthen the argument that alcohol USED RESPONSIBLY, is okay.

So is it illegal to sell someone enough alcohol to intoxicate them? Because otherwise, unless you're making your own alcohol, someone else is always going to be charged with "providing a person alcohol" before they get a DUI.
This is to keep restaurants from letting people they know who have been drinking, drive. Bars, clubs, and other places that serve alcohol also have the responsibility to make sure that their customers get to the train or call a cab or a driver (Japan has a lot of ways to get home without getting behind the wheel).

It's a pretty good system in that I've been in bars with people who are drinking and they make damn sure they know who is driving and make arrangements with the customers before we got the drinks about how we're getting home.

This is to keep restaurants from letting people they know who have been drinking, drive. Bars, clubs, and other places that serve alcohol also have the responsibility to make sure that their customers get to the train or call a cab or a driver (Japan has a lot of ways to get home without getting behind the wheel).

It's a pretty good system in that I've been in bars with people who are drinking and they make damn sure they know who is driving and make arrangements with the customers before we got the drinks about how we're getting home.

Wow. That's amazing, and awesome. Here they serve you drinks until you've actually blacked out once or twice in the middle of ordering, and no one's ever asked me if I'm driving (I wasn't).

The situation here is pretty bad because the Bay is so spread out and public transportation is so limited. There are never EVER enough cabs, even in the City (forget Oakland or Berkeley) and BART stops service around midnight--two hours before bars close. It's ridiculously dangerous.

I guess that like most things in life, we think that it's not going to happen to us and so don't take the risk of hitting something seriously. "It's just round the corner..." etc.

Having said that, while I can understand the mistake, I still think people should be punished for making it. In this country there is a minimum disqualification period of 12 months, which I think is a fair and proportionate response to the crime - if you can't be trusted with your licence, you can't have it.

First of all, sorry to hear that.
Hope she gets trough it alright.

Secondly, I rarely drink, and don´t have a drivers license.
So I do not know what could possibly go on in their minds,
but it is foolish indeed.
If public transportation were properly constructed throughout inhabited locations,
then such occurrences might be avoided to some degree.

I would argue that deliberately placing yourself in a position where you are aiming a potentially deadly weapon towards the general public, launching it, and instituting only the absolute minimal control (i.e. apparently, 'hoping') IS intent to kill. The fact that it's a generalised intent, not targetted on one specific person shouldn't make a difference.

You seem to be repeating your arguments, but that doesn't make them more logical. Its not "generalized intent," because the typical drunk driver does not intend to kill anyone.

You're not even trying to present a legal justification for this so far as I can see. Rather, you appear to be saying that because their behavior is risky and negligent, that makes it equivalent to an intent to commit murder, and then offering no supporting evidence beyond that assertion and the flat-out falsehood that their is "a generalised intent" (whatever the hell that means).

I didn't say that. My argument is that a car is a potentially deadly weapon, and that DELIBERATELY impairing your own capacity to control it, and then STILL using it, means you are launching a potentially lethal strike on some random victim, with only your optimism - if that - as safeguard.

That still doesn't equal intent to kill. Leaving aside that you could argue a person who is severely impaired is not capable of making a rational and voluntary choice.

I may have misrepresented your argument, and if so I apologise. However, their is more to your argument than arguing that its "launching a potentially lethal strike." You are arguing that it constitutes intent to kill.

Drink-driving is not new, not unique to this situation. The 'crocodile of schoolchildren' refers to a specific case where a young mom mand three children were killed by a drunk-driver, but that's almost irrelevent. The point is that alcohol is treated like mitigation in the causing of death to innocents.

Well, the question of "mitigation" of responsibility depends on weather you believe that a person is responsible for the choices they make while their judgement is impaired.

You were arguing that it was basically wasting court time, etc.

I don't consider it a strawman to extract 'not serious' from that.

Or are you arguing that serious issues waste time?

I have attempted to remain civil, but you are either staggeringly obtuse, failing to read/recall my previous posts, or lying.

I never said it would waste the court's time. I said that it would overcrowd the prisons. The two issues are not synonymous.

Apparently, more honestly than some.

So now we descend to the level of personal attacks.

Actually, I suppose you could argue some of my comments crossed that line (though I don't think I intended to), so I'll let it go.

Petty theft tends to be about need. Obviously 'deterrence' is going to be less effective on some 'crimes' than others. If I need to feed my family, and theft is the only way, it's likely I'll think about illegal means.

I'm interested to see how you're going to justify the parallel.

Who needs[ to get drunk, then drive?

I think my point was that arguments in favor of lighter sentences do not cause the crime (or at least that they don't nessissarily do so). I might not have chosen the best example, but I think I was trying to question the idea that deterrence is an effective legal policy. In any case, I repeat that I was not trying to equate petty theft and drunk driving. I'm still unsure weather you committed another strawman here.

Take any crime you wish: murder, theft, fraud, rape, whatever. Can you demonstrate any evidence that inflicting harsh punishments has ever been an effective deterrent? At least enough to outweigh the social damage caused by such punishments.

In any case, I will repeat the following: I was not trying to equate petty theft and drunk driving.

I advocate the death penalty for rape and murder. It's a different issue, but it would clear out a lot of prison overcrowding, so I'm mentioning it. Thus - the prison overcrowding argument fails - if prisons are overcrowded, it just means our sentencing isn't harsh enough.

But then you run into the issue of human rights. I'd like to think we can move past the point where people cling to the idea that criminals have forfited their human rights.

Could argue? Drunk drivers ARE a danger to public safety - no argument.

Of course. Perhaps I worded that badly. What I meant is that you could use that fact as a justification for jailing them on the grounds of protecting public safety. However, I would still point out the practical and ethical issues with doing so in every case.

Which only works if it stops them driving...

...which you admit here.

Absolutely. I believe that in some cases, due to concerns over prison overcrowding and the need to rehabilitate, that it is better to suspend licenses and demand restitution rather than skip directly to jail time. However, it is only effective if it stops them from driving, so if they drive with their license suspended, then toss their ass in jail. I don't see anything inconsistent in my position.

Punishment that doesn't punish is irrelevent.

I think this is the fundemental point of disagreement. You see the justice system as being about punishment, which I will go out on a limb and define in this context, in general, as "inflicting suffering as an act of retribution." I see the Justice System as being about serving the interests of the public safety and well-being.

Why are minors drinking and driving? Where is that legal?

Its not, as I'm sure you know. However, if we jailed every teenager who was a selfish, short-sighted idiot, I suspect we could close down a fair few high schools.

The problem is - the 'first time offender' thing is something of a strawman. Drink-drivers tend to be habitual.

I'm pretty sure you're misdefining "strawman." I thought a strawman was misrepresenting your opponent's argument in a way that made it easier to knock down. So tell me, what argument of your's did I redefine?

As far as repeat offenders are concerned, I would point out that their are doubtless people who are one-time offenders. I don't have statistics on hand at the moment, but they may be more common than you think.

The point is, people change. Kids make mistakes, and learn to improve from them. The odds of them doing so if they are taking it up the ass in a prison cell are probably somewhat lower.

Note: I will probably not post further tonight on this topic, as it is late, and my debating suffers when I'm tired. Don't think that this means I am ignoring your posts.

I don't know how much they're going to be able to get though. If he doesn't have insurance, then isn't she pretty much fucked on the financial front?

And this is why we have the NHS.

Wow. That's amazing, and awesome. Here they serve you drinks until you've actually blacked out once or twice in the middle of ordering, and no one's ever asked me if I'm driving (I wasn't).

The situation here is pretty bad because the Bay is so spread out and public transportation is so limited. There are never EVER enough cabs, even in the City (forget Oakland or Berkeley) and BART stops service around midnight--two hours before bars close. It's ridiculously dangerous.
I have been constantly amazed at what Japan has to keep people from driving. The trains run late of course, but there are hoards of cabs and the driver system (Two guys in a cab, one of whom will drive your car back home with you in it while the cab trails behind to drive the driver back, that way you don't have to worry about getting your car the next day). And of course there are capsule hotels or Internet cafes that allow you to just sleep it off where you are. Even better though, if you are driving, there is no fuss about it. I remember being the designated driver back in the US and I always caught grief for it, or I was offered a drink anyway (Ah, come'on, one ain't gonna hurt!). Here in Japan though, I'll get people saying, (Oh, poor you. It's a tough situation, huh?) but then they automatically go fetch the tea or whatever I am drinking and poor me a glass and nothing more is said. It's respected.

Revoking a license and fines for the first offense isn't good enough? What?

Revoking a license and fines for the first offense isn't good enough? What?

Not really since at least in my state they can go buy mopeds and putt putt around on that. I think very few drunk drivers learn after the first offense.

I mean they're driving a multi-ton vehicle while impaired, and all they get is a fine and lose their license for a year? Nuh huh, they should either have to do community services involving teaching other about drunk driving, or jail time. Or, if you really want to hit them where it hurts, increase the fine.

She has medical insurance through the city, so hopefully that'll curtail the medical expenses some.

Between his auto insurance (if he has any), her medical insurance, and her auto insurance, it sounds like she should be covered.

Between his auto insurance (if he has any), her medical insurance, and her auto insurance, it sounds like she should be covered.

Hopefully. I'd hate for her to have to take on more debt because of some jackass's decision.

The legal drinking limit in Norway is 0,2, not 0,8, and if you are caught, you are in loads of problems. Punishment is harder than rape and robbery basically.

Wilgrove, I had to fix your title. 'Fucking' would cross the line and by most wouldn't be considered PG13. Just remember to keep it in perspective when you make the title for your thread. Schools may use this site for academic purposes and the forum thread titles do appear on the main site, so we need to keep titles (at least) clean.

I realise you're angry and you're entitled to feel like that. I don't hold your choice against you. I merely changed the title to be in compliance with the rules. I hope your friend will be ok.

Wilgrove, I had to fix your title. 'Fucking' would cross the line and by most wouldn't be considered PG13. Just remember to keep it in perspective when you make the title for your thread. Schools may use this site for academic purposes and the forum thread titles do appear on the main site, so we need to keep titles (at least) clean.

I realise you're angry and you're entitled to feel like that. I don't hold your choice against you. I merely changed the title to be in compliance with the rules. I hope your friend will be ok.

Ok, I'm not trying to be my usual smart-ass here, and I really am curious, but what academic value does NS, and NSG have?

Ok, I'm not trying to be my usual smart-ass here, and I really am curious, but what academic value does NS, and NSG have?

Frankly, I've always wondered the same thing, but that is apparently the basis for not being allowed to have crass or swear-tastic titles for posts. I'm just enforcing the rules. :)

Ok, I'm not trying to be my usual smart-ass here, and I really am curious, but what academic value does NS, and NSG have?

NS has the academic value of teaching students how a nation evolves into something totally different than most people will expect when even seemingly simple legislation gets passed.
If I were a teacher in social studies or history I would create a classroom excersize out of this game where once a week the class gets together as the nation's ruling bod and votes on the issues in a govt. simulation.

The thread title is a colossal redundancy.

Just Ban Alcohol, or Driving.

I won't drink anything alcoholic, not even a glass of wine with dinner, if I expect to be driving within three hours.

When I was a kid, my parents bought us a video game system -- the TI-99 4a. We all enjoyed playing the space game they got with the system.

As a lark, my folks decided to play one game before they had a drink of scotch each.

Then they played while they were having a scotch.

Then they played after they had had the one drink, but before a second.

Then they played after having a second.

They were by no means drunk after two drinks, but their coordination was shit and their scores went down.

I shudder to think how many people think they're fine to drive but really aren't, on the basis that they don't "feel" impaired.

Just Ban Alcohol, or Driving.

Not quite. Ignition interlocks that can tell the difference between booze and Listerine would be a good start.

Taking away the driver's license is only harmful to them if it stops them driving.

You can only get payment from the drunkdriver if he has money (or she, of course).

Drunk-driving is indulged in American law. It's given no real weight, and there's no real intent to frown on it, much less punish it.

After the local judge drunk-drove through my front yard last year, and left his pick-up burning in the trees, I have come to understand why.
Not always true.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/dwi.murder.trial.2.242472.html?detectflash=false
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dui+murder+convictions&btnG=Search

But true rather more often than I'd like to hear.

Not quite. Ignition interlocks that can tell the difference between booze and Listerine would be a good start.

We'd all be a lot safer without humans being allowed to direct the movements of large metal-and-plastic objects.

Wow. That's amazing, and awesome. Here they serve you drinks until you've actually blacked out once or twice in the middle of ordering, and no one's ever asked me if I'm driving (I wasn't).

The situation here is pretty bad because the Bay is so spread out and public transportation is so limited. There are never EVER enough cabs, even in the City (forget Oakland or Berkeley) and BART stops service around midnight--two hours before bars close. It's ridiculously dangerous.
It was always my belief that people should be responsible enough for themselves to make sure they're not blasted.

Blaming a lack of cabs and public transportation as being the danger in drinking until impaired doesn't sit well with me. The drinker should make arrangements before drinking to make sure they have a safe way home, or not drink until impairment.

Ok, I'm not trying to be my usual smart-ass here, and I really am curious, but what academic value does NS, and NSG have?
We're used as a political simulator in middle and high schools.

Revoking a license and fines for the first offense isn't good enough? What?
Revoking a license for revoking someone's life seems a bit light, doesn't it?

We'd all be a lot safer without humans being allowed to direct the movements of large metal-and-plastic objects.
Not all of us can walk to work -- or commute 200 miles on horseback.

It was always my belief that people should be responsible enough for themselves to make sure they're not blasted.

Blaming a lack of cabs and public transportation as being the danger in drinking until impaired doesn't sit well with me. The drinker should make arrangements before drinking to make sure they have a safe way home, or not drink until impairment.

I think it's pretty clear I wasn't making the argument that it's anyone's responsibility other than the drinker's to find a safe way to get home. I was simply impressed by what NERVUN had to say about the situation in Japan, and how the government and businesses work together to help the issue. Go yell at greed and death if you want to chastise someone.

We get jail time for the first Drunk Driving Offense down here...although, Im not sure how long it is...

But, seriously, it should be common sense...Call a Cab or take the Bus...they are available, lol...

EDIT: and Cabs are available in Mississippi, seriously, if our little towns can support them, others should as well

Shit, that's bad. Can't believe you let people get in massive debt over things that aren't their fault, either, I know that going though the courts to get the driver to pay is possibly on the cards, but still.

First off, I am very sorry for your friend, Wil, and I am glad that she was not killed.

Edit: The BAC in Japan is less than .03, slightly less than 1 beer.

1. Driving Under the Influence, BAC .08 or higher
Imprisonment with hard labor not to exceed 5 years or fine not exceeding 1,000,000 yen ($10,000).
2. Driving While Impaired, BAC .03 to .79
Imprisonment with hard labor not to exceed 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000)
3. Providing an intoxicated person with a vehicle
Maximum sentence: Same punishment as a drunken driver receives shall be applied.
4. Providing a person with alcohol who subsequently gets a DUI or DWI
Maximum sentence: Imprisonment with hard labor not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000) for DUI; 2 years imprisonment, 300,000 yen ($3,000) fine for DWI
5. Riding as passengers in a vehicle operated by an intoxicated person
Maximum sentence: Imprisonment with hard labor not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000) for DUI; 2 years imprisonment, 300,000 yen ($3,000) fine for DWI
6. Rejecting balloon (sobriety) test
Confinement not exceeding 3 months or fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000)
7. Hit and run
Confinement not exceeding 10 years or fine not exceeding 1,000,000 yen ($10,000)

The moral of the story here folks is don't drink and drive in Japan.

Were I to design drunk driving laws, it would be somewhat like this, but, in addition:
Any person who, while driving drunk, is in a wreck must pay, in addition to the penalties above, all medical fees and fees for the repair or replacement of the other vehicle.

Also, a significant portion of all money taken in from fines for DUIs would be set aside in a special fund, to be used if the criminal doesn't have enough money, doesn't have a job from which payments could be deducted, and does not have enough property to confiscate to pay for the damages.

Every repeat offense would be significantly larger than (perhaps even double) the previous sentence.

I usually don't support overly harsh laws, but people who drive drunk are selfish bastards-- among the worst examples of filth our species has to offer-- and are completely and utterly devoid of any empathy for any other person, so it's rather difficult to have any for them.

I usually don't support overly harsh laws, but people who drive drunk are selfish bastards-- among the worst examples of filth our species has to offer-- and are completely and utterly devoid of any empathy for any other person, so it's rather difficult to have any for them.

That's quite a pronouncement, that if someone drives drunk they are completely incapable of feeling empathy for others.

Their actions are dispicable, of course. But this statement is idiotic, and dehumanization of criminals is a step towards justify inhumane treatment of said criminals.

That's quite a pronouncement, that if someone drives drunk they are completely incapable of feeling empathy for others.

Their actions are dispicable, of course. But this statement is idiotic, and dehumanization of criminals is a step towards justify inhumane treatment of said criminals.

You've got it backwards. If somebody is capable of feeling empathy for others, they won't drive drunk.

EDIT: It doesn't mean that they won't some day see the error of their ways. Assholes are redeemable, occasionally.

I usually don't support overly harsh laws, but people who drive drunk are selfish bastards-- among the worst examples of filth our species has to offer-- and are completely and utterly devoid of any empathy for any other person, so it's rather difficult to have any for them.

I kind of have to echo The RR here---I don't think it's really necessary to single out drunk drivers as "among the worst examples of filth our species has to offer." Is drunk driving a terrible crime? Yes. Is it worse than murder, rape, child or spousal abuse? No. They're all really bad. But to characterize anyone who has driven drunk as "utterly devoid of empathy" is a very harsh indictment. On a 2005 survey, about 13% of Americans admitted to driving while under the influence at least once in the last year. Sickening statistic? Yes. Are they all worthless people? Most likely not.

You've got it backwards. If somebody is capable of feeling empathy for others, they won't drive drunk.

Okay, that's just bull. You're saying that if a person is capable of empathy, they'll never do anything to hurt another person. If that's the case, then the vast majority of humanity is incapable of empathy, because we almost ALL do things to hurt others--sometimes because we don't think ahead, sometimes because we don't understand that it hurts them, sometimes just because we're scared/upset/hurt/angry. Everyone who does something wrong or stupid is not a bad, unfeeling person.

I kind of have to echo The RR here---I don't think it's really necessary to single out drunk drivers as "among the worst examples of filth our species has to offer." Is drunk driving a terrible crime? Yes. Is it worse than murder, rape, child or spousal abuse? No. They're all really bad. But to characterize anyone who has driven drunk as "utterly devoid of empathy" is a very harsh indictment. On a 2005 survey, about 13% of Americans admitted to driving while under the influence at least once in the last year. Sickening statistic? Yes. Are they all worthless people? Most likely not.

Utterly worthless? Hm. Perhaps not. But damn near. Perhaps if they were incredibly remorseful about it, you could say at least they learned what assholes they had been. The fact that it ranks with all those listed crimes says something about it, and the fact that it isn't treated nearly as harshly as rape reveals a serious problem in our justice system.

Okay, that's just bull. You're saying that if a person is capable of empathy, they'll never do anything to hurt another person. If that's the case, then the vast majority of humanity is incapable of empathy, because we almost ALL do things to hurt others--sometimes because we don't think ahead, sometimes because we don't understand that it hurts them, sometimes just because we're scared/upset/hurt/angry. Everyone who does something wrong or stupid is not a bad, unfeeling person.

It's not just a matter of doing something that so happens to hurt somebody. It's doing something that almost certainly will. I mean, damn, I've been drunk enough to the point of being incapable of standing up, and I still knew that driving would be a despicable thing to do. (Not that I would have been able to even get into a car at that point, but still.) If I can get that drunk and still realize this, then people should be able to do so when they are less drunk than that. If you're physically capable of getting a car started, your judgment should be good enough not to do so.

The American law basically treats alcohol as an excuse.

A friend of mine was hit by a drunk driver about two years ago. He had had his license revoked for DUI before, and actually - had a DUI accident about two months AFTER the incident with my friend, also.

He wrote off her car. She was eventually cut from the car and airlifted to hospital. Total medical costs (to her) so far have been about $70,000. She's had to sell her house to pay medical bills, and he's still out driving (admittedly, in a different truck - his wealthy father buys him a new truck each time one gets written off).

I have no time for drink-driving. I have no time for the American legal system that refuses to deal with it.

When was this and what state? Keep in mind, DUI laws vary state by state. If, for example you get a DUI in IL, youre fucked. Royally fucked.

It's not just a matter of doing something that so happens to hurt somebody. It's doing something that almost certainly will. I mean, damn, I've been drunk enough to the point of being incapable of standing up, and I still knew that driving would be a despicable thing to do. (Not that I would have been able to even get into a car at that point, but still.) If I can get that drunk and still realize this, then people should be able to do so when they are less drunk than that. If you're physically capable of getting a car started, your judgment should be good enough not to do so.

And I would argue that many, if not most, drunk driving incidents happen not when someone is hammered, but when they've just had enough to impair their judgment. It's a lot easier to realize you've had way too much than a little too much.

I'd also say that drinking to a point where you are unable to stand up is incredibly dangerous--I have had to revive friends who drank to unconsciousness, and while it doesn't put as many others at risk, it's still dangerous.

And I would argue that many, if not most, drunk driving incidents happen not when someone is hammered, but when they've just had enough to impair their judgment. It's a lot easier to realize you've had way too much than a little too much.

I'd also say that drinking to a point where you are unable to stand up is incredibly dangerous--I have had to revive friends who drank to unconsciousness, and while it doesn't put as many others at risk, it's still dangerous.

Yeah, I felt like an idiot afterwards, but at least it was only myself I put at risk. It was a stupid thing to do, I fully admit, but, even had things gone wrong, at least I would have been the only one to suffer the consequences of my actions. I think that's an incredibly important distinction.

When was this and what state? Keep in mind, DUI laws vary state by state. If, for example you get a DUI in IL, youre fucked. Royally fucked.

It'd be about two years ago, in Georgia.

I just got back from the hospital, my best friend has been involved in a drunk driving accident. She wasn't drinking, but the jackass in the other truck was. Hit her fucking head on. Luckily she only has a broken femur and some scratches and bruises.

Here's what I want to know, how fucking drunk do you have to be, to think that driving home, while drunk is a good idea?! At what fucking point, does it enter into a jackass's nimron of a fucking brain does "Driving while Drunk = Good idea"? Also, the punishment we have for drunk driving in this city is fucking ridiculous! You don't even get any damn jail time until your 2nd offense! First offense is a fucking slap on the damn wrist! First offense, you get a fine and your license taken away for a year. Big-Fucking-Whooping-Doo!

Sorry for the language, but I am just pissed right now, I am royalty pissed. I hope my friend makes this jackass and idiot of the year pay out of the fucking ass!
Hope your friend gets better, and thank God she wasn't killed.

If you can't make the right decisions drunk, don't drink.

It's really not that difficult. for some... it's the hardest thing to do.

So is it illegal to sell someone enough alcohol to intoxicate them? Because otherwise, unless you're making your own alcohol, someone else is always going to be charged with "providing a person alcohol" before they get a DUI.Most bars and places that serve alcohol has the right and ability to cut you off.

Not quite. Ignition interlocks that can tell the difference between booze and Listerine would be a good start.and I support these being installed in DUI cars.

I kind of have to echo The RR here---I don't think it's really necessary to single out drunk drivers as "among the worst examples of filth our species has to offer."


'Single out' and 'among the worst' seem to conflict, there.


Is drunk driving a terrible crime? Yes. Is it worse than murder, rape, child or spousal abuse? No.


No. But the post didn't say it was.


They're all really bad. But to characterize anyone who has driven drunk as "utterly devoid of empathy" is a very harsh indictment. On a 2005 survey, about 13% of Americans admitted to driving while under the influence at least once in the last year.


So 13% of Americans lack empathy? OK.


Sickening statistic? Yes. Are they all worthless people? Most likely not.

Why?

For every 8 people you meet, one will be an asshole? That doesn't sound too far fetched.

for some... it's the hardest thing to do.


This, I don't buy.

No one is forcing anyone to drink and drive.

If you honestly can't stop yourself drinking, don't have a car.

If you have to drive, don't drink.

Pick which one you can live with.

This, I don't buy.

No one is forcing anyone to drink and drive.

If you honestly can't stop yourself drinking, don't have a car.

If you have to drive, don't drink.

Pick which one you can live with.

and what I'm saying is that for many, they think they can drive "after a couple of drinks". remember, their Judgement is impaired.

I'm not defending them. just saying they're out there. :(

1. "how ** drunk do you have to be, to think" that's the point - as soon as a person is drunk, they cease to think.

therefore, if a person has more than 2 glasses of booze, they should have the car keys taken from them (heard once of a place that, when you sat at the bar, you turned in your car keys, and the bar tender decided whether or not to give them back. thought that was a brilliant idea)

2. "First offense, you get a fine and your license taken away for a year. " Unless of course they kill someone. then they actually get in trouble.

shouldn't they just get into wicked bad trouble out of the gate??

You seem to be repeating your arguments, but that doesn't make them more logical. Its not "generalized intent," because the typical drunk driver does not intend to kill anyone.


I don't believe that.

I think anyone that drinks and then drives has chosen to kill someone.


You're not even trying to present a legal justification for this so far as I can see. Rather, you appear to be saying that because their behavior is risky and negligent, that makes it equivalent to an intent to commit murder, and then offering no supporting evidence beyond that assertion and the flat-out falsehood that their is "a generalised intent" (whatever the hell that means).


If I shoot you repeatedly, and you don't die - does that change the intent? No - because getting lucky doesn't change the intent or the action.

Anyone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel MIGHT not kill someone - but it will be only luck, not judgement.


That still doesn't equal intent to kill. Leaving aside that you could argue a person who is severely impaired is not capable of making a rational and voluntary choice.


Can you give a reason why that person should be considered to be consistently incapable, every moment, of every day?

Because - if you can't - they STILL make a choice at some point to put themselves behind a wheel drunk.


Well, the question of "mitigation" of responsibility depends on weather you believe that a person is responsible for the choices they make while their judgement is impaired.


As above.


I have attempted to remain civil, but you are either staggeringly obtuse, failing to read/recall my previous posts, or lying.

I never said it would waste the court's time. I said that it would overcrowd the prisons. The two issues are not synonymous.


Clogging prisons. Whatever. If the crime is serious, it's serious. "Oh, our prisons are all cloggy" is no excuse for turning a blind eye.


So now we descend to the level of personal attacks.

Actually, I suppose you could argue some of my comments crossed that line (though I don't think I intended to), so I'll let it go.


You'll 'let it go' that I made the suggestion your own prior comment could be pointed back at you?


I think my point was that arguments in favor of lighter sentences do not cause the crime (or at least that they don't nessissarily do so).


The sentence doesn't cause the crime... no.


Take any crime you wish: murder, theft, fraud, rape, whatever. Can you demonstrate any evidence that inflicting harsh punishments has ever been an effective deterrent? At least enough to outweigh the social damage caused by such punishments.


'Social damage'? What kind of crap is that? You're seriously arguing that the 'punishments' for rape and murder, etc... are worse than the crimes? No? Small price to pay, then.


But then you run into the issue of human rights. I'd like to think we can move past the point where people cling to the idea that criminals have forfited their human rights.


There are no 'human rights'.


Absolutely. I believe that in some cases, due to concerns over prison overcrowding and the need to rehabilitate, that it is better to suspend licenses and demand restitution rather than skip directly to jail time.


I don't accept overcrowding as an excuse not to deal with the crime.


However, it is only effective if it stops them from driving, so if they drive with their license suspended, then toss their ass in jail. I don't see anything inconsistent in my position.


You don't? For real?

You won't impison those who put lives at risk... but you think it justified to imprison those who haven't got the right piece of paper?


I think this is the fundemental point of disagreement. You see the justice system as being about punishment,


No, actually. I see the justice system as being about safety. Which is why ours isn't really a 'justice' system.


As far as repeat offenders are concerned, I would point out that their are doubtless people who are one-time offenders.


How many, would you think?

How many Americans drink and drive only ONCE, ever?

and what I'm saying is that for many, they think they can drive "after a couple of drinks". remember, their Judgement is impaired.

I'm not defending them. just saying they're out there. :(

Their judgement could be argued as impaired AFTER they've had a couple of drinks. It's not a good excuse BEFORE they drink.

So - if they drink and then drive, 'impaired judgement' should be something ADDED to the list of crimes, not used to mitigate.

You know what, fuck the motivation. I've really tried to see things from others perspective, more so lately, but honestly, I will never understand why someone would do something this fucking stupid, and not only put himself at risk, but put everyone else on the road at risk!

People that irresponsible don't think that way. They want to do things their way and to hell with what anyone else thinks. They are different from everyone else. They are ok to drive when someone else woudln't be. They're invincible.

I've seen a guy threaten to punch my husband because he offered to pay for a cab rather than let the guy drive home smashed. In the end, I had to threaten to call the police to keep him from driving off and, if it hadn't been for a rather imposing friend standing there with me, the guy probably would have hit me.

Their judgement could be argued as impaired AFTER they've had a couple of drinks. It's not a good excuse BEFORE they drink.

^This. A person who makes the decision to drink is also responsible for making the decision to ensure themselves a safe way home. And that responsibility comes before they are drunk and have impaired judgment. If they don't do it, they have chosen to endanger others.

I think drunk drivng should be punished more harshly than it is. Stiffer fines should be instituted for just being caught, people should lose thier license for life on a third offense, insurance premiums should increase for people who have been caught. Driving drunk where I live is like a sport, lots of people think nothing of doing it and it only matters when people get caught its fucking stupid and a large part of the reason I do not bother to get my license.

If someone causes an accident not only should they be held responsible for anyone killed or injured, they should be monitarily responsible for damages caused to any vehicle, building, person, what have you, they hit too. I don't agree with some people's assertions that just driving while drunk should be treated as intent to kill though.

And I would argue that many, if not most, drunk driving incidents happen not when someone is hammered, but when they've just had enough to impair their judgment. It's a lot easier to realize you've had way too much than a little too much.

I'd also say that drinking to a point where you are unable to stand up is incredibly dangerous--I have had to revive friends who drank to unconsciousness, and while it doesn't put as many others at risk, it's still dangerous.

You may be right about the number of time people get behind the wheel but not the number off accidents. The real problem is that you *can* get away with it most of the time - if your not too drunk. But drunk people aren't very good at measuring their own levels of inebriation and the drunker you are the more convinced you are of your own super-powers.

The problem is - the 'first time offender' thing is something of a strawman. Drink-drivers tend to be habitual.

I don't know about this. Well, I do agree that drunk drivers tend to be habitual.

However, I've also known plenty of people who did it maybe once when the were young and stupid and just starting to drink. They realized their error and made a point of better planning in the future. This doesn't excuse the action, of course, but it does mean that there are people who learn their lesson simply by thinking about how dangerous their actions were when they sober up the next day.

So 13% of Americans lack empathy? OK.

That was 13% who said they'd driven drunk in the previous year. How many people have driven drunk ever? Substantially more, I'd say. For many, like me, it was probably only once, and they were lucky enough to learn their lesson in a way that didn't end in tragedy. I didn't drink and drive because I lacked empathy for other people, I did it because I was young and dumb and probably lacking in maturity and higher executive functioning. I never did it AGAIN because the realization of how I could have hurt someone else struck me. Stupid, careless, shameful, yes, and if I had hurt anyone, I would have deserved whatever the law threw at me--but I don't believe that mistake makes me "filth" or "incapable of empathy".

For every 8 people you meet, one will be an asshole? That doesn't sound too far fetched.

I guess I just believe people are generally good. I am year of the Pig.

Not sure you should bother trying to reason with him. This is a guy, remember, who just posted "there are no 'human rights'."

I don't know about this. Well, I do agree that drunk drivers tend to be habitual.

However, I've also known plenty of people who did it maybe once when the were young and stupid and just starting to drink. They realized their error and made a point of better planning in the future. This doesn't excuse the action, of course, but it does mean that there are people who learn their lesson simply by thinking about how dangerous their actions were when they sober up the next day.

/\This/\ is exactly what I was trying to get at. That's what I did, and that's why I've never since then gone anywhere I might drink without a safe plan to get home.

Not sure you should bother trying to reason with him. This is a guy, remember, who just posted "there are no 'human rights'."

:rolleyes: Unless GnI says otherwise, I think we can manage a rational adult discussion.

Well, the question of "mitigation" of responsibility depends on weather you believe that a person is responsible for the choices they make while their judgement is impaired.

Not really. The time to make a decision on how you will get home/wherever you want to go after drinking is before you drink, when your judgment is not impaired.

I never said it would waste the court's time. I said that it would overcrowd the prisons. The two issues are not synonymous.

Let out all the people whose "crimes" don't endanger anyone but themselves (ie. most drug offenders). Then you'll have plenty of room for repeat drunk drivers.

I might not have chosen the best example, but I think I was trying to question the idea that deterrence is an effective legal policy.

Nothing is going to prevent all crimes. But a hefty enough penalty does make people think twice before they do something, even if its something they really want to do.

And someone who's been through the penalty once will probably really think before they do something. I knew a guy who had his license suspended for several years. After all that time spent carting his bicycle around, dealing with inclement weather, and begging rides off of others, he was extremely careful when he finally got his license back. He wasn't the most responsible person in general, but he was responsible about driving.

Not sure you should bother trying to reason with him. This is a guy, remember, who just posted "there are no 'human rights'."

Where are they? Show me emperical proof, solipsistic musings notwithstanding, for any of the abstract foundations upon which modernity is built. Can you demonstrate to me the physical existence of "human rights"?

Not to be fascetious, but Gn'I was strictly correct; there are no human rights.

Where are they? Show me emperical proof, solipsistic musings notwithstanding, for any of the abstract foundations upon which modernity is built. Can you demonstrate to me the physical existence of "human rights"?

Not to be fascetious, but Gn'I was strictly correct; there are no human rights.

There are, there is just a lot more human wrongs.

*snip*

I don't believe that.

I think anyone that drinks and then drives has chosen to kill someone.

Do you mean someone who drinks, drives, and then kills someone?

Or just anyone who drinks and drives?

I ask because today, after running some errands, I stopped into the pub to get some carryout dinner. I had a drink while waiting. I drank, drove, and the only thing I chose to do was order the Buffalo Chicken Salad. I sure as hell didn't choose to kill someone.

There are, there is just a lot more human wrongs.

There really aren't. My table, much as I'd like it to be, is not composed of "human rights" atoms; I'd direct you to an oblique analysis of this by Pratchett at the end of "Hogfather".

That our abstract axioms do not exist in no way invalidates their contemporary use, it's simply that immanent in abstract entities is their not being physical.

I'll concede this when you can emperically prove the physical existence of a "human right".

You see a lot of drunk driving in farm country. Some people just don't think the statistics apply to them. Remember that governor of Montana or North Dakota or wherever it was who used to get away with drunk driving regularly? It wasn't illegal to have open containers in the car with you back then, which made it even easier.

There really aren't. My table, much as I'd like it to be, is not composed of "human rights" atoms; I'd direct you to an oblique analysis of this by Pratchett at the end of "Hogfather".

That our abstract axioms do not exist in no way invalidates their contemporary use, it's simply that immanent in abstract entities is their not being physical.

I'll concede this when you can emperically prove the physical existence of a "human right".

*resist faceplant*

I was using your statement to build off a statement that humanity mainly does things wrong, and only occasionally on accident gets things right.

But to you're argument: Human rights exist because we say they do. You don't need physical proof beyond that. Grass is green because we say it is, an automobile is an automobile because thats what we named it. You don't need physical proof of a lot of things and arguing for it is as often as nonsensical an argumant as saying "Because we say so" but in the end that is all that is needed to make some things true and saying "But I have never seen physical truth" isn't going to change the fact. We have human rights because we decided that we do, we decided that there were some things that everyone should have, and the vast majority of us work to ensure that it is so, and that is why human rights really do exist.

That was 13% who said they'd driven drunk in the previous year. How many people have driven drunk ever? Substantially more, I'd say. For many, like me, it was probably only once, and they were lucky enough to learn their lesson in a way that didn't end in tragedy. I didn't drink and drive because I lacked empathy for other people, I did it because I was young and dumb and probably lacking in maturity and higher executive functioning. I never did it AGAIN because the realization of how I could have hurt someone else struck me. Stupid, careless, shameful, yes, and if I had hurt anyone, I would have deserved whatever the law threw at me--but I don't believe that mistake makes me "filth" or "incapable of empathy".


I don't know. From the point at which I was able to drive, I tried to avoid accidents, etc. From the point at which I was able to drink, I preferred to be safe about it. I've never once been tempted to drink and drive.

So, I have no frame of reference.


I guess I just believe people are generally good. I am year of the Pig.

I tend to think that people are going to do something stupid, 9 times out of 10. I'm rarely disappointed.

Not sure you should bother trying to reason with him. This is a guy, remember, who just posted "there are no 'human rights'."

And what does that have to do with it?

Where are they? Show me emperical proof, solipsistic musings notwithstanding, for any of the abstract foundations upon which modernity is built. Can you demonstrate to me the physical existence of "human rights"?

Not to be fascetious, but Gn'I was strictly correct; there are no human rights.

This.

We can exchange discussions, all day, about which abstract artifacts make our lives happier, but there is no substance to 'human rights' except what we agree between ourselves to allow.

Which is why appealing to 'human rights' is nonsensical. If we don't AGREE that it is a 'right', then it isn't.

Do you mean someone who drinks, drives, and then kills someone?

Or just anyone who drinks and drives?

I ask because today, after running some errands, I stopped into the pub to get some carryout dinner. I had a drink while waiting. I drank, drove, and the only thing I chose to do was order the Buffalo Chicken Salad. I sure as hell didn't choose to kill someone.

Of course you did.

You drank, then drove. That was your choice. The fact that you got lucky, and no one got hurt, can't be figured into YOUR end of the arrangement.

*resist faceplant*

I was using your statement to build off a statement that humanity mainly does things wrong, and only occasionally on accident gets things right.

But to you're argument: Human rights exist because we say they do. You don't need physical proof beyond that. Grass is green because we say it is, an automobile is an automobile because thats what we named it. You don't need physical proof of a lot of things and arguing for it is as often as nonsensical an argumant as saying "Because we say so" but in the end that is all that is needed to make some things true and saying "But I have never seen physical truth" isn't going to change the fact. We have human rights because we decided that we do, we decided that there were some things that everyone should have, and the vast majority of us work to ensure that it is so, and that is why human rights really do exist.

Facts and societal reality are not coterminous; popular belief in "human rights" are societal reality, however, this is not the same as fact. If popular belief resulted in factual existence, we'd live in Discworld.

I suspect we're arguing much the same point, from different political views. I don't doubt the contemporary prevalence, or quasi-divinity, of "human rights"; they exist in abstract, not, however, as a physical entity.

Facts and societal reality are not coterminous; popular belief in "human rights" are societal reality, however, this is not the same as fact. If popular belief resulted in factual existence, we'd live in Discworld.

I suspect we're arguing much the same point, from different political views. I don't doubt the contemporary prevalence, or quasi-divinity, of "human rights"; they exist in abstract, not, however, as a physical entity.

Things don't need to exist as a physical entity to exist.

Things don't need to exist as a physical entity to exist.

Does the Christian god exist? Something like 30% of the world population agree that it does.

But that's not what determines it's existence, now, is it. It either exists, or it doesn't... no matter HOW many people agree.

'Human rights' are mere concept. They have no intrinsic value. To be honest, the concept of 'human rights' does more harm than good - because it replaces REAL argument.

Of course you did.

LOL wut?

You drank, then drove. That was your choice.

It most certainly was. I had a drink, and then I drove home. It was my choice to do so.

The fact that you got lucky, and no one got hurt, can't be figured into YOUR end of the arrangement.

I got lucky? That's ridiculous.

And what other things should be factored into my end of the arrangement? Maybe the fact that I can have a drink without being intoxicated? (At least to the point where my driving is truly impaired.)

And yet I'm choosing to murder someone?

Your position is ludicrous.

I don't have a problem with vehicular manslaughter laws. If I damage someone's property, or their person, then I should be held accountable to a standard that the law has already prescribed. But to say that anyone who did what I did tonight should be charged with murder, lies somewhere between tragically insane and laughably stupid.

Does the Christian god exist? Something like 30% of the world population agree that it does.

Thats an unfair question. You can't expact an answer to a question that no living person has any way of honestly answering, you either beleive or don't beleive.


'Human rights' are mere concept. They have no intrinsic value. To be honest, the concept of 'human rights' does more harm than good - because it replaces REAL argument.

Thoughts are a concept, emotions are a concept, disagreements are a concept. Just because human rights are a concept doesn't invalidate them in any way.

'Human rights' are mere concept. They have no intrinsic value. To be honest, the concept of 'human rights' does more harm than good - because it replaces REAL argument.

There is no such thing as a real argument for normative judgements.

Personally I believe that your rights end, where the other person's nose begins.

At the risk of getting flamed to a crisp, what, exactly, is the difference between getting in a car when you're drunk and getting in a car when you're just a terrible driver? Being drunk is hardly needed to get into a car accident, and it's not like having alcohol in your blood will double the horsepower of your car.

Not that I want to condone drunk driving, but it seems to me (perhaps it's different here in Australia) that it is punished too harshly from a social perspective. If you kill someone on the road, people might even feel sorry for you, for all the trauma you went through, unless you were a bit disorientated from alcohol, in which case you're a filthy murderer.

Thats an unfair question. You can't expact an answer to a question that no living person has any way of honestly answering, you either beleive or don't beleive.
It actually does parallel though. You could say that human rights exist. Ok, but what are they? We can't agree on them. We can agree that grass is green (Well, maybe not with me. I have issues with colors sometimes), but what rights get a universal agreement?

I think that at the very least, a drunk driver should have to cover the cost of any medical expenses that occur as a result of his driving and that, if he can't pay, it's his debt to deal with.

At the risk of getting flamed to a crisp, what, exactly, is the difference between getting in a car when you're drunk and getting in a car when you're just a terrible driver?

If you naturally have the slowed reactions and perception of someone who is drunk, you shouldn't be able to get a driver's license in the first place.

If you kill someone on the road, people might even feel sorry for you, for all the trauma you went through, unless you were a bit disorientated from alcohol, in which case you're a filthy murderer.

If the accident was caused by weather conditions or something like that, people feel sorry for you. If it was caused by your own negligence (ie. talking on the phone, digging in your purse), people have less sympathy. The same thing goes for being drunk.

If you naturally have the slowed reactions and perception of someone who is drunk, you shouldn't be able to get a driver's license in the first place.


This^^


If the accident was caused by weather conditions or something like that, people feel sorry for you. If it was caused by your own negligence (ie. talking on the phone, digging in your purse), people have less sympathy. The same thing goes for being drunk.

And this^^

There is no such thing as a real argument for normative judgements.

I don't see what you mean.

My argument was that the 'human rights' argument (such as it is) is not strong. It requires that all involved agree on a set of principles, and they insist on those principles no matter the evidence to the contrary.

e.g. every person has a right to life: well, try telling that to a rockslide.

So, how about dealing with real arguments for why we shouldn't be popping each other off... be they pragmatic, moral/ethical, practical... but not something that relies on pure opinion.

Thats an unfair question. You can't expact an answer to a question that no living person has any way of honestly answering, you either beleive or don't beleive.


Yes. Quite.


Thoughts are a concept, emotions are a concept, disagreements are a concept. Just because human rights are a concept doesn't invalidate them in any way.

It invalidates them as a reason why I should adhere to the behaviours you believe exist.

So, how about dealing with real arguments for why we shouldn't be popping each other off

Well, because there are none.

It most certainly was. I had a drink, and then I drove home. It was my choice to do so.


It was indeed.


I got lucky? That's ridiculous.


Not at all. I have 'got lucky' several times. The time another driver decided to turn left across my line less than ten feet in front of me, I was lucky. Theoretically, we could both have been killed. And neither of the drivers in that exchange had been drinking.


And what other things should be factored into my end of the arrangement? Maybe the fact that I can have a drink without being intoxicated?


No, you can't. And you know it - hence your quick amendment.


(At least to the point where my driving is truly impaired.)


You are not an objective source for that analysis.


I don't have a problem with vehicular manslaughter laws.


I do. I think they are far to weak.


If I damage someone's property, or their person, then I should be held accountable to a standard that the law has already prescribed. But to say that anyone who did what I did tonight should be charged with murder, lies somewhere between tragically insane and laughably stupid.

The argument COULD be made that: anyone who DOES "what you did tonight" IS "somewhere between tragically insane and laughably stupid"... no?

If you naturally have the slowed reactions and perception of someone who is drunk, you shouldn't be able to get a driver's license in the first place.



If the accident was caused by weather conditions or something like that, people feel sorry for you. If it was caused by your own negligence (ie. talking on the phone, digging in your purse), people have less sympathy. The same thing goes for being drunk.

But what if drunkenness is itself the cause of the negligence? What I'm saying is, what about a situation where someone is going at say 40km/h over the speed limit, and they happen to kill someone. The main issue is that they're speeding. I don't see how being drunk makes a significant difference in the scenario, except maybe that if you're not drunk you happen to be naturally be an idiot without the effect of alcohol. The impression I get here is that people think being drunk makes it worse, which is what I don't understand.

Not at all. I have 'got lucky' several times. The time another driver decided to turn left across my line less than ten feet in front of me, I was lucky. Theoretically, we could both have been killed. And neither of the drivers in that exchange had been drinking.

Avoiding accidents is hardly a matter of being lucky when the vast majority of people, drunk or otherwise, manage to get into a car without killing anybody. It would make more sense to say that people who get into accidents get unlucky...

Avoiding accidents is hardly a matter of being lucky when the vast majority of people, drunk or otherwise, manage to get into a car without killing anybody. It would make more sense to say that people who get into accidents get unlucky...

Which means the rest of us, relatively speaking...

Which means the rest of us, relatively speaking...

Does luck not necessarily have to work against chance? Isn't that sort of the point?

Well, this is surely one of the more ridiculous trains of posts I've made on NSG. I'll shut up now.

Does luck not necessarily have to work against chance? Isn't that sort of the point?

Well, this is surely one of the more ridiculous trains of posts I've made on NSG. I'll shut up now.

:D

Awesome. Respect.

Not that I want to condone drunk driving, but it seems to me (perhaps it's different here in Australia) that it is punished too harshly from a social perspective. If you kill someone on the road, people might even feel sorry for you, for all the trauma you went through, unless you were a bit disorientated from alcohol, in which case you're a filthy murderer.

If you kill someone due to unsafe driving practices (like Dany Heatley (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1631396)--who did not actually serve time), I think it's just as bad as killing someone due to intoxication. Accidents are one thing, of course--but if you're racing or messing around in some way you KNOW is unsafe, you're just as culpable as you would be driving drunk, which you also know is unsafe.

there is a solution to drunk drivers. first there needs to be adiquite alternatives to having to drive at all. then liquor by the glass needs to not ever be licenced to be sold anyplace where the only way to get there and back, is, by driving.

no attempt to solve this problem without incorporating both of those elements is ever going to be any where near completely effective.

i'm not saying that to make light of the problem either. rather to put it in its larger context, which, while perhapse less obviously noticable, is none the less, at the inescapable root of it.

making the private passenger automobile the foundation of transportation was never reasonable nor sensable. not that personal transportation needs to be banned entirely, but it certainly doesn't need to remain transportations primary context, nor needed it ever to have been allowed to become that.

and as for empared judgement, well the degree to which that is a problem, aside from immediate personal relationships, has to do with the degree individuals, and again all individuals under nearly all conditions, are called upon to "opperate heavy machinery", such as, for example, automobiles.

The American law basically treats alcohol as an excuse.

A friend of mine was hit by a drunk driver about two years ago. He had had his license revoked for DUI before, and actually - had a DUI accident about two months AFTER the incident with my friend, also.

He wrote off her car. She was eventually cut from the car and airlifted to hospital. Total medical costs (to her) so far have been about $70,000. She's had to sell her house to pay medical bills, and he's still out driving (admittedly, in a different truck - his wealthy father buys him a new truck each time one gets written off).

I have no time for drink-driving. I have no time for the American legal system that refuses to deal with it.

To bad to hear that your friends had to go through that, Wilgrove and GnI. I really don't see the point in drinking. Why don't the bars have some sort of set up where the bouncers take the keys as soon as the patrons enter the door and at closing they can drive the patrons back if it is deemed they cannot drive themselves home safely?

You know what else might say "we take a strong stance against drunk driving"? Not selling 40s at gas stations. Doesn't that just seem a little... off?

I just got back from the hospital, my best friend has been involved in a drunk driving accident. She wasn't drinking, but the jackass in the other truck was.

Here in Italy we pay a huge death toll to drunk (and drugged) driving.

I think that there are some things that can be done about it:

1.Caught driving while drunk/drugged? License revoked for at least 1 year, car under sequester for the same time, fine for BOTH driver and owner (that will teach the owner, too: idiots shouldn't be trusted with cars)

2.Lots of police, expecially near disco, pubs etc, and systematical, mandatory alcohol and drug tests on drivers.

3.Total ban on alcohol sales in motorway-side service areas.

Not selling 40s at gas stations.

I don't understand. By "40s" you mean "liquors above 40% alcohol"?

I would be even harsher. Not even beers at gas stations!

I just got back from the hospital, my best friend has been involved in a drunk driving accident. She wasn't drinking, but the jackass in the other truck was. Hit her fucking head on. Luckily she only has a broken femur and some scratches and bruises.

Here's what I want to know, how fucking drunk do you have to be, to think that driving home, while drunk is a good idea?! At what fucking point, does it enter into a jackass's nimron of a fucking brain does "Driving while Drunk = Good idea"? Also, the punishment we have for drunk driving in this city is fucking ridiculous! You don't even get any damn jail time until your 2nd offense! First offense is a fucking slap on the damn wrist! First offense, you get a fine and your license taken away for a year. Big-Fucking-Whooping-Doo!

Sorry for the language, but I am just pissed right now, I am royalty pissed. I hope my friend makes this jackass and idiot of the year pay out of the fucking ass!

Just ban it I say. If one drop of alchol passes your lips then you should not be put in charge of a two ton killing machine. That simple really.

No, you can't. And you know it - hence your quick amendment.

Yes, I can have a drink without becoming 'too drunk to drive'.

And what is this amendment of which you speak?

You are not an objective source for that analysis.

And you are? What is? BAC? Would a .01 BAC be 'too drunk to drive'?


I do. I think they are far to weak.

And I wouldn't have a problem with vehicular homicide laws being stronger. But they should, at the bare minimum, involve homicide.


The argument COULD be made that: anyone who DOES "what you did tonight" IS "somewhere between tragically insane and laughably stupid"... no?


Yes, it could be made.

And an argument could be made that the earth revolves around the moon.

Both would be ridiculous.

But what if drunkenness is itself the cause of the negligence? What I'm saying is, what about a situation where someone is going at say 40km/h over the speed limit, and they happen to kill someone. The main issue is that they're speeding. I don't see how being drunk makes a significant difference in the scenario, except maybe that if you're not drunk you happen to be naturally be an idiot without the effect of alcohol. The impression I get here is that people think being drunk makes it worse, which is what I don't understand.

Being drunk slows your reaction time. It blurs your vision. It impairs your judgment.

Someone who is speeding that much over the limit is dangerous, yes. But they're even more dangerous if drunk, because their reaction times are slowed and they're even less likely to be able to avoid a collision. And, with impaired judgment, they're even more likely to try something stupid like that.

Avoiding accidents is hardly a matter of being lucky when the vast majority of people, drunk or otherwise, manage to get into a car without killing anybody. It would make more sense to say that people who get into accidents get unlucky...

You drive often enough, it becomes very likely that you'll be in some sort of accident.

If you naturally have the slowed reactions and perception of someone who is drunk, you shouldn't be able to get a driver's license in the first place.

Shouldn't but quite clearly can.

If you can't make the right decisions drunk, don't drink.

It's really not that difficult.

^This.

I hear way too damn many people acting like alcohol is an absolute necessity, like the idea of even SUGGESTING that they not drink is stupid and how dare I?

This is how.

Sorry about your friend, Wilgrove.

You know what else might say "we take a strong stance against drunk driving"? Not selling 40s at gas stations. Doesn't that just seem a little... off?

Indeed - although what really gets me are the drive-through liquor stores.

To bad to hear that your friends had to go through that, Wilgrove and GnI. I really don't see the point in drinking. Why don't the bars have some sort of set up where the bouncers take the keys as soon as the patrons enter the door and at closing they can drive the patrons back if it is deemed they cannot drive themselves home safely?

I don't mind 'drinking'. I think moderation is important, and I think driving afterwards is beyond reprehensible.

The problem with your scenario (and I agree with most of it) is that people don't have to go to bars to drink and drive. A comon passtime down our way seems to be to get absolutely leathered... and THEN drive down to the local gas-station to buy snacks.

Yes, I can have a drink without becoming 'too drunk to drive'.


Based on what?


And what is this amendment of which you speak?


Welcome to the internet - here anyone that cares to can just see what you said earlier.

Thus - when you say you're not intoxicated (which you obviously are, alcohol being an intoxicant, and you admitting to having imbibed it) what comes after is an amendment.


And you are? What is? BAC? Would a .01 BAC be 'too drunk to drive'?


Yes.

Why not?


And I wouldn't have a problem with vehicular homicide laws being stronger. But they should, at the bare minimum, involve homicide.


Sure. And, by getting behind the wheel, having intaken alcohol, that criteria is immediately satisfied.


Yes, it could be made.
Both would be ridiculous.

Yeah. Because drinking and driving is SO sensible. I writhe in the crushing grip of your reason.

A thing I cannot understand about drunk driving.

So let's say you're drunk - didn't want to, but there you are. You are in a bar and outside there's your car.

You're AT LEAST 18 (since you have a driving license and you can buy alcohol in a bar). You can drink, you can drive, you can have sex (probabily not right now since you're too drunk and probabily you stink like a moonshine, but potentially you can). If you're American, there are good chances that you can even carry around a firearm...

But hey, you can't wait a couple of hours. Oh no. You can't take a nap in your car. You can't put your head under some cold water. You can't even put two bloody fingers down your throat and vomit. In the case you live in a city, you can't call a taxi, or wait for the bus, or walk. Oh noes. You can't... because mommy will kill you if you get back home too late, or if you spray vomit over your clothes. She prefers her ickle boy to risk his life, somebody else's life, or (in the best-case scenario) the car than having ickle boy coming home after midnight!

Drunk driver, you idiot.

Based on what?

Based on that fact that the effects of one drink are so minimal as to cause negligible 'intoxication' to myself, and thusly my driving skills.


Welcome to the internet - here anyone that cares to can just see what you said earlier.

Welcome to the internet-where asking someone to clarify gets you a snarky response.


Thus - when you say you're not intoxicated (which you obviously are, alcohol being an intoxicant, and you admitting to having imbibed it) what comes after is an amendment.

If you say so. It really doesn't matter, as far as the 'amendment' part goes.

I wasn't 'intoxicated to the point of being unable to safely drive'.



Yes.

Why not?

How much do I weigh?
Am I male or female?
How much & often do I drink?
What is my baseline partition ratio? And in which phase am I?

And how, given that you know none of this information, can you say that you are a better judge than I?



Sure. And, by getting behind the wheel, having intaken alcohol, that criteria is immediately satisfied.

What part of your scenario involves the dead human? I'm not seeing it.

In order for there to be 'homicide', we need a dead human. In order for there to even be 'attempted murder', we need an accident.

Yeah. Because drinking and driving is SO sensible. I writhe in the crushing grip of your reason.

We have vastly different definitions of what is 'drinkinig and driving'.

We have vastly different perceptions of what is sensible.

Based on that fact that the effects of one drink are so minimal as to cause negligible 'intoxication' to myself, and thusly my driving skills.


Ah, so once again, you admit that you ARE intoxicated.

Which is just as well, because that's fact, not opinion.

Your claims that you know anything in real terms about what it does to your skill... that's opinion.

And worth exactly that.


If you say so. It really doesn't matter, as far as the 'amendment' part goes.

I wasn't 'intoxicated to the point of being unable to safely drive'.


Again, opinion. I don't care for your opinions.


How much do I weigh?
Am I male or female?
How much & often do I drink?
What is my baseline partition ratio? And in which phase am I?

And how, given that you know none of this information, can you say that you are a better judge than I?


Exactly. Thanks for making my point for me.


What part of your scenario involves the dead human? I'm not seeing it.

In order for there to be 'homicide', we need a dead human. In order for there to even be 'attempted murder', we need an accident.


No, in order to be attempted, you need the attempt. In this case, putting someone who isn't responsible in the position of responsibility... is sufficient.


We have vastly different definitions of what is 'drinkinig and driving'.


Yes. You apparently don't think that 'drinking' and 'driving' should be enough to count.


We have vastly different perceptions of what is sensible.

Yes. Yes we do.

And you're the one that drinks and drives. Which, I think, vindicates me quite nicely.

Based on what?

State definition.

In the US, you're not intoxicated until you're blowing either 0.08. In addition, you're not even under the influence, by definition, until you're blowing at least 0.04.

One drink, for an average male is about 0.015 - 0.02

For the average woman, being slightly smaller, it's about 0.02 - 0.03

Anything less than 0.04, and you're not under the influence, by state definition, with a caveat. If you show severely impaired motor skills (E.g. - the ridiculous roadside test, pointing to your nose, etc) you can be charged with being too impaired to operate a motor vehicle. However, you can fail this test with a BAC of 0.00 and still be charged.

State definition.


HH said he can "have a drink without being too drunk to drive". The state definition of 'intoxicated' doesn't address that in any way.


In the US, you're not intoxicated until you're blowing either 0.08.


No - you're not satisfying the legal definition of 'intoxicated' - that doesn't mean you are not intoxicated, because the word isn't limited to a legal definition.


In addition, you're not even under the influence, by definition, until you're blowing at least 0.04.

One drink, for an average male is about 0.015 - 0.02

For the average woman, being slightly smaller, it's about 0.02 - 0.03

Anything less than 0.04, and you're not under the influence, by state definition, with a caveat. If you show severely impaired motor skills (E.g. - the ridiculous roadside test, pointing to your nose, etc) you can be charged with being too impaired to operate a motor vehicle. However, you can fail this test with a BAC of 0.00 and still be charged.

Blah blah important part bolded.

HH said he can "have a drink without being too drunk to drive". The state definition of 'intoxicated' doesn't address that in any way.

The state has legally stated that you are too drunk to drive at 0.08 by calling you "intoxicated". This is the definition of "Driving while intoxicated."

No - you're not satisfying the legal definition of 'intoxicated' - that doesn't mean you are not intoxicated, because the word isn't limited to a legal definition.

Legal definitions make the world a lot easier. Because when we just start making stuff up to mean what you want it to mean, it confuses everyone.

Blah blah important part bolded.

You would have to assume then, for him to be considered "under the influence", that he will fail the roadside test after one drink. If a person ever fails a roadside test after one drink, they probably couldn't pass it sober. Hence, why I pointed out that a DUI doesn't necessarily have anything to do with alcohol. It could be anything - alcohol drugs, inner ear problem, other medical condition. Anything that makes you unsafe to drive.

HH said he can "have a drink without being too drunk to drive". The state definition of 'intoxicated' doesn't address that in any way.



No - you're not satisfying the legal definition of 'intoxicated' - that doesn't mean you are not intoxicated, because the word isn't limited to a legal definition.


No it isn't, but "intoxicated" in colloquial terms means "drunk," and one can certainly have a drink without being drunk.

HH said he can "have a drink without being too drunk to drive". The state definition of 'intoxicated' doesn't address that in any way.

No - you're not satisfying the legal definition of 'intoxicated' - that doesn't mean you are not intoxicated, because the word isn't limited to a legal definition.

Blah blah important part bolded.

I'm coming into this late and freely admit I haven't read the whole argument, but what definition of "intoxicated" are you using?

I'm coming into this late and freely admit I haven't read the whole argument, but what definition of "intoxicated" are you using?

Actually, I only entered on this page, so if you read page 10, you've gotten everything I've said so far

I'm coming into this late and freely admit I haven't read the whole argument, but what definition of "intoxicated" are you using?

As in the result of consuming or being affected by an intoxicant.

HH said he can "have a drink without being too drunk to drive". The state definition of 'intoxicated' doesn't address that in any way.



No - you're not satisfying the legal definition of 'intoxicated' - that doesn't mean you are not intoxicated, because the word isn't limited to a legal definition.



Blah blah important part bolded.

Damn man. You have a huge chip on your shoulder. Saying people who have one drink and then drive are homicidal is ridiculous.

Drunk driving is an all to common crime. The key word being drunk. One drink doesn't get most people drunk. By most I mean 99% of people.

No it isn't, but "intoxicated" in colloquial terms means "drunk," and one can certainly have a drink without being drunk.

And colloquially, 'bad' means 'good'. That doesn't mean I want a bad haircut when I go for an interview.

And colloquially, 'bad' means 'good'. That doesn't mean I want a bad haircut when I go for an interview.

Well fine, so the legal definition you don't like, the colloquial you don't like either. Which definition of "intoxicated" would you prefer we accept and why?

As in the result of consuming or being affected by an intoxicant.

Perhaps I've overlooked it, but a few dictionary searches don't yield any definition of intoxicated that is so very broad.

Neither in the legal sense nor in the "normal" sense does consumption of a single swallow of alcohol make one necessarily "intoxicated."

The state has legally stated that you are too drunk to drive at 0.08 by calling you "intoxicated". This is the definition of "Driving while intoxicated."


I suggest you reread the post I was responding to.


Legal definitions make the world a lot easier. Because when we just start making stuff up to mean what you want it to mean, it confuses everyone.


And actual use of the language is even better than legal definitions, eh?


You would have to assume then, for him to be considered "under the influence", that he will fail the roadside test after one drink.


Why would you assume that?


If a person ever fails a roadside test after one drink, they probably couldn't pass it sober.


Or they could, and one drink is enough to push you over. That's the problem with that kind of assumption.


Hence, why I pointed out that a DUI doesn't necessarily have anything to do with alcohol.


Which, as far as I recall, I never suggested?


It could be anything - alcohol drugs, inner ear problem, other medical condition. Anything that makes you unsafe to drive.

Okay.

And, you're aware that you can be legally 'under the influence' on medications, yes?

As in the result of consuming or being affected by an intoxicant.

Well, if we're being that broad, here are some other things that could be considered intoxication, although this list is by no means exhaustive -

Smoking
Prescription Medications (depression medications, especially)
Turkey
Chocolate
Pumpkin Pie

And, you're aware that you can be legally 'under the influence' on medications, yes?

Haven't you ever heard the phrase 'a drink a day keeps the shrink away"?

So, using this saying, alcohol is used so people can stay sane.

It is a medication now.

It also helps your heart!

Why do you hate hearts?

I suggest you reread the post I was responding to.

I'll go back and look at it. That's on hold.

And actual use of the language is even better than legal definitions, eh?

Except actual use of language is not significantly different in this regard. In any case, we're talking about a legal offense, so a legal definition is appropriate.

Why would you assume that?

Because that's the only way he'll meet the definition of being "under the influence".

Or they could, and one drink is enough to push you over. That's the problem with that kind of assumption.

Sounds like an average Florida driver. :eek: I hope he's not driving next to me if he can barely pass the roadside test. That thing is easy.

Which, as far as I recall, I never suggested?

Okay.

And, you're aware that you can be legally 'under the influence' on medications, yes?

I am. I'm also aware that you can be legally under the influence without anything at all if you fail the roadside test.

Perhaps I've overlooked it, but a few dictionary searches don't yield any definition of intoxicated that is so very broad.

Neither in the legal sense nor in the "normal" sense does consumption of a single swallow of alcohol make one necessarily "intoxicated."

First result I got, from Merriam Webster says "affected by or as if by alcohol'.

An intoxicant is a chemical that acts on the central nervous system, where it affects brain function. Such as - but certainly not limited to - alcohol.

So - 'intoxicated' means brain function has been affected (no level required to qualify) by a chemical that acts on the central nervous system (which doesn't even have to be alcohol).

Well, if we're being that broad, here are some other things that could be considered intoxication, although this list is by no means exhaustive -

Smoking
Prescription Medications (depression medications, especially)
Turkey
Chocolate
Pumpkin Pie

The prescription medication certainly counts, which is why you can be DUI on prescription medication.

Except actual use of language is not significantly different in this regard. In any case, we're talking about a legal offense, so a legal definition is appropriate.


Well, we're talking about drinking - with or without - the legal repurcussions.


Because that's the only way he'll meet the definition of being "under the influence".


Well, no - you could be 'under the influence' because you're really really obviously drunk.

The prescription medication certainly counts, which is why you can be DUI on prescription medication.

All the rest affect the central nervous system and impair regular function.

Smoking certainly is a mind altering substance.

Turkey contains triptophan, which depresses the nervous system and results in sleepiness.

Chocolate contains theobromine, which acts like caffeine, phenylethylamine - an amphetamine, and a cannabinoid - similar to marijuana.

Pumpkin Pie contains nutmeg, which is also a hallucinogen.

Well, we're talking about drinking - with or without - the legal repurcussions.

We are? I thought this was a drunk driving thread.

Well, no - you could be 'under the influence' because you're really really obviously drunk.

In which case, you would fail the test, or, if you're an angry drunk, might refuse to take the test.

Also, whatever happened to those thoughtful drunk drivers? They just disappeared.

Damn man. You have a huge chip on your shoulder. Saying people who have one drink and then drive are homicidal is ridiculous.


I'm not saying they are homicidal. I am saying the crime should be considered attempted murder.


Drunk driving is an all to common crime.


Ah, gotcha. If it happens a lot, it's okay.

Shall we legalise rape?


The key word being drunk. One drink doesn't get most people drunk. By most I mean 99% of people.

You don't have to be 'drunk' to be impaired.

Or they could, and one drink is enough to push you over. That's the problem with that kind of assumption.

Could you prove that a single drink would be sufficient enough to cause that kind of impairment?

I'm not saying they are homicidal. I am saying the crime should be considered attempted murder.



Ah, gotcha. If it happens a lot, it's okay.

Shall we legalise rape?



You don't have to be 'drunk' to be impaired.

All to common as it it happens to much.

One drink doesn't impair most people.

I'm not saying they are homicidal. I am saying the crime should be considered attempted murder.

That would require a fundamental change to the entirety of the criminal procedure system.

Could you prove that a single drink would be sufficient enough to cause that kind of impairment?

Which kind?

All to common as it it happens to much.

One drink doesn't impair most people.

Yes, it does. The question is - to what degree.

Which kind?

The kind that would justify your reactionary changes.

Yes, it does. The question is - to what degree.

Not enough to bar them from driving.

Simple solution: A drunk driver who injures another driver shall be liable for any and all expenses relating to the injury, including medical pay, loss of wages, and therapy. If the injured party is permanently disabled, the drunk driver shall be responsible for that person for the rest of his life. If he demands that the state take over payments, the drunk driver must then enter hard labor imprisonment.

If the victim dies, the drunk driver shall be responsible for the welfare of any dependants of the victim, and/or a minimum compensation of up to $10,000,000 at the discretion of the victim's family/dependents.

Anyway there's a starting point for a just solution. If the drunk driver is jailed at the expense of the state (and thus the taxpayers) and is not required to compensate the victim in any significant way, the result is injustice.

Damn man. You have a huge chip on your shoulder. Saying people who have one drink and then drive are homicidal is ridiculous.

Drunk driving is an all to common crime. The key word being drunk. One drink doesn't get most people drunk. By most I mean 99% of people.

Actually--I'd say that at least a good percentage of people could be affected by a single drink, especially if they're drinking hard liquor. Even a single beer on an empty stomach, especially if I'm tired, can make me feel tipsy, and I'm not a tiny person. I have several friends with "Asian Drinking Disease" who are quite intoxicated after only a drink or two (one can't even finish a whole beer--she's drunk halfway through). This may not be most people, but I bet a lot of people are more affected than they think by just one drink.

I don't understand. By "40s" you mean "liquors above 40% alcohol"?

I would be even harsher. Not even beers at gas stations!

No, sorry, I meant 40 ozs--malt liquor.

You know what else might say "we take a strong stance against drunk driving"? Not selling 40s at gas stations. Doesn't that just seem a little... off?

But then you couldn't play Edward 40 hands!

Actually--I'd say that at least a good percentage of people could be affected by a single drink, especially if they're drinking hard liquor. Even a single beer on an empty stomach, especially if I'm tired, can make me feel tipsy, and I'm not a tiny person. I have several friends with "Asian Drinking Disease" who are quite intoxicated after only a drink or two (one can't even finish a whole beer--she's drunk halfway through). This may not be most people, but I bet a lot of people are more affected than they think by just one drink.

This is why the DUI is skill based as opposed to volume based.

I wish I could get tipsy after a couple beers. It'd be really cheap for me to drink.

Alcohol is affecting me right now, and I haven't even had a drink for at least a week. It's making me want to go to the store and buy alcohol. And you know how I would go to the store? By driving in my car. Sure, I'll be sober, but already the alcohol has forced me to get in the cockpit of a 2-ton killing machine, putting my life and the lives of others at risk. So clearly I'm affected and therefore, I'm already drunk, therefore no need to go to the store and get alcohol, hence the thought of alcohol is no longer affecting me therefore I'm not intoxicated anymore.

Shouldn't but quite clearly can.

No, you really can't. You wouldn't be able to pass the driver's test.

Of course, that doesn't keep you from being an inattentive asshole once you've got it and you're out on the road.

No, you really can't. You wouldn't be able to pass the driver's test.

That's debatable. I can't remember my reaction time being much of a factor when I took mine. It's not like they can make these situations happen on the road specifically for the test, so I'd say some driving tests they could pass, some they couldn't. Well OK - most they couldn't.

But knowing how many people apparently passed that test are out there doesn't give me much confidence in that test's ability to weed out people who cannot or should not drive!

Also they don't make you do parallel parking on the test here in CA, so I never learned how to parallel park. Good thing I don't live in a city!


Of course, that doesn't keep you from being an inattentive asshole once you've got it and you're out on the road.

It's not just that, it's how people seem to consistently not apply anything they supposedly learned, which makes me question whether they ever knew it at all.

When someone is extreemly drunk, can they really be said to be making a rational choice? Of course, they chose to get drunk, but by that logic shouldn't we make it an act of criminal negligence (or attempted murder:rolleyes:) simply to drink past a certain blood alcohol level?

I mean, I can act perfectly rationally when drunk and by the point where that kind of thinking suspect, I'm usually too drunk to function properly let alone drive a car. Experience has made me more tolerant to higher BACs than, say, some 18 year old that just arrived at college. That being said I think the fundamental truth is that dangerous drunk drivers by and large are bad people for whom alcohol merely provides the justification for the irresponsible behavior they wouldn't do while sober. They need to be punished severely for endangering other people.

Now, BAC is a rather shitty measure for intoxication in and of itself. I've seen people at 0.20 that are only slightly impaired and others that are pretty much floored and done for the night...it varies heavily based upon previous exposure to alcohol. A new drinker might be incapable of driving at BACs as low as 0.08 whereas an experienced one might be good at levels as high as 0.20 or more.

Edit: The BAC in Japan is less than .03, slightly less than 1 beer.

1. Driving Under the Influence, BAC .08 or higher
Imprisonment with hard labor not to exceed 5 years or fine not exceeding 1,000,000 yen ($10,000).
2. Driving While Impaired, BAC .03 to .79
Imprisonment with hard labor not to exceed 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000)
3. Providing an intoxicated person with a vehicle
Maximum sentence: Same punishment as a drunken driver receives shall be applied.
4. Providing a person with alcohol who subsequently gets a DUI or DWI
Maximum sentence: Imprisonment with hard labor not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000) for DUI; 2 years imprisonment, 300,000 yen ($3,000) fine for DWI
5. Riding as passengers in a vehicle operated by an intoxicated person
Maximum sentence: Imprisonment with hard labor not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000) for DUI; 2 years imprisonment, 300,000 yen ($3,000) fine for DWI
6. Rejecting balloon (sobriety) test
Confinement not exceeding 3 months or fine not exceeding 500,000 yen ($5,000)
7. Hit and run
Confinement not exceeding 10 years or fine not exceeding 1,000,000 yen ($10,000)

The moral of the story here folks is don't drink and drive in Japan.

Honestly, I don't think this is severe enough. Still, it's good, and the US needs to move in this direction.

It invalidates them as a reason why I should adhere to the behaviours you believe exist.

Actually, history shows the reason why. If you don't the hitorical president is the rest of us will kill you.

NOTE: This isn't some kind of threat or promise of death to GnI its seriously the most valid reason I could find for someone who would not otherwise care to adhere to the behaviors expected of them.

Just a small update, my friend is doing better, but right now she's having a really hard time with Physical therapy, she's not able to walk very far (if at all). They won't release her from the hospital until she can walk the length of a house, and go up some stairs.

No, sorry, I meant 40 ozs--malt liquor.

...40 oz = 40*28.41=1.136 l ? Wtf, it's more than 1 litre whisky!

*drool* ...I'll take the bus...

Just a small update, my friend is doing better, but right now she's having a really hard time with Physical therapy, she's not able to walk very far (if at all). They won't release her from the hospital until she can walk the length of a house, and go up some stairs.

Tell her to keep up the P.T. no matter what. I had a small run-in with a CAT telehandler almost 2 years ago now, and I'm not entirely recovered from that. Insurance screwed me over, but the physical therapy I did get them to pay for was helpful.

Actually, history shows the reason why. If you don't the hitorical president is the rest of us will kill you.

NOTE: This isn't some kind of threat or promise of death to GnI its seriously the most valid reason I could find for someone who would not otherwise care to adhere to the behaviors expected of them.

Exactly. Didnt you see it in what you typed?

You would violate my 'right to life' (according to your claimed 'human rights') to prove that there were 'human rights'?

See why its a sham?

Tell her to keep up the P.T. no matter what. I had a small run-in with a CAT telehandler almost 2 years ago now, and I'm not entirely recovered from that. Insurance screwed me over, but the physical therapy I did get them to pay for was helpful.

She's home now. I'm happy that she's ok. :)

...40 oz = 40*28.41=1.136 l ? Wtf, it's more than 1 litre whisky!

*drool* ...I'll take the bus...

Malt liquor isn't very high proof--usually only around 7% alcohol by volume. You see, it's weak and vile and it comes in huge quantities... there's really no fathomable reason to drink it unless you're an alcoholic.