 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2008If the slipper slope isn't real, what's this? (0.02 BAC)
via fark.com.... http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1080856&srvc=ho me&position=4 A Taunton state representative wants to make Massachusetts the first state to declare driving under the influence of alcohol - even one green beer - flat out illegal. Rep. James Fagan.s legislation would slash the current .08 blood-alcohol limit recognized nationwide as the standard for being legally drunk to .02. Federal government research indicates a 160- to 240-pound man would register .02 sipping one glass of wine over the course of an hour. <...> Fagan, 60, who said he has represented .thousands. of accused drunken drivers at trial <...> By eliminating shades of drunkenness, Fagan suggests the responsible social drinker would be protected from arrest if caught with boozy breath because another driver hit them or they were stopped for a broken headlight. .There.s absolutely no denying the amount of personal tragedy and social harm that results from people who drive impaired,. Fagan said, .but should we publicly Taser them? Cauterize their tonsils so they can.t drink? We.re running out of punitive measures.. <...> ------------------------------------------- Now sure, it's just a bill right now and there are all sorts of wacky bills. Of course nobody would have dared to introduce such a bill back in 1988, let alone 1968. On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > via fark.com.... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > state to declare driving under the influence of alcohol - even one green > beer - flat out illegal. It's not a slippery slope, it's MADD-style neoprohibitionism. I didn't read TFA but this just smells like MADD's hand is in there somewhere. nate >On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >didn't read TFA but this just smells like MADD's hand is in there >somewhere. I don't see much of a difference between slippery slope and incrementalism, but I suppose the key one is that slippery slope doesn't require an end goal but incrementalism does. Clearly in the case of BAC levels neoprohibitionism is that end goal. >On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >It's not a slippery slope, it's MADD-style neoprohibitionism. Aren't you exaggerating just a tad? Prohibition banned ALL drinking, not just drinking temporally associated with driving.  Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > >On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "Dave's not here, man!" > - Tommy Chong Here's an interesting conspiracy-theory angle: between this and smoking bans in bars, could it be that various local and state governments are trying to shut down the nightclub industry? Hm? >Aren't you exaggerating just a tad? Prohibition banned ALL drinking, >not just drinking temporally associated with driving. It is the term used by MADD's founder: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171383,00.html Even MADD's founder, Candy Lightner, has lamented that the organization has grown neo-prohibitionist in nature. "[MADD has] become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned ...," >>Aren't you exaggerating just a tad? Prohibition banned ALL drinking, >>not just drinking temporally associated with driving. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >"[MADD has] become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or >envisioned ...," Candy is exaggerating, as well. True prohibition outlaws the manufacture, transport, sale, possession, and consumption of alcohol no matter where you are or when you drink it. It's an emotionally-charged word intended to provoke an emotional response. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>>Aren't you exaggerating just a tad? Prohibition banned ALL drinking, >>>not just drinking temporally associated with driving. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >no matter where you are or when you drink it. It's an >emotionally-charged word intended to provoke an emotional response. What is being discussed is an effective prohibition, the way things work in our era. The word being used is neo-prohibition. These public intoxication laws, one-drop driving laws, being arrested while seated _IN_ the bar for having too high a BAC, laws on the transport of alcohol, etc and so on are ways of simply making it very difficult to drink without being harrassed, without some legal risk. > >"[MADD has] become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or > >envisioned ...," > > Candy is exaggerating, as well. True prohibition outlaws the > manufacture, transport, sale, possession, and consumption of alcohol > no matter where you are or when you drink it. Give it time!! We've got laws banning people from smoking in their own property (vehicle) and restaurants banned from cooking food certain ways (trans- fats). >>On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Aren't you exaggerating just a tad? Prohibition banned ALL drinking, >not just drinking temporally associated with driving. MADD-style neoprohibitions intend to make it impractical to drink legally for anyone who drives. The roadmap is 0.08, then 0.05, then 0.02, then "8 hours bottle to throttle" like pilots. Probably more beyond that. The object is the alcohol; the driving is an excuse. Note that it's already illegal to be drunk on public transit or simply walking out in public. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Note that it's already illegal to be drunk on public transit or simply >walking out in public. And 'drunk' for other activities most people do quickly becomes defined as the driving BAC standard. >>>On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >MADD-style neoprohibitions intend to make it impractical to drink >legally for anyone who drives. You say that like it's a bad thing. Walk, take the train, take a cab, get a designated driver, or simply drink at home. It's really not that big of a hassle. >Note that it's already illegal to be drunk on public transit or simply >walking out in public. It is? Seems counter-productive to me, especially for the Mothers Against Drunk DRIVING. But even if that's true there are still plenty of options besides getting behind the wheel. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >Walk, take the train, take a cab, get a designated driver, or simply >drink at home. It's really not that big of a hassle. Anything but 'at home' can be illegal where cops are willing to bust people sitting in a bar with a BAC over the driving limit. >>>>On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >You say that like it's a bad thing. It is. >Walk, take the train, take a cab, get a designated driver, or simply >drink at home. It's really not that big of a hassle. Walking only works for places within walking distance; some people don't have any such places; I have one but I often like to go elsewhere. A designated driver is hardly practical for e.g. dinner for two when both wish to drink. Cabs are a city thing around here; there aren't any for suburb to suburb trips. Trains are also very limited in their application; most home aren't near a stop. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>>On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >there aren't any for suburb to suburb trips. Trains are also very >limited in their application; most home aren't near a stop. Wow, I had no idea life was so tough for some people. I personally have no problem drunking as much as I want and arranging things so that I don't have to drive afterwards. It seems to me if these people would put half as much effort into finding a real solution as they do into coming up with excuses like the above, there wouldn't be a problem. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>>>>>On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >have no problem drunking as much as I want and arranging things so >that I don't have to drive afterwards. Do you get a designated driver for every meal out where you have a drink or two before or with dinner? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>>>>On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>>>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >Do you get a designated driver for every meal out where you have a >drink or two before or with dinner? I don't typically drink alcohol with dinner - I prefer the taste of Coke. :) My wife sometimes drinks alcohol, so I become her designated driver. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>>Wow, I had no idea life was so tough for some people. I personally >>>have no problem drunking as much as I want and arranging things so [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Coke. :) My wife sometimes drinks alcohol, so I become her designated >driver. Well, if you don't want to drink, of course you don't have a problem drunking [sic] as much as you want, even under obnoxious zero-tolerance laws. Those of us who do want to drink have a bit more of a stake in it. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>Wow, I had no idea life was so tough for some people. I personally >>>>have no problem drunking as much as I want and arranging things so [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >zero-tolerance laws. Those of us who do want to drink have a bit more >of a stake in it. I drink, just not typically at dinner. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:58:18 -0500, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > You say that like it's a bad thing. It is. And if there's anything to be learned from history, it's the start of something worse. > Walk, Illegal. > take the train, Illegal. > take a cab, Maybe legal, if you can get him to pick you up on private property, i.e. your buddy's driveway or the restaurant parking lot, and drop you off on private property such as your driveway. However, in an area without private driveways just walking to or from the cab is illegal. I'll concede that the law is rarely enforced to that extreme, but it can be and I'm sure it has been and will be again. That's a problem. > get a designated driver, You still have all the problems as above. Also, I often go out with a DD. It's not uncommon for her to have a glass of wine that's a nice compliment to her fish. Under the 0 tolerance law, which is what this is, is BS. Now if she drives after that single glass of wine and blows a tiny, sober BAC she's still DUI. It's just like the BS in DC. > or simply drink at home. It's really not that big of a hassle. It's becoming the only legal option. That sucks. > >Note that it's already illegal to be drunk on public transit or simply > >walking out in public. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I agree we shouldn't be driving drunk. However, this type of sh.t is what leads to laws like those that make it illegal to be drunk camping in the woods in the middle of nowhere. It's getting to the point where at home is the only option, and that's stupid. If I want to get drunk at a friends house and walk home, or take a cab or a train home, I should be able to. I should also be able to cycle home, though I can see the concern with people intoxicated weaving into the traffic lane. As it stands I can't even walk home on the sidewalk, or cycle home on the trails through the woods. That's stupid. >> or simply drink at home. It's really not that big of a hassle. > >It's becoming the only legal option. That sucks. Until they start enforcing the ticky-tacky rules about transporting alcohol or add new ones. This way you can't get from the store to your home. The only option then is home brewing... then they'll find a way to attack that. >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:58:18 -0500, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >It is. And if there's anything to be learned from history, it's the >start of something worse. Careful, keep saying stuff like that and you'll have to join the tinfoil hat brigade. Remember, one thing never follows from another. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1080856&srvc=ho me&position=4 > > A Taunton state representative wants to make Massachusetts the first > state to declare driving under the influence of alcohol - even one green > beer - flat out illegal. It's the Prohibition that was never really repealed. > Rep. James Fagan.s legislation would slash the current .08 blood-alcohol > limit recognized nationwide as the standard for being legally drunk to > ..02. Federal government research indicates a 160- to 240-pound man would > register .02 sipping one glass of wine over the course of an hour. What is he doing about the passing-lane-impaired drivers, the merge-impaired drivers, the cut-the-corner drivers, the failure-to-stay-in-lane-while-turning drivers, the drive-down-the-middle-of-the-road drivers, the brake-for-no-reason drivers, and the no-go-on-green drivers? Maybe the drivers in these categories can all be considered drink-drivers. >via fark.com.... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >.02. Federal government research indicates a 160- to 240-pound man would >register .02 sipping one glass of wine over the course of an hour. Sonds like the filthy fascist hand of MADD is in on this, but wait..... >Fagan, 60, who said he has represented .thousands. of accused drunken >drivers at trial So, he's an attorney who represents those accused of DUI? Sounds to me like he's trying to drum up a lot of business for his pals.... >By eliminating shades of drunkenness, Fagan suggests the responsible >social drinker would be protected from arrest if caught with boozy >breath because another driver hit them or they were stopped for a broken >headlight. By eliminating shades of drunkness, he and his shyster pals will be awash in legal fees defending people caught up in the dragnets. >.There.s absolutely no denying the amount of personal tragedy and social >harm that results from people who drive impaired,. Fagan said, .but >should we publicly Taser them? Cauterize their tonsils so they can.t >drink? We.re running out of punitive measures.. >Now sure, it's just a bill right now and there are all sorts of wacky >bills. Of course nobody would have dared to introduce such a bill back >in 1988, let alone 1968. -- Calrog admits that his website is dead: "Somebody is trying to suck on the teat of the WHL... You'll never make it anywhere, necrophiliac." --Carl Rogers - 2/18/08 ref: http://tinyurl.com/yt2ya4 Msg Id: Clouj.11632$Ej5.6470@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > via fark.com.... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Now sure, it's just a bill right now and there are all sorts of wacky > bills. So... it isn't much evidence of "the slippery slope", is it...? ----- - gpsman > via fark.com.... > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > <...> Like hell, we're running out of punitive measures. One of the best punishments would be to make DUI a felony, even for a first time offender. They would lose a lot of rights such as RKBA and voting and also be banned from many occupations. And yet society wouldn't pay the cost of incarceration. > Like hell, we're running out of punitive measures. One of the best > punishments would be to make DUI a felony, even for a first time > offender. They would lose a lot of rights such as RKBA and voting and > also be banned from many occupations. And yet society wouldn't pay the > cost of incarceration. I think you should just f.ck off and die already, S&DDAM. You've got to quit being such an extremist douchebag. On Mar 17, 1:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > Now sure, it's just a bill right now and there are all sorts of wacky > bills. Of course nobody would have dared to introduce such a bill back > in 1988, let alone 1968. And of course, the end result is...? That's right - A RETURN TO PROHIBITION!!!! Since you can't reason like an adult, talking to you like one is a waste of time. Here's your reality check, doofus: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html The issue is, and always will be, causality. Engaging in post hoc and slippery slope fallacy interchageably makes your arguments, at best, a muddle of adolescent thinking. E.P. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.