1. If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

  2. NES Life memberships are now available, click here for details.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. Dismiss Notice

After 4th DWI, man argues legal limit discriminates against alcoholics

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by mikeyp, Feb 12, 2018.

  1. oldguy47

    oldguy47 NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    110
    Location:
    Brockton MA
    I was run over by a drunk driver when I was eight, spent years relearning how to walk. I agree with Golddiggie.
     

  2. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    I was just using the current limit, I'm not opposed to discussing different limits. But we need to recognize that a scientific limit must be set. Yes, this is in conflict with the fact that people react differently, but laws have to be a clear line and not open to side of the road interpretation. So we pick a number, backed by science, that will be effective. And we make sure it's known so individuals can make their own decisions.
     
    tuna likes this.
  3. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,254
    Likes Received:
    3,109
    Location:
    Berkshires
    Let’s discuss .00. Not influenced.
     
  4. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    That seems a little extreme, but if you can get support for it, go for it.[laugh]
     
  5. weekendracer

    weekendracer

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,823
    Likes Received:
    577
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Same here, I eit
    If I read his post correctly, DWI/DUI is a 'victimless' crime in his opinion. It is, until it isn't, then some cop is going to hold me back from beating someone into next week when they hit my kid. Sorry, I'm not down for that, neither is society as a whole.
     
  6. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,254
    Likes Received:
    3,109
    Location:
    Berkshires
    I don’t support it. But if your supporting “Under The Influence” by definition one beer and you’re influenced.

    Also, gaining support for laws doesn’t necessarily make good laws. There’s plenty of support for the bump stock taking and the banning of “assault weapons.”

    I’d be careful encouraging people to gain support.
     
  7. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,254
    Likes Received:
    3,109
    Location:
    Berkshires
    DUI/DWI is by definition a victimless crime. When someone hits your kid that’s hitting your kid.

    Take carrying a gun on school grounds as an example. The carrying of the gun hurts no one and there is no victim. Shooting kids at school is the crime with victims.
     
  8. amm5061

    amm5061 NES Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Messages:
    4,189
    Likes Received:
    1,605
    Location:
    Ashland, MA
    Just to pile on, I got passed by an MSP exploder this morning on the pike while doing 90. 0 f***s were given by that cop, except that the guy doing 95 in the fast lane in front of him was going too slow. Cop was riding his ass trying to get him to move over and then blew past him once he did.
     
    cbrxx likes this.
  9. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    You brought that up, not me. It's all you.

    Not people, just you. I think you should start by standing in front of the statehouse with a sign that says "prohibition now". Make sure you get pictures. [laugh]
     
  10. groundscrapers

    groundscrapers NES Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,034
    Likes Received:
    412
    Location:
    413
    The D's may have set precedent with the needle exchanges and safe spaces to shoot up. Seems like he could argue that he is being denied the same access.
     
  11. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,254
    Likes Received:
    3,109
    Location:
    Berkshires
    Calm down Francis. Reading is fundamental. I don’t support victimless crime. Your statement that I should look for support points to mob rule. I support a constitutional republic with elected officials who have integrity.

    You gun owners deserve Massachusetts if you support victimless crime.
     
  12. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    False comparison. Carrying a bottle of alcohol would be an accurate comparison for this, and that's not considered OUI. OUI isn't about possessing alcohol, it's about ingesting it. And the fact that alcohol affects the body is well established.
     
    Bonesinium likes this.
  13. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,254
    Likes Received:
    3,109
    Location:
    Berkshires
    From you I’ve got alcohol outside the body has no effect and alcohol inside the body has an effect.

    Can we agree on that?
     
  14. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    There are two major points that the pro statism crew you're cheerleading for keep over looking.

    Most people who are charged with DWI are not charged in a vaccuum........

    The genesis of their interaction with PoPo is almost always failure to control vehicle

    Same with texting or women applying make up while flying down the highway

    Having some arbitrary politically motivated BAC is irrelevent as is using a phone while driving or sipping a cup of coffee

    I personally think its a bad idea for me to have more than one drink and be behind the wheel but I am not going to presume to take the role of the statist and impose my own judgement on someone else because lots of people are little effected by alcohol while others are decimated by a single drink and shouldnt be walking let alone driving......all this is independent of their BAC

    What matters is staying in your lane (not hitting others), stopping at traffic control devices when you're supposed to, signaling when changing lanes etc etc etc.

    The point is that DWI or texting or applying make up should not be a primary crime in and of itself as it is today

    IF you're pulled over pursuent to failing to control car/etc AND you were impaired/applying makeup/texting THEN the penalty should be more severe than had you not been impaired/applying makeup/texting

    Freedom is messy.....the more we allow politicians to control dumb shit the more they are going to pass laws that regulate and penalize dumb shit that hurts no one.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
  15. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    Ingestion of some substance doesnt = harm to others though

    Its certainly possible that there are other contributing factors where ingestion of something COULD be a contributing factor so punish more severely WHEN that is found to be the case as stated previously

    Again, you're acting in the role of a statist/progressive trying to regulate behavior that does not inherently or necessarily harm anyone
     
  16. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    For the emotional statists out there here's whats coming next.......cell phones that wont work while in a moving car......mandated by law.......

    Coming to a Cali or Mass or some other statist pisshole sooner than later....

    Consider the consequences of THAT one....

    You're a passenger......WTF

    You're a driver and need to report an accident OR you have some road rage f*** chasing you or any number of reasons why your phone should work.

    There's every reason to regulate and punish bad consequences and NO good reason to try to regulate and criminalize behavior that only in a very small % of cases is a contributing factor to something bad
     
  17. robjax

    robjax NES Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    11,122
    Likes Received:
    2,819
    I guess when it comes down to it I don't think you have a right to put my safety/life in jeopardy because you feel you have the right to over indulge in a beverage that impairs your motor abilities and judgement as it pertains to operating a motor vehicle.

    Again, your rights to driving a car are not infringed. But they are limited to less than .08 bac. If you feel that is an infringement so be it. So drink and drive all you want but stay under .08 bac. If you want to go over that and drive you certainly have that right. I support any consequences imposed on you or others that would do the same as a result.

    If you want to get blitzed you can certainly do that. No infringement there. Drink all you want. Just let a sober person drive. You do not have a right to knowingly endanger another. And if you drive while drunk then you are knowingly endangering others and putting them at risk of injury or death.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
  18. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    I give up. Your tune will change when someone in your family gets killed by a drunk driver. Your utopium ideal world does not exist. Society is about establishing commonly accepted limits and behaviors, this is not necessarily laws, but it certainly is about how everyone behaves and treats each other.

    The strawman statements are just silly "Ingestion of some substance doesnt = harm to others though" of course not. and you even make this clear with "Most people who are charged with DWI are not charged in a vaccuum", so the first statement is just BS serving no purpose except to try and confuse the issue.

    "you're acting in the role of a statist" Really!, what has this to do with any of it? This isn't a statist argument, but go ahead and throw out words that server no purpose and only confuse the issue.

    "Having some arbitrary politically motivated BAC". Again what purpose does this serve. I repeatedly used the word "science" not political, and made it clear that this should not be arbitrary. But instead of suggesting a non, or at least less, political means you just make another BS statement.

    "Same with texting or women applying make up while flying down the highway" stay on subject, again just trying to confuse the issue.

    "Freedom is messy" absolutely, and part of that mess is dealing with people who won't control themselves. This is an inseparable part of society. Go live in a cave if you don't like it. The world isn't black and white, and there are no perfect solutions.

    And here, chew me up on this. I do not want someone who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent to have a gun. OMG I must be anti 2a, I want a right limited BEFORE someone gets killed. And as you all jump on me for this, remember how many of you have said that it's "a mental health issue" (as have I) after a mass shooting, because this is exactly what you are suggesting.
     
    Bonesinium and tuna like this.
  19. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    This is the exact same argument that the statist/anti's use

    You dont need a semi automatic
    You dont need to have more than 1 gun a month
    You dont need a gun that holds more than 6 rounds
    You're a risk to everyone else if you're allowed to carry a gun without a GPS linked microchip so popo always know where you are

    Like I said previously, I think its a bad idea for me personally to have more than one beverage so I dont......

    But I dont presume to tell other people that they lack judgement or lack ability to make their own decisions.......

    Punish people who do "Bad Things".....and if there are contributing factors like drugs or alcohol then charge them MUCH more severely

    End result it the same......people get the message that doing x,y,z is going to end badly.......difference is that a lot of people who harm no one are not tied up in court system for no reason
     
  20. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    Fixed that for you....now go on your way and think about your statist believes and how YOUR argument is exactly the same one that the anti's make wrt guns
     
    SeanT and Jason Flare like this.
  21. robjax

    robjax NES Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    11,122
    Likes Received:
    2,819

    Dude, I get it. You want to drink and drive. You want to put others in harms way so you can over indulge in your favorite libation.

    I disagree with your comparison logic. I'm not going through the laundry list.

    So lets just keep it simple.

    You support drunk driving.

    that's all you needed to say....lol
     
  22. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    More false comparison.
    The type of gun in no way puts anyone at any risk (and I'm including MGs).
    How many guns in no way puts anyone at risk.
    The number of rounds in no way puts anyone at risk.

    Intentionally pointing a gun at someone, regardless of intent, puts someone at risk and is unlawful.
    Randomly firing a gun in a crowd, regardless of intention, puts people at risk, and is unlawful.
    These are accurate comparisons.
     
    Bonesinium likes this.
  23. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    Here we go with the dumb passive agressive progressive bullshit because you have a really weak/poor argument thats no different than the one the anti's are using about firearms

    I dont support DWI.....I support prosecuting people who actually do harm and NOT prosecuting people who dont.
     
  24. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    Nope. and an easy point to make. I'm not trying to ban alcohol. I'm holding the person accountable for their actions/decisions in both cases.

    Next.
     
  25. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    Its a dead on wringer/same argument the anti's use.......we could go on all day long but you've gotta feel good to be taking the anti's argument and applying it to some other percieved actions
     
  26. robjax

    robjax NES Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    11,122
    Likes Received:
    2,819
    So you support DWI....if they are drunk and driving and harm nobody then you are ok. That means you support DWI.
     
  27. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    Its the same argument dude......

    If it saves just one life then its worth ruining the lives of all those people who harmed no one.

    Different between my argument and yours is that you seek to punish people who have harmed no one......and I dont
     
  28. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    So you support gun control eh?
     
  29. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    Nothing "perceived" about it. I'm talking about clear actions/decisions.
     
  30. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    Jason Flare likes this.

Share This Page