I don't know if anyone has seen this page before but jeeze, this is just terrible. One question I have though is WHY does every drunk driver that decides their going to get into a car and destroy somebody else's life always wind up okay (for the most part)? It's real sad, oh well ... just thought I'd share this one ... :(

http://www.tyrelewer.com/drunk-drivers.html

Medically, I think the alcohol relaxes your system and it helps in crashes. They are also probably more likely to be impacting the other car with the front, where you are more protected, than the side.

I don't really want to threadjack too much, but this issue is one I think people go at from the wrong angles. From the mission creep of organizations like MADD to the complete ignorance of certain other hazards while driving to cops breaking up parties as the main cause of drunk driving among high schoolers it annoys me. I've only possibly driven drunk once (had a few beers, the DD got hit in the head with a rock and had to go to the hospital and I was the only other one close to sober) and I have no intention of doing it again, but I'm confident I could drive drunk better than at least 50% of the people on the road.

Nevermind.

Medically, I think the alcohol relaxes your system and it helps in crashes. They are also probably more likely to be impacting the other car with the front, where you are more protected, than the side.

I don't really want to threadjack too much, but this issue is one I think people go at from the wrong angles. From the mission creep of organizations like MADD to the complete ignorance of certain other hazards while driving to cops breaking up parties as the main cause of drunk driving among high schoolers it annoys me. I've only possibly driven drunk once (had a few beers, the DD got hit in the head with a rock and had to go to the hospital and I was the only other one close to sober) and I have no intention of doing it again, but I'm confident I could drive drunk better than at least 50% of the people on the road.

I'm sure that just about everyone that drives drunk and kills someone thinks they can drive drunk better than 50% or the people on the road too. I think that is a huge part of the problem.

I'm sure that just about everyone that drives drunk and kills someone thinks they can drive drunk better than 50% or the people on the road too. I think that is a huge part of the problem.
That was the exact comment that a girl I used to know made right before she killed three people in a head-on collision (she lived, but did have injuries).

A friend I knew at one time decided she was going to drive to my house drunk, in the dark. She came over laughing, telling me how she was swerving all over the road and how a cop stopped her because she didn't have her headlights on in the pitch black, she wound up begging her way out of a ticket and the cop let her go! I was so disgusted that night with her that I didn't speak to her for about a month, she couldn't understand. Shit like this makes me wonder what the appeal is to drinking altogether.

Medically, I think the alcohol relaxes your system and it helps in crashes. They are also probably more likely to be impacting the other car with the front, where you are more protected, than the side.

I don't really want to threadjack too much, but this issue is one I think people go at from the wrong angles. From the mission creep of organizations like MADD to the complete ignorance of certain other hazards while driving to cops breaking up parties as the main cause of drunk driving among high schoolers it annoys me. I've only possibly driven drunk once (had a few beers, the DD got hit in the head with a rock and had to go to the hospital and I was the only other one close to sober) and I have no intention of doing it again, but I'm confident I could drive drunk better than at least 50% of the people on the road.

This is quite possibly the most ignorant post I have ever read on this board. And that is saying something. Somebody please tell me I am misinterpreting this.

No, you aren't jetpunk ... but I'm not going to get down on Bishop. Everybody who drinks feels like that about themselves. The majority of them wind up doing something like the guy in my link, though. But, like I said it wouldn't be so sad if everybody who drives drunk doesn't walk away from the accident damn near scratch free, look at the girl in those pictures and look at that guy, he looks fine. He's not sad he destroyed some good looking girls life, he's sad that he hit someone and now he won't be able to attempt that stupid stunt ever again.

having driven once while totally trashed, i'll never do it again... I was driving slowly and very carefully... but never again.. I can't believe how stupid I was that night.

The best solution I ever heard was posed by a lawyer friend of mine who used to prosecute drunk drivers. That is zero tolerance. If you have one drink, you cannot drive. It takes all the guesswork out of it. There is no ".08? I can't be. I feel fine after 7 beers and the couple of shots I can't remember." If you get pulled over and you are under the influence of anything, you lose your license. .01 is considered under the influence. It may seem steep, but we all know people who are loaded after one drink. If you know you can't drink anything and drive, you take a cab to the bar and home again. Spend the damn $10. You know you won't hurt anybody in the process. Why do bars have parking lots anyway???

This is quite possibly the most ignorant post I have ever read on this board. And that is saying something. Somebody please tell me I am misinterpreting this.I stand by every statement I made.

-Mission creep. First MADD was about getting repeat drunk drivers off the road, a very good goal. The drunk drivers, still a good goal. Then people who drink and drive, extending to a beer or two or a glass of wine. Now just people who drink, specifically underage drinking.

-The ignorance of other hazards. Cops focus on drunk driving for the same reason they focus on speeding. It is easily measurable. Proving that someone was driving recklessly, tailgating, swerving between lanes it a lot harder than sitting in your car and pointing a radar gun at the road, so traffic cops usually choose the latter. Proving that someone was too tired to drive, or distracted by eating/playing with the radio or just a horrible driver is almost impossible, especially compared to administering a breathalyzer so cops let people off with warnings for the former infractions. Not condoning it, but saying an inordinate amount of attention is paid to it.

-Breaking up of parties with underage drinking leading directly to drunk driving. At least in my town among the people I see at big parties, most kids have someone DD or plan to stay at the house with the party then leave in the morning. Cops show up or a threat/rumor of cops showing up spreads and drunk kids start driving away in bunches. Remarkably IMO there have been no fatal accidents in my town caused by this that I can recall, and only a couple serious injuries, but it's only a matter of time.

-The last comment is what people are keying off on. I have no intention of driving drunk, I believe my driving ability goes down significantly when I have been drinking and I'm not talking about driving while hammered but around the legal limit of .08/.1 (Ignoring that it's actually .02, or basically one beer/shot for my age.) If I made a statement that I could play video games, or lacrosse, or have a political argument, or take the SAT's better than 50% of the population while drunk it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. But I talked about driving a car (where I feel normally I'm better than 90% of the people on the road, which is probably a commonly held belief but you can't disprove it since you've never seen me drive) better than half the population (especially when you factor in I'd be following the speed limits religiously and paying much closer attention to the road because I knew my motor skills were impaired) and suddenly it's the most ignorant thing someone has ever seen posted. I'm not advocating it, I don't plan to do it and I encourage anyone I know not to do it, because I believe it significantly increases the chances of being in/causing an accident, but a few drinks don't turn a very good driver into a horrible one, just as being sober doesn't make someone a good driver.

So please let me know which one of those statements qualifies for most ignorant.He's not sad he destroyed some good looking girls life, he's sad that he hit someone and now he won't be able to attempt that stupid stunt ever again.Aside from the ugly fact that the girls previous good looks somehow make this seem worse, I'd be willing to bet that he realizes what a horrible tragedy he caused because of his stupidity and really does feel genuine remorse. Doesn't mean he shoudn't pay dearly for his actions, but I think most people who don't care about their potentially destructive decisions really do feel terrible when something happens because the gravity of the situation only sinks in then.

The best solution I ever heard was posed by a lawyer friend of mine who used to prosecute drunk drivers. That is zero tolerance. If you have one drink, you cannot drive. It takes all the guesswork out of it. There is no ".08? I can't be. I feel fine after 7 beers and the couple of shots I can't remember." If you get pulled over and you are under the influence of anything, you lose your license. .01 is considered under the influence. It may seem steep, but we all know people who are loaded after one drink.Aside from basically having that system in place already for underage drinkers, I disagree virulently with your rationale. We all know lightweights, and we all know that girls get drunk much easier than guys, but yet we hold everybody to the same standard. And then you want to extend it to a level where 1 beer/shot/glass of wine/champagne/enough cough medicine is enough to disqualify you from driving? Then we'd logically have to ban cell phones, eating/drinking/listening to music/having a conversation or any of the hundreds of factors that distract a driver more than one drink will. Collective punishment and more laws/government intervention isn't the solution to everything.Why do bars have parking lots anyway???Because bars are there to get as much business as they can, and collectively punishing everyone because some abuse their rights would reduce the number of people at the bar.

I could be misreading Bishop, but I took his statement of driving better drunk than 50% of other drivers as more of a comment of how many horrible/asshole drivers we have out there rather than of his own driving skills while intoxicated. You know, being drunk doesn't completely take away your senses. If for some reason you absolutely HAVE to drive drunk (although personally I will only drive on one beer max) just drive slow and as cautious as possible! But people don't do that, anyone who thinks its ok to drive 80 and take risky turns while drunk probably had driving problems before they hit the road drunk. A sensible person would not do that.

The best solution is to never ever drive drunk. But a good/cautious driver could probably survive one instance of intoxicated driving. Most people arent good or cautious drivers.

In Bulgaria, they catch you driving while drunk, they give you an automatic prison sentence. You do it again, they execute you by firing squad.

Well, I think that may be a little harsh, but I agree that there should be a zero tolerance attitude towards drinking and driving. If you have a standard alcohol limit for everybody, it's always going to be too high for someone. We're all different, and we all react to alcohol in different ways at different times.

Bishop, driving while talking on a cell phone was recently made illegal here in the UK. I personally think that was a good decision (seeing as it takes your hands away from the wheel), although a lot of people disagree. As for your OTT conclusion that talking/listening to music/eating and drinking would have to be banned? Until I hear a record that makes me puke and stagger and fall over in the street, I think that we can drive safely with our car stereos playing.

In Bulgaria, they catch you driving while drunk, they give you an automatic prison sentence. You do it again, they execute you by firing squad.

Well, I think that may be a little harsh, but I agree that there should be a zero tolerance attitude towards drinking and driving. If you have a standard alcohol limit for everybody, it's always going to be too high for someone. We're all different, and we all react to alcohol in different ways at different times.

Bishop, driving while talking on a cell phone was recently made illegal here in the UK. I personally think that was a good decision (seeing as it takes your hands away from the wheel), although a lot of people disagree. As for your OTT conclusion that talking/listening to music/eating and drinking would have to be banned? Until I hear a record that makes me puke and stagger and fall over in the street, I think that we can drive safely with our car stereos playing.

Well, all people are different but I hate driving with the stereo playing if I'm in traffic. It DOES tend to take away from my concentration even if I don't like the song. It's noise, it's chatter, it makes hearing pesky insignificant things like ambulances, cops and warning horns difficult.

I'm not advocating banning it but I wouldn't shed a tear if they did. It is a distraction and it's unsafe. I do know a guy who got t-boned by a cop when he went through a green light because he didn't hear him nor did he see him.

As for the drinking, I don't know how it is where everybody else lives but generally where I've lived it isn't just the smell of alcohol that gets you in trouble. It's acting DRUNK. Slurring your words, not walking straight, inappropriate talk, etc. Generally if you act like you're in control of your senses and you didn't get stopped for bad driving, speeding, swerving, etc, you'll be fine. I can imagine other places being different but I bet on the whole, it's more likely that what I said holds.

I'd rather see those little those breathalyser controls put on every car mandated before I'd want zero tolerance on all drinking and driving. Then, if you're stopped and are beyond the limit, and they can easily see if you can restart your own car so that defense is out the window, it's mandatory jail time or worse. That's just IMHO.

I'd still support roadside tests, video taped of course, for cases where your car says you're not legally drunk because you can't handle your liquor but you are impaired.

Seems that this would be a common sense approach.

The best solution I ever heard was posed by a lawyer friend of mine who used to prosecute drunk drivers. That is zero tolerance. If you have one drink, you cannot drive. It takes all the guesswork out of it. There is no ".08? I can't be. I feel fine after 7 beers and the couple of shots I can't remember." If you get pulled over and you are under the influence of anything, you lose your license. .01 is considered under the influence. It may seem steep, but we all know people who are loaded after one drink. If you know you can't drink anything and drive, you take a cab to the bar and home again. Spend the damn $10. You know you won't hurt anybody in the process. Why do bars have parking lots anyway???
...except for the times when not drinking will get you to .01. i.e. sauces, desserts, etc made with alcohol - while nearly impossible to get drunk off of, still possible to get to .01 on.

I don't understand what MADD does that has you upset, Bishop. This mission creep you speak of seems to me to be a logical progression of the organization. As thier power and infuence grows, so does their mission...keeping kids from abusing alcohol is a win-win situation, at least it would have been in my life. :(

-Breaking up of parties with underage drinking leading directly to drunk driving. At least in my town among the people I see at big parties, most kids have someone DD or plan to stay at the house with the party then leave in the morning. Cops show up or a threat/rumor of cops showing up spreads and drunk kids start driving away in bunches. Remarkably IMO there have been no fatal accidents in my town caused by this that I can recall, and only a couple serious injuries, but it's only a matter of time.
Or underage kids could not drink at parties. Or they could call their parents for a ride home. The cops are responsible for reckless behavior on the part of teens? And if someone gets hurt at one of these parties (a balcony collapses, they start throwing rocks at cars, etc etc) are you going to complain that the police DID NOT take care of it? What about the neighbors who have to live with the noise?

In my last house, we had a neighbor in back who occasionally had the teens in the neighborhood over for these parties. The amount of vandalism that occurs in the neighborhood really ratchets up during these (almost none outside of these parties). Including the lock on one of the doors of our car being broken by someone attempting to break into it. Not to mention the noise at midnight...

Sorry, you won't get much sympathy from me about cops breaking up big parties.

I was going to post basically the same thing that sachmo and gstelmack just posted. Good posts.

-Breaking up of parties with underage drinking leading directly to drunk driving. At least in my town among the people I see at big parties, most kids have someone DD or plan to stay at the house with the party then leave in the morning. Cops show up or a threat/rumor of cops showing up spreads and drunk kids start driving away in bunches. Remarkably IMO there have been no fatal accidents in my town caused by this that I can recall, and only a couple serious injuries, but it's only a matter of time.Actually, underage kids drinking at parties is what leads directly to the drunk driving that follows, not the cops breaking them up. If the kids weren't breaking the law initially they wouldn't be further breaking it later.

Actually, underage kids drinking at parties is what leads directly to the drunk driving that follows, not the cops breaking them up. If the kids weren't breaking the law initially they wouldn't be further breaking it later.

Underage kids are going to drink, end of story. Underage kids are going to be stupid. Cops are not helping the situation by giving drunk, stupid kids a reason to get in a car and drive home, for fear of being busted for underage consumption. Bishop has a very valid point.

No, I do not have a realistic solution to this particular issue.

I stand by every statement I made.

We have a bright red license plate for people like you in my home state of Ohio.

I don't understand what MADD does that has you upset, Bishop. This mission creep you speak of seems to me to be a logical progression of the organization. As thier power and infuence grows, so does their mission...keeping kids from abusing alcohol is a win-win situation,Because I don't think their tactics help keep kids from abusing alcohol or getting into dangerous situations. People under 21 are going to drink. Would you rather your kid drinks in a supervised environment or an unsupervised one? If I'm wrong on the figures, let me know, but I think that increasing the drinking age to 21 had almost no discernible effect on how often kids drink but binge drinking became much more prevalent, alcohol poisoning went up and the number of kids dying from alcohol increased. Since they are going to drink, you can either accept this and try to teach them to be responsible and make smart decisions or you can stigmatize it, make it illegal, drive it underground and increase the prevalence of the situations they are trying to prevent.Or underage kids could not drink at parties. Or they could call their parents for a ride home.Not gonna happen. It's that simple. So instead of calling for an impossible plan, deal with the reality of the situation.The cops are responsible for reckless behavior on the part of teens?No, but since they should be/generally are trying to prevent the drunk driving, they need to realize their actions regarding drinking directly contribute to what they are trying to prevent.And if someone gets hurt at one of these parties (a balcony collapses, they start throwing rocks at cars, etc etc) are you going to complain that the police DID NOT take care of it?No, I'm going to fault the kids for being idiots. But in order to demand personal responsibilty, you need to give people choices and the chance to decide what it best for themselves.What about the neighbors who have to live with the noise?I don't know, maybe turn on a fan and get some white noise? Ask the kids to turn it down/keep it inside before calling the cops? It's not perfect, but a fan worked fine while I lived in a dorm this year, and I really doubt those parties next to you are louder than my dorm. If that doesn't work, talking to the people has generally worked from my experience.

Because I don't think their tactics help keep kids from abusing alcohol or getting into dangerous situations. People under 21 are going to drink. Would you rather your kid drinks in a supervised environment or an unsupervised one? If I'm wrong on the figures, let me know, but I think that increasing the drinking age to 21 had almost no discernible effect on how often kids drink but binge drinking became much more prevalent, alcohol poisoning went up and the number of kids dying from alcohol increased. Since they are going to drink, you can either accept this and try to teach them to be responsible and make smart decisions or you can stigmatize it, make it illegal, drive it underground and increase the prevalence of the situations they are trying to prevent.


May I start this by asking how old you are? It's not necessarily relevant to the discussion, but it's my own curiousity. I refuse to debase your points on age...I'm just trying to see where you are coming from on this. Thanks.

As to where kids drink, and learning to drink responsibly, I think that begins in the home, but as we all know, peer pressure can be overwhelming. Yes, I think kids will drink, and probably to excess. What MADD is trying to do is make sure that existing laws are being enforced, teaching kids that there are options, and teaching parents how to deal with their kids when they do drink. Let's take for example something you feel strongly about: cops breaking up underage parties. Maybe if more of the kids and parents had read up on the MADD Contract for Life (not sure of the name), then they wouldn't have to drink and drive. They could call their parents and have them come pick them up with no reprocussions. That's just one example. If you could cite an example for me of something MADD has done that actually encourages drinking, I would love to see it.
I don't know of any figures that support that raising the drinking age has made binge drinking more prevelant. I believe if people under 21 could buy alcohol, they would still probably binge drink, only they would be able to buy it whenever they wanted instead of having to procure it illegally. Also, I don't think MADD was responsible for raising the drinking age to 21. I though it was national legislation, but as usual, I could be wrong.
Kids will stop binge drinking when they decide to. MADD isn't going to stop it, but I don't think they are making things any worse. In fact, my opinion of them is that they actually save lives.

Thanks for listening.

May I start this by asking how old you are? It's not necessarily relevant to the discussion, but it's my own curiousity. I refuse to debase your points on age...I'm just trying to see where you are coming from on this. Thanks.

Thanks for listening.

I'm 40 so we can take the age debate from there. :)

I don't want to get into the whole age/drinking issue but I do want to say one thing in response to part of what you said.


Let's take for example something you feel strongly about: cops breaking up underage parties. Maybe if more of the kids and parents had read up on the MADD Contract for Life (not sure of the name), then they wouldn't have to drink and drive. They could call their parents and have them come pick them up with no reprocussions.

I think you missed what he was talking about. Unless the cops sign off on the Contract which I don't think they legally can do, then when the cops come a knocking, the child now has to either drink and drive, ride with someone who is, or face the very real possibility of being arrested.

Now, I don't know enough about MADD but if they're pushing this contract AND also pushing cops to break up the parties then they're working at cross purposes. Again, that's an if.

Personally, I feel the same criteria that is used to break up an adult party should be used to break up underage ones. If the kids get out of hand then by all means break it up. I mean, come on, you're engaging in illegal activity, at least you can try to be semi cool about it. :)

I don't know of any figures that support that raising the drinking age has made binge drinking more prevelant. I believe if people under 21 could buy alcohol, they would still probably binge drink, only they would be able to buy it whenever they wanted instead of having to procure it illegally. Also, I don't think MADD was responsible for raising the drinking age to 21. I though it was national legislation, but as usual, I could be wrong.
Kids will stop binge drinking when they decide to. MADD isn't going to stop it, but I don't think they are making things any worse. In fact, my opinion of them is that they actually save lives.

Thanks for listening.

Ok, two things. Why is binge drinking less of an issue in countries where there is no minumum drinking age??

I know my personal desire to drink was directly tied into the very fact that I was doing something against the rules. Kids are rebels at heart. They want to test boundaries. If the boundaries don't exist, the lure isn't as large.

Ok, two things. Why is binge drinking less of an issue in countries where there is no minumum drinking age??

I know my personal desire to drink was directly tied into the very fact that I was doing something against the rules. Kids are rebels at heart. They want to test boundaries. If the boundaries don't exist, the lure isn't as large.

So in college, students that are over 21 rarely participate in drinking?

So in college, students that are over 21 rarely participate in drinking?

Stunning leap of logic. I'm impressed.

However, if those students drank before they were 21 then it's not surprising they'd continue their habit.

If they haven't then my logic still applies. They are now legally allowed to engage in a taboo, forbidden ritual. Who wouldn't want to check it out now that they've joined the club that's allowed to do it?

May I start this by asking how old you are? It's not necessarily relevant to the discussion, but it's my own curiousity. I refuse to debase your points on age...I'm just trying to see where you are coming from on this. Thanks.19 in a couple days, so I can see why some people think it's just that I'm under 21 I disagree so much. Also, when I say MADD, I'm more or less referring to the whole movement of similar organizations. They're just the most prominent.As to where kids drink, and learning to drink responsibly, I think that begins in the home, but as we all know, peer pressure can be overwhelming. Yes, I think kids will drink, and probably to excess. What MADD is trying to do is make sure that existing laws are being enforced, teaching kids that there are options, and teaching parents how to deal with their kids when they do drink.They are also trying to expand the current laws. They started out because one woman's daughter was killed by a drunk driver with like 22 convictions who was still on the road. Someone like that should not be on the road, and by and large they have gotten people off the road. The number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has been reduced from 1.64 for every 100 million vehicle miles in 1982 to 0.63 in 2001. Now that they've largely succeeded in the initial goal, instead of focusing on getting the rest of these dangerous drivers off the road they've expanded the movement to include everyone who has any drinks and drives (they want to lower the limit to .04/.06, despite scientific evidence that shows there is no significant reduction in motor skills below .08) to any underage drinking to any drinking at all. They also play with statistics (including accidents where the drunk person was not at fault or even a pedestrian) to inflate the numbers and make it look like more of a problem than it really is. They've blatantly changed from an organization that is anti-drunk driving to one that is anti-alcohol, and being fairly libertarian I don't agree with the latter.Let's take for example something you feel strongly about: cops breaking up underage parties. Maybe if more of the kids and parents had read up on the MADD Contract for Life (not sure of the name), then they wouldn't have to drink and drive. They could call their parents and have them come pick them up with no reprocussions.That's not how it works. Axxon pointed out the scenario where the police show up and time is up (I was at a party just less than 1 year ago that got busted. It was during lacrosse, and my school had a zero-tolerance policy where you get busted once and you're off for the season so I was sober. When the cops came, about 50 drunk kids ran to cars in the vicinity, about 50 drunk kids hid in the house and since I was slow I ended up with them. The cops heard the noises upstairs and so me and 2 other kids sacrificed ourselves to save everyone else. Despite being 18 and offering numerous times to take a breathalyzer, they called my parents to give me a ride. In the end, my mom is pissed because she had to drive across town at midnight, I nearly get kicked off the team because my name is given to the HS AD as being at a party where there was suspected drinking and no one who was drinking got into any trouble, including the numerous kids who drove home or other places drunk.) Maybe there are certain families where a kid can call his parents when he's drunk and there will be no repurcussions, but that is going to be a very small minority. Even though the parents will probably be glad the kid called, and might not punish him/her at all, they will suspect drinking more often, be less willing to let him go out to friends houses, etc.If you could cite an example for me of something MADD has done that actually encourages drinking, I would love to see it.In May 2003, they told the LAT that they oppose the bus service taking people to and from bars because "The fact it's taking them to Santa Barbara to drink in the first place is problematic." (EDIT - Sorry, that was encouraging drinking and driving, not drinking.) They have also worked to stigmatize and make it illegal so that when underage drinkers drink, they do it more surreptitiously, which is very dangerous.I don't know of any figures that support that raising the drinking age has made binge drinking more prevelant. I believe if people under 21 could buy alcohol, they would still probably binge drink, only they would be able to buy it whenever they wanted instead of having to procure it illegally.I don't know if there have been any studies performed, but binge drinking rapidly increased on college campuses right after the drinking age was raised to 21. A part of this is probably cultural and we'd be heading in the direction anyway, but the pregaming part is where it comes into play. If someone under 21 (we'll assume no fake ID here) is going to a concert, or some other place like a school dance where they can't drink, they will attempt to get as hammered as they can before going, so they stay drunk through the whole thing.Also, I don't think MADD was responsible for raising the drinking age to 21. I though it was national legislation, but as usual, I could be wrong.I don't think they were even formed back then. Kids will stop binge drinking when they decide to. MADD isn't going to stop it, but I don't think they are making things any worse.I think the underground pregaming, which happens because it's illegal to drink, is the main cause of binge drinking and alcohol poisining.In fact, my opinion of them is that they actually save lives.Overall, they certainly have and possibly still do. I just think they go too far, and very few people are willing to confront them because it is being seen as being pro-drinking and driving or attacking grieving mothers. A former MADD President has admitted than drunk driving has been reduced "to a hard core of alcoholics who refuse to listen to public appeal" and the founder has written about her worry "that the movement I helped create has lost direction." There is also the position of treating alcohol as similar to cocaine and heroin in gov't warnings and support for higher taxes on alcohol.Thanks for listening.I love having these debates because FOFC is the one place I know that has a wide cross-section of people capable of holding an intelligent debate on topics like these.

I knew Bishop would get hammered (and it was well deserved IMO) after his first statement.

I agree with some of his thoughts though. Sleepy drivers are every bit as bad as drunk drivers (saw a special on Discovery this week that went over this very issue) and they get off with warnings or slaps on the wrist.

There are also countless other things you can do while driving to increase the chances of an accident. They can include listening to the stereo too loud, eating, talking on a cell phone, daydreaming about Katie Holmes knocking on their front doors with nothing but a bathrobe and a smile and saying that she needed. . . . errrr. . . off topic. Ok, you get the idea.

Your problem Bishop, is that you shouldn't be trying to look for reason as to why it's ok to drive drunk, you should be demanding other things get punished equally. Saying you think you drive better than 50% of other drivers while being "legally" drunk is not going to accomplish that goal.

I never drive drunk, my insurance is 212 dollars a month already so I dont need any more cash out my pocket. plus, when im drunk, half the time I cant stand up straight so why even risk it, although that could be cause im a inexperienced 20 year old who only drinks jack daniels and absolut vodka cause I cant stand beer.

There are also countless other things you can do while driving to increase the chances of an accident. They can include listening to the stereo too loud, eating, talking on a cell phone, daydreaming about Katie Holmes knocking on their front doors with nothing but a bathrobe and a smile and saying that she needed. . . . errrr. . . off topic. Ok, you get the idea.

DOLA - Fellatio doesnt count in there does it? :D

Your problem Bishop, is that you shouldn't be trying to look for reason as to why it's ok to drive drunk, you should be demanding other things get punished equally. Saying you think you drive better than 50% of other drivers while being "legally" drunk is not going to accomplish that goal.Sure, I opened the debate by throwing out a devil's advocate position, but I don't see where I'm saying it's ok to drive drunk. I'm arguing that the police should be out trying to pull over and arrest the dangerous drivers who swerve in between lanes/tailgate/drive recklessly and not just target the easily measurable problems. 2 nights ago, after filling up with gas at 2am where 2 cops were sitting at the station talking to each other, one of them pulled out just in front of me. This is a 2-lane on each side divided highway where the speed limit is 45 because of heavy traffic during the day and a plethora of stop lights going through my town. So anyway, I'm driving about 55-60 behind the cop because there is only one other car even on the road (in front of the cop) and both the cop and I are staying the same distance behind/catching up slightly to the other car. What happens? Cop pulls him over, even though he was staying in his lane fine, there weren't any other cars around him and he couldn't have been going more than 60. I've been pulled over almost exact same situation (70 instead of 60 and it was at about 10pm instead of 2am) in the past (cop didn't show at court) but yet I've never see a cop pull over a car when there is heavy traffic on that road, despite the average rate of travel during high traffic to be about 60-65. They aren't going after dangerous drivers, they're targeting ones they can easily pick off and then prosecute.

Saying you think you drive better than 50% of other drivers while being "legally" drunk is not going to accomplish that goal.

Then again, since I don't know him, it may well be true. Your point, unless you've ridden with him, CANNOT be based on anything except word censorship. It's forbidden to say some things, even if they're true because they're bad things.

I have a problem with this.

Was Doc Gooden in his prime possibly a better pitcher on cocaine than 50% of the other pitchers out there? Almost certainly.

It doesn't mean that there is an acceptance of his drug use or recommending others try it, but again, it may well be true.

I didn't see Bishop recommend driving drunk so I'd say his getting hammered isn't deserved but rather a reflection of the censorship inherent in humanity to desire to punish anyone who dares state something that they don't want to hear or worse *GASP* want other people to hear.

If it doesn't apply to me, then it simply cannot be. I say it could be but they should still face the same penalties as everybody else so the point is moot. I think Bishop said the same thing. That should be jumped on??

Do I believe Bishops statement about his driving skills? Not a chance. He's only 19 and no 19 year old is that great a driver whether drunk or stone cold sober. Skill comes with practice and experience. :)

Stunning leap of logic. I'm impressed.

However, if those students drank before they were 21 then it's not surprising they'd continue their habit.

If they haven't then my logic still applies. They are now legally allowed to engage in a taboo, forbidden ritual. Who wouldn't want to check it out now that they've joined the club that's allowed to do it?

It means so much to me that I've impressed you.

I don't doubt that the fact that it is forbidden to drink before you are 21 helps promote underage drinking, but I think you are giving it too much weight. I believe there are still some states that allow you to drink at 18, and there used to be many if not all that allowed that. I would imagine that drinking excessively for high school and college age students was still a problem. Most people that age will try anything to impress friends and aren't too scared of their own mortality. That can be a deadly combination. I know this all makes me sound like an old conservative grouch, but I'm really not. I'm not even sure that I'm against doing away with the age limit on drinking. I think that it probably would help take away some of the fun out of it for some kids, but it bothers me when people blame too much of the problem on that. I think there are still alcoholics in Europe, so it's not a cure-all.

My main problem with this whole topic was when Bishop said he was positive he could drive better drunk than 50% of people on the road. I'm not even arguing that, there are some awful drivers out there, so he could be accurate. It's just that nobody thinks they are a bad driver, so many people have that same thought. And the ones who are wrong are dangerous.

. I believe there are still some states that allow you to drink at 18, and there used to be many if not all that allowed that.
There are no states that allow drinking at 18. It's a matter federal highway dollars. State permits drinking under 21 = no federal highway dollars.

IIRC, it was beer at 19 and harder stuff at 21 in Ohio way back when.

I wasn't sure there were any states that still allowed drinking at 18, but I thought there were. I was wrong. I remember when I was growing up Louisiana allowed it at 18. I guess that's what I was going by.

It means so much to me that I've impressed you.

I don't doubt that the fact that it is forbidden to drink before you are 21 helps promote underage drinking, but I think you are giving it too much weight. I believe there are still some states that allow you to drink at 18, and there used to be many if not all that allowed that. I would imagine that drinking excessively for high school and college age students was still a problem. Most people that age will try anything to impress friends and aren't too scared of their own mortality. That can be a deadly combination. I know this all makes me sound like an old conservative grouch, but I'm really not. I'm not even sure that I'm against doing away with the age limit on drinking. I think that it probably would help take away some of the fun out of it for some kids, but it bothers me when people blame too much of the problem on that. I think there are still alcoholics in Europe, so it's not a cure-all.

My main problem with this whole topic was when Bishop said he was positive he could drive better drunk than 50% of people on the road. I'm not even arguing that, there are some awful drivers out there, so he could be accurate. It's just that nobody thinks they are a bad driver, so many people have that same thought. And the ones who are wrong are dangerous.

Again, my point was based on a country where there is NO minimum drinking age so 18, 21, 100, it matters not. We're really not discussing the same thing and I realize that it's not a cure all to have no drinking age. Some people are destined to be alcoholics if they drink.

The rest though, the binge drinkers and those who party hearty then outgrow it, might significantly drop in number and more importantly might be more sensible and safe when they do drink. They can afford to be more sensible, they aren't breaking any laws.

Your last point is exactly what I mean by thought police. Since some may think it and are wrong, no one can possibly state their opinion on their abilities, even if they're right.

I don't like this Harrison Bergeron mentality.

That's why I DO like the fact that think or say whatever you want, it won't help you once the blue lights are behind you. :)

I wasn't sure there were any states that still allowed drinking at 18, but I thought there were. I was wrong. I remember when I was growing up Louisiana allowed it at 18. I guess that's what I was going by.

I was beaten to the punch on telling you this but this is kinda funny and is a record that can't currently be topped.

I turned 18, 19, 20 AND 21 in states where those ages were the legal drinking age at the time of my birthday. :)

I wasn't sure there were any states that still allowed drinking at 18, but I thought there were. I was wrong. I remember when I was growing up Louisiana allowed it at 18. I guess that's what I was going by.
no worries, my friend. I was just keeping things factual...

I can't even recall if 19yos were grandfathered in or not at the time...

I do recall there was a bit about: "I can go to war but I can't drink a beer"

love having these debates because FOFC is the one place I know that has a wide cross-section of people capable of holding an intelligent debate on topics like these.


Back at ya.

You stated your case eloquently and definately given me some food for thought, as did Axxon. I'll digest it and see where it leads me. Thanks!

:)

EDIT: Bishop, I'm very sorry to hear about your troubles with the party experience. I have a problem with the zero tolerance rules...I've seen some real nice kids pay dearly for one mistake, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm hoping that one day common sense makes a comeback someday.

Back at ya.

You stated your case eloquently and definately given me some food for thought, as did Axxon. I'll digest it and see where it leads me. Thanks!

:)

That's what makes these boards so great.

Looking forward to where you were lead to. :)

Better than saying that I was looking forward to the regurgitation of the digested food thoughts. ;)

Sure, I opened the debate by throwing out a devil's advocate position, but I don't see where I'm saying it's ok to drive drunk. I'm arguing that the police should be out trying to pull over and arrest the dangerous drivers who swerve in between lanes/tailgate/drive recklessly and not just target the easily measurable problems. 2 nights ago, after filling up with gas at 2am where 2 cops were sitting at the station talking to each other, one of them pulled out just in front of me. This is a 2-lane on each side divided highway where the speed limit is 45 because of heavy traffic during the day and a plethora of stop lights going through my town. So anyway, I'm driving about 55-60 behind the cop because there is only one other car even on the road (in front of the cop) and both the cop and I are staying the same distance behind/catching up slightly to the other car. What happens? Cop pulls him over, even though he was staying in his lane fine, there weren't any other cars around him and he couldn't have been going more than 60. I've been pulled over almost exact same situation (70 instead of 60 and it was at about 10pm instead of 2am) in the past (cop didn't show at court) but yet I've never see a cop pull over a car when there is heavy traffic on that road, despite the average rate of travel during high traffic to be about 60-65. They aren't going after dangerous drivers, they're targeting ones they can easily pick off and then prosecute.

It's 2am on an almost deserted road, a car is going 15 mph over the speed limit and the driver didn't notice or take heed of the police officer behind him?? I'd make that stop 10 times out of 10 and think the cop made the right decision.

Unless you know that this cop is the one who never makes any stops unless they're easy, you can't criticize him for making this no brainer of a stop. You took a whiff on this one Bishop IMHO.

I don't care if anyone thinks they can drive better than 50% of the driver out there, I just don't want anyone to act on that thought. Many people think that and justify driving drunk based on that. I'm not saying Bishop does that, but many do. Many of those turn out to be wrong, and I think there are possible consequences that are serious enough to not test it out. Even if there are many drivers that are worse sober than you are drunk doesn't make it okay to drive drunk. I'm not trying to argue this point with you, I know that you weren't saying it was okay either. I'm just trying to clarify my point of view on this.

That is pretty impressive on your legal drinking ages. What were the states if you don't mind me asking?

It's 2am on an almost deserted road, a car is going 15 mph over the speed limit and the driver didn't notice or take heed of the police officer behind him?? I'd make that stop 10 times out of 10 and think the cop made the right decision.

Unless you know that this cop is the one who never makes any stops unless they're easy, you can't criticize him for making this no brainer of a stop. You took a whiff on this one Bishop IMHO.

I agree. I think the cop had plenty of reason to stop him.

I don't care if anyone thinks they can drive better than 50% of the driver out there, I just don't want anyone to act on that thought. Many people think that and justify driving drunk based on that. I'm not saying Bishop does that, but many do. Many of those turn out to be wrong, and I think there are possible consequences that are serious enough to not test it out. Even if there are many drivers that are worse sober than you are drunk doesn't make it okay to drive drunk. I'm not trying to argue this point with you, I know that you weren't saying it was okay either. I'm just trying to clarify my point of view on this.

That is pretty impressive on your legal drinking ages. What were the states if you don't mind me asking?

Gotcha, we're on the same page now.

Louisiana
Florida
North Carolina
Florida

Yes, Florida raised it twice. They couldn't make up their minds.

Editted to change New Orleans to Louisiana. New Orleans is a state of mind, not a physical one. :D

My main problem with this whole topic was when Bishop said he was positive he could drive better drunk than 50% of people on the road. I'm not even arguing that, there are some awful drivers out there, so he could be accurate. It's just that nobody thinks they are a bad driver, so many people have that same thought. And the ones who are wrong are dangerous.Axxon basically said what I wanted to. The only thing I want to make clear is that even though I hold this belief, I'm not going to test it because I realize there are a lot of people who think that way and are wrong.Bishop, I'm very sorry to hear about your troubles with the party experience. I have a problem with the zero tolerance rules...I've seen some real nice kids pay dearly for one mistake, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm hoping that one day common sense makes a comeback someday.It was actually an illuminating experience when I talked to the Principal. He has just come in from the town next door, where there had been 6 athletes kicked off varsity teams in his 15 years working there versus an average of about 15-20 a year at my school, and after he confirmed that I had tried to take a breathalyzer he allowed me to play. The parents and kids managed to get the school to back down to the 3 week suspension that the state requires instead of automatic season-long suspension this year, so maybe some common sense is coming back in. As for the town cops, don't get me started. My favorite was being in a car (as a passenger) leaving a party and getting pulled over because of - basically a direct quote - "You were going the speed limit and that seemed suspicious."

Then again, since I don't know him, it may well be true. Your point, unless you've ridden with him, CANNOT be based on anything except word censorship. It's forbidden to say some things, even if they're true because they're bad things.

WHOA. . . hold up here. Show me where I said Bishop didn't have the right to say those things? Show me where I said it was forbidden

He can say anything he chooses however he wants to say it. I'm just saying that in MY opinion, he isn't going to accomplish his goal by framing his arguement in that manor. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Bishop got what he deserved for what I deem a ridiculous comment. I was a part of the group who understood the point he was trying to make and I wasn't in the first round of bashers. (and before THAT get misinterpreted, no, I'm not saying everyone who first replied didn't understand what he was saying. . . I'm just saying I stayed away because I knew other people would do the job for me and I could make my point later)

Again, Bishop can phrase his arguement ANY way he desires. I never implied anything differently.

BTW: There have been countless studies done on drinking and driving. (as well as sleepy drivers and cell phones) People who even approach the legal limit see their reflexes and attention span drop off drastically. Maybe Bishop is an exception to the rule, but this is one case where he'd have to prove to me that he wasn't, not a case where I'd simply take his word. Take that for what it's worth.

As for the town cops, don't get me started. My favorite was being in a car (as a passenger) leaving a party and getting pulled over because of - basically a direct quote - "You were going the speed limit and that seemed suspicious."

While going through Georgia one time I was pulled over by a highway patrolman who stopped me because I was "swerving." I saw a couple of more cruising them cruising in both directions.

He looked in my car with his flashlight, saw me, my mother and my grandmother who we were taking back to florida to visit. He said we could go.

I asked if he wanted to see my license and registration and he said, no, just don't swerve any more and he rushed back to his car and took off.

It's obvious they were looking for someone and it's equally obvious they had to use a ridiculous reason to stop me or they might have not been able to legally arrest whoever they were looking for. Sometimes, it's the nature of the beast.

Did they give you guys a ticket or anything??

Oh, on the total bs side, LA had made it where they could stop you to give you an "award" for good driving. It was ticking people off because it was really to give them a reason to stop you without you doing anything wrong. Our west coasters can shed more light on this and how long it lasted. :)

It's 2am on an almost deserted road, a car is going 15 mph over the speed limit and the driver didn't notice or take heed of the police officer behind him?? I'd make that stop 10 times out of 10 and think the cop made the right decision.

Unless you know that this cop is the one who never makes any stops unless they're easy, you can't criticize him for making this no brainer of a stop. You took a whiff on this one Bishop IMHO.We got them fancy police cars with no lights on top, so you can't tell who they are. Also, you don't know this road. It's a 4-lane divided highway, with engineering studies putting the speed limit at 60 or 65, a speed limit 55 or 65 everywhere for at least 2 hours west and 30 minutes east except my town, and one on which I don't think I've ever seen a car traveling less than 50. The cop wasn't looking for someone speeding excessively, wasn't going after someone who was a danger to themselves or anyone else and could have pulled any and every car over on that road using that standard. When the person is getting pulled over not for doing something dangerous, out of the ordinary or even suspicious but just because the cop decided to pull out behind him instead of 1 car before or after, I have a problem with it. Also, maybe I'm wrong, but I've gotten the impression that when a cop begins following you, braking immediately and going the speed limit is taken as an indication of guilt and you are almost certain to be pulled over. Keep going the same speed or coast down to 5-10 miles over the limit, then park somewhere as quickly as you can is pretty much the only way that you can avoid getting pulled over.

having driven once while totally trashed, i'll never do it again... I was driving slowly and very carefully... but never again.. I can't believe how stupid I was that night.Try getting extricated from your car by the Jaws of Life, airlifted to a major medical center and spending nearly two days unconscious.

It's only by the grace of God that no one else was injured...and that I am here at all.

When the cops came, about 50 drunk kids ran to cars in the vicinity, about 50 drunk kids hid in the house and since I was slow I ended up with them. The cops heard the noises upstairs and so me and 2 other kids sacrificed ourselves to save everyone else. Despite being 18 and offering numerous times to take a breathalyzer, they called my parents to give me a ride. In the end, my mom is pissed because she had to drive across town at midnight, I nearly get kicked off the team because my name is given to the HS AD as being at a party where there was suspected drinking and no one who was drinking got into any trouble, including the numerous kids who drove home or other places drunk.)
You ain't gonna like this I suspect, but I feel like it needs to be pointed out.

If I was your mom, I think I'd be more pissed at you for putting yourself in a situation that had no real upside but some significant potential for downside (which you saw a small part of).

Bottom line -- you chose to be at a party with 50 people breaking the law (I'm taking your reference to "drunk kids" as meaning they weren't of legal drinking age). You chose to "sacrifice yourself" with an apparent intent to help cover up criminal activity.

And all you got was a pissed off mom & some administrative hassle?

I'd say you got off pretty damned light ... and I don't get the impression you understand that in the slightest.

And that's just fucking sad to me Bishop, I thought you were sharper than that http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/frown.gif

Then again, since I don't know him, it may well be true. Your point, unless you've ridden with him, CANNOT be based on anything except word censorship. It's forbidden to say some things, even if they're true because they're bad things.

WHOA. . . hold up here. Show me where I said Bishop didn't have the right to say those things? Show me where I said it was forbidden

He can say anything he chooses however he wants to say it. I'm just saying that in MY opinion, he isn't going to accomplish his goal by framing his arguement in that manor. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Bishop got what he deserved for what I deem a ridiculous comment. I was a part of the group who understood the point he was trying to make and I wasn't in the first round of bashers. (and before THAT get misinterpreted, no, I'm not saying everyone who first replied didn't understand what he was saying. . . I'm just saying I stayed away because I knew other people would do the job for me and I could make my point later)

Again, Bishop can phrase his arguement ANY way he desires. I never implied anything differently.

BTW: There have been countless studies done on drinking and driving. (as well as sleepy drivers and cell phones) People who even approach the legal limit see their reflexes and attention span drop off drastically. Maybe Bishop is an exception to the rule, but this is one case where he'd have to prove to me that he wasn't, not a case where I'd simply take his word. Take that for what it's worth.

TroyF, I was addressing your stating that he was being jumped on and it was well deserved. I wasn't going after you for the point I was making. You weren't one of the bashers and I don't think the bashers were because his point is ridiculous.

My point was illustrated well by ahbrady. It may well be true what he said but too many people think it and will test it out, therefore he shouldn't have said it.

Fear of others and what they think or might do is what I'm talking about. He was being bashed because he dared to speak something that should never be said andthey were afraid others would act on it as he said that he didn't drive drunk.

Your last paragraph I already said. I don't believe him either. :)

We got them fancy police cars with no lights on top, so you can't tell who they are. Also, you don't know this road. It's a 4-lane divided highway, with engineering studies putting the speed limit at 60 or 65, a speed limit 55 or 65 everywhere for at least 2 hours west and 30 minutes east except my town, and one on which I don't think I've ever seen a car traveling less than 50. The cop wasn't looking for someone speeding excessively, wasn't going after someone who was a danger to themselves or anyone else and could have pulled any and every car over on that road using that standard. When the person is getting pulled over not for doing something dangerous, out of the ordinary or even suspicious but just because the cop decided to pull out behind him instead of 1 car before or after, I have a problem with it. Also, maybe I'm wrong, but I've gotten the impression that when a cop begins following you, braking immediately and going the speed limit is taken as an indication of guilt and you are almost certain to be pulled over. Keep going the same speed or coast down to 5-10 miles over the limit, then park somewhere as quickly as you can is pretty much the only way that you can avoid getting pulled over.

That's nonsense.

Going 15 mph over the speed limit is suspicious and I've done it and paid for it. I didn't whine about it or consider myself signalled out by lazy cops. I was being stupid.

Part of being an adult and engaging in adult activities is growing a sack and admitting when you're wrong.

The road I take to work is a 30 mph road that would easily be a 45mph but there are a lot of doctors offices that get a lot of traffic during the day. 45 would be insane during peak hours. 30mph is too slow at night.

Most people ignore the speed limit at night, even the cops as they head to and from the hospital. Sometimes people get stopped. I have. I was given a warning. Others I work with have gotten a ticket.

It's the price you pay for breaking the law.

It's obvious they were looking for someone and it's equally obvious they had to use a ridiculous reason to stop me or they might have not been able to legally arrest whoever they were looking for. Sometimes, it's the nature of the beast.It's also illegal, and an infringement of my civil liberties. Same thing happened to me once when I drove a friend home at like 3am. (Apparently some kids had been running around taking extra traffic cones and messing around with them,) so immediately I notice 2 cruisers following me. Now, I live in the center of town, and while 15 mph is reasonable with cars parked on both sides of the street and lots of pedestrians, doing it at 3am while it's deserted with 2 cops following you is about as ridiculous as it gets. So after about 2 minutes they get tired of waiting for me to make a mistake and pulled me over for "Time, Place, Circumstance." After about 10 minutes of arguing where it was pointed out by them that I "could have this conversation after I went to law school" and by myself that they needed either to have evidence a misdemeanor was committed by me or proof of a felony in the area for their "Time, Place, Circumstance." argument to work under Massachusetts General Law they let me go.Did they give you guys a ticket or anything??No, it was the same thing here, they were clearly looking for drunk drivers (they had cop cars cruising by the party every 3 or 4 minutes for about 2 hours but the kid who was having the party called their bs so they couldn't get inside.) You (and my parents) argue constantly that it's the nature of the beast and you should just accept it, but clearly it's illegal, they're pulling cars over for no reason and hoping to find something illegal, just like the LA example, which is the opposite of how the system is supposed to work. You can sit there and say, "Hey, it's only a minor inconvenience," but personally I don't like how it's turning gradually into a police state out there.

Try getting extricated from your car by the Jaws of Life, airlifted to a major medical center and spending nearly two days unconscious.

It's only by the grace of God that no one else was injured...and that I am here at all.

Wow, I'm sorry to hear this. Do you remember any of the events, and if you do would you mind sharing them? That's crazy and I'm very happy to hear that you're doing well after the ordeal. My worst experience with a drunk driver was me & my friend going out to meet this girl he had been talking to at his favorite pool place, I didn't know her so I trusted him when we got in her car to go to her place so they could take part in a little "fun." Well, she was hammered, took a turn at 90 mph (in a neighborhood, mind you) and we wound up flipping a solid three times finally coming to rest on somebodys lawn.

The problem with the whole thing, besides the accident which was one of the most scary ordeals I've ever been through was the fact that her beers went splashing all over the place, so when the cops showed up they thought I was drunk too and placed me under arrest, it was only when I got a breathalyzer did they realize their mistake and turned me loose.

It's also illegal, and an infringement of my civil liberties. Same thing happened to me once when I drove a friend home at like 3am. (Apparently some kids had been running around taking extra traffic cones and messing around with them,) so immediately I notice 2 cruisers following me. Now, I live in the center of town, and while 15 mph is reasonable with cars parked on both sides of the street and lots of pedestrians, doing it at 3am while it's deserted with 2 cops following you is about as ridiculous as it gets. So after about 2 minutes they get tired of waiting for me to make a mistake and pulled me over for "Time, Place, Circumstance." After about 10 minutes of arguing where it was pointed out by them that I "could have this conversation after I went to law school" and by myself that they needed either to have evidence a misdemeanor was committed by me or proof of a felony in the area for their "Time, Place, Circumstance." argument to work under Massachusetts General Law they let me go.No, it was the same thing here, they were clearly looking for drunk drivers (they had cop cars cruising by the party every 3 or 4 minutes for about 2 hours but the kid who was having the party called their bs so they couldn't get inside.) You (and my parents) argue constantly that it's the nature of the beast and you should just accept it, but clearly it's illegal, they're pulling cars over for no reason and hoping to find something illegal, just like the LA example, which is the opposite of how the system is supposed to work. You can sit there and say, "Hey, it's only a minor inconvenience," but personally I don't like how it's turning gradually into a police state out there.

I don't know about your parents but I'm arguing the difference between theory and practice and I'd rather my bread be buttered in practice.

I'll agree with your legalities and illegalities in theory all day.

In practice, a bit of courtesy, a bit of patience and a bit of plain old wisdom gets you a lot further than legal technicalities and most people, myself included would much rather avoid that mess and it's fairly easy to do.

Now, you want to talk about changing laws and creating a better system I'm all ears but when I'm in the field I'm a grunt not an officer and I'm going to do what I have to do to survive.

I'd bet that's what your parents are thinking as well but I can't say for sure.

I know this, I'll bet you that once you're 40 your opinion will be significantly different than it is now.

I'll bet this because you sound just like me many miles and many years ago. :)

If I was your mom, I think I'd be more pissed at you for putting yourself in a situation that had no real upside but some significant potential for downside (which you saw a small part of).She was more pissed off about that and used the same argument. My response (which I didn't say to her) is that while you see no real upside, I enjoy drinking (even though I wasn't in this particular instance because of the risk) I enjoy hanging out at parties with friends and people I know from school and until/unless you understand that you'll never be able to convince me of your side of the argument (and vice versa as long as you see no upside in those situations I'll never convince you of my side of the argument.)I'd say you got off pretty damned light ... and I don't get the impression you understand that in the slightest.

And that's just fucking sad to me Bishop, I thought you were sharper than that http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/frown.gifPart of being an adult and engaging in adult activities is growing a sack and admitting when you're wrong.I'll put these two together (and avoid the cop-out for the second one that I'm not treated as an adult depending on the situation) because I think they are touching on the deeper issue at hand - I think that drinking should be legal at 18+. So while what I was doing (and helping cover-up) was illegal, I don't think it was wrong. Before someone takes that too far and says I'm saying it's alright to do whatever I want, I think once anything I do starts affecting others detrimentally it's wrong, but as long as it only affects me I'll be damned if you're going to tell me what I can and can't do.Going 15 mph over the speed limit is suspicious and I've done it and paid for it. I didn't whine about it or consider myself signalled out by lazy cops. I was being stupid...It's the price you pay for breaking the law.In addition to what I said above, speed limits are prima facie in Massachusetts, which means it's a guideline. Since the engineering studies, actions of other drivers, words from policemen (you shouldn't be going faster than 55 on here) speed limits of comparable roads, experience on the given road, improvements in cars since the speed limit was initially established and current road conditions combine to make 55 or 60 a reasonable speed IMO, I'm not breaking the law if I'm going 15mph over on that stretch of deserted highway regardless if there is a cop behind me or not.

I'd bet that's what your parents are thinking as well but I can't say for sure.

I know this, I'll bet you that once you're 40 your opinion will be significantly different than it is now.

I'll bet this because you sound just like me many miles and many years ago. :)I forget whether it was my mom or dad, but when discussing these things, one of the two said "Yeah, they harass you now, it's wrong, and then you turn 21 and stop caring about it." In my town its an endless cycle - kids don't feel they are doing something wrong, they feel singled out by the cops and act disrespectfully, cops hate the kids for this and target them (especially because there isn't any real crime in my town.) So, IMO, as long as I've been pulled over for doing nothing wrong, I'll keep being a smartass and they can keep being dicks. For whatever reason, by this point it's like a game and I actually enjoy it most of the time.

I'll put these two together (and avoid the cop-out for the second one that I'm not treated as an adult depending on the situation) because I think they are touching on the deeper issue at hand - I think that drinking should be legal at 18+.

I've already stated that maybe we shouldn't limit it at all so that had to be to Jon.

All I'm saying is that if you're knowingly breaking a law own up to the responsibility for your actions and don't blame the enforcement.


So while what I was doing (and helping cover-up) was illegal, I don't think it was wrong. Before someone takes that too far and says I'm saying it's alright to do whatever I want, I think once anything I do starts affecting others detrimentally it's wrong, but as long as it only affects me I'll be damned if you're going to tell me what I can and can't do.

Seat belt laws, helmet laws, jaywalking laws, the list goes on. They damn sure are going to tell you what you can and can't do and they damn sure will enforce it. Get used to it. I hate most of these type of laws too but again, I got a seat belt fine in February. I don't feel hassled by the man. I chose not to wear my seatbelt.


In addition to what I said above, speed limits are prima facie in Massachusetts, which means it's a guideline. Since the engineering studies, actions of other drivers, words from policemen (you shouldn't be going faster than 55 on here) speed limits of comparable roads, experience on the given road, improvements in cars since the speed limit was initially established and current road conditions combine to make 55 or 60 a reasonable speed IMO, I'm not breaking the law if I'm going 15mph over on that stretch of deserted highway regardless if there is a cop behind me or not.

Well, it's not that easy. They can and will still give you the ticket. The thing is, you have the right to take time out of your life to go to court and fight that the speed is reasonable. You may or may not win.

You said the speed was posted. That means going over the speed limit is prima facie evidence of unreasonable speed. I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find a judge who would agree that this stretch of road should be that high or else surely it would have been tested before, probably many times over.

http://www.motorists.org/ma/tic.html

One more thing, from the post about the legality of the stop that was made on me. I didn't really explain one key point to the issue.

I said they were looking for SOMEONE. I mean, someone specific. They were checking the floorboard in the back. They were making sure we were safe and that it wasn't a hostage situation. He had his hand on his gun though it wasn't drawn and as I said, there was backup all around.

They weren't just looking for something illegal.

It occured to me that you may have thought I think the LA think is something we just endure but no, that is BS as I said and I doubt they still do it.

I forget whether it was my mom or dad, but when discussing these things, one of the two said "Yeah, they harass you now, it's wrong, and then you turn 21 and stop caring about it." In my town its an endless cycle - kids don't feel they are doing something wrong, they feel singled out by the cops and act disrespectfully, cops hate the kids for this and target them (especially because there isn't any real crime in my town.) So, IMO, as long as I've been pulled over for doing nothing wrong, I'll keep being a smartass and they can keep being dicks. For whatever reason, by this point it's like a game and I actually enjoy it most of the time.

What's this your town you speak of?

It's the way of the world. :)

Seriously though, there comes a time when you'll see good cops that you'll admire and respect and you'll see some that you'll despise and know what? You'll see the same in bakers and bankers and candlestick makers, though it's hard to tell who those bastards are.

That's the way of the world too.

It's easier to just hate everybody, like me. :)

ps, be very glad your town has no real crime. I've lived in really bad areas so my miliage definitely varies.