Drink Driving not a crime if you're skinny

Qld is having a shocker for the road toll this year and Tvlle is at least as bad as the rest of the state.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and expecting a different result. With this in mind our authorities are overdue to examine the effectiveness of our high tech, high profit policing which passes (fraudlently, IMHO) as accident prevention. It worked in the last decades of the 20th C, but that was from a low base. We are now past the point of diminished returns. It should also be remembered that during the '70s - '90s the roads were improving (more than most give credit for) and primary and secondary safety of our cars was improving dramatically. And the groundswell of attitudanal change to drink driving should never be underestimated. You would need to be a "bloke" my age to know the terrible attitude we had towards drink driving in the '60s - '70s. That, in spite of regularly burying our mates.

What I notice is a higher levil of extreme, even criminal behaviour with so many accidents today and some effort should be made to get these people off the road for long periods. Of course some, in good Darwinian fashion, take themselves out permanantly. We should not mourn their passing :D and the death should be classed as stupidity, not a road accident.

Thommo, enjoying the view from his high horse.
 
RTD's (Ready to Drinks) should be banned. They taste like lolly water, they introduce young people to drinking. How are a group of young innocent people meant to know what they are doing!

One of them could be dead if they got into a car unknowingly over the limit and the alcohol cause them to crash!

Or, they could take some responsibility, read the label which clearly defines how many standard drinks they are consuming and not blame society for giving them freedom to make choices for themselves.
 
xBenX, since when have our laws, or maybe it is the judicial system, encouraged people to take responsibility for themselves? There are excuses for everything. However, you must acknowledge the collision of young people learning to drive, finishing their schooling years, and being legally allowed to drink alcohol. And the fact that alcohol producers target this still immature group. I am all for responsibility but sometimes Big Brother needs to lend a hand.
 
I'm at peace Xenia and yeh I think I've had my fair share of crap in life and numerous times I've wanted to just lay down and give up and die and sometimes literally, but my fiance was so not a quitter and he wouldv'e been disappointed if I did. So the way I see it, I'm still here and I owe it to him to live my life to the full - I think he'd be proud :)

I get that everyone makes mistakes and before I met Noel I have no doubt I was over the limit on a number of occassions whilst driving and was lucky enough never to have got caught or had an accident. I was 23 when he passed away and have never again gotten into a car when if I even midly suspect I may be close to the legal limit.

My solution to the problem is for the magistrates to HAVE to hand down the proper sentances otherwise they get fired. No if's/ buts about it. You had no idea 2 glasses of alchol would affect you because you are slim - tough bickies, ignorace should be no excuse. They shouldn't be allowed to have lawyers for drink drivers that have been caught to try and wangle out of it.

First go get a suspended license for 6 months, do it again 4 months later like the dick who did who killed Noel, loose your lisence for 5 years and like Mervo said make them visit a morgue and the TAC rehab facility. 3rd time - jail and a phyc assessment to find out why the heck they don't learn from their mistakes.

Ok I know some of you may think I've gone overboard on my suggestions what should be done to these drink drivers - but if they get off with a simple slap on the wrist what is stopping them from doing it again and thinking yeh will get off it again? I have absolutley no hesitation of writing down peoples car regos and calling the police if I see someone drunk at a pub and hopping into their car to drive off, have done it heaps of times and like to think I may have saved someones family from getting that 2am phone call.

Just my thoughts...

Kate
 
Pushka said:
xBenX, since when have our laws, or maybe it is the judicial system, encouraged people to take responsibility for themselves? There are excuses for everything. However, you must acknowledge the collision of young people learning to drive, finishing their schooling years, and being legally allowed to drink alcohol. And the fact that alcohol producers target this still immature group. I am all for responsibility but sometimes Big Brother needs to lend a hand.
Click to expand...

IMOP some parents don't encourage their kids to take any sort of responsibility for themselves. So why expect the education dept or the judicial system to raise these kids?
 
BTW everyone, I am not into soft laws for drink drivers, and especially if they are seriously over the limit. In my case, I blew 0.07.

My beef is that when you go to a restaurant or bar where the drinks are being poured by staff, then that establishment should be obliged to serve the drinks in a standard manner that makes customers able to keep count. In my experience, the serving of wine in restaurants is not a measured act by staff.

When I went DUI, I was angry that I got caught, but angrier about my own ignorance of what restuarants serve.

Anyway, I accept that for those who intend to drive after a few drinks, the onus lies on them to educate themselves about what they should be drinking.

You only need to get caught once to screw you for a year or so....for it is not just the loss of licence, but the fact that you go onto a P plate licence for a year, at least in Qld...
 
When I was a young Army Officer if we were done DUI we had to "Show cause why we should remain in the ADF" This ever present threat had us always thinking twice about driving home after we had a few. Was a Career Ender for us as well as a license loss.
 
Simon said:
When I was a young Army Officer if we were done DUI we had to "Show cause why we should remain in the ADF" This ever present threat had us always thinking twice about driving home after we had a few. Was a Career Ender for us as well as a license loss.
Click to expand...

I hate those 'show cause' posturings.....

How about:

- the taxpayer has invested a lot of money in training me up to this position, just as it invests a lot in the training of its accountants, lawyers, barristers, judges, doctors, and surgeons..... these professionals are not expelled from their careers for DUI in their private time. So what distinguishes the position of army officer from those above, that warrants us losing our career, and the taxpayer its investment....are we of such a higher standing in the community then judges? or surgeons?
 
thefirstbruce said:
I hate those 'show cause' posturings.....

How about:

- the taxpayer has invested a lot of money in training me up to this position, just as it invests a lot in the training of its accountants, lawyers, barristers, judges, doctors, and surgeons..... these professionals are not expelled from their careers for DUI in their private time. So what distinguishes the position of army officer from those above, that warrants us losing our career, and the taxpayer its investment....are we of such a higher standing in the community then judges? or surgeons?
Click to expand...

I don't see this issue as "posturing", or any other sort of elitism. Tis about obeying orders. In the military it is against orders to be DUI. Tis that simple. The chain of command is vital to safety and security. You break the chain of command...they break your career!
 
sailor said:
I don't see this issue as "posturing", or any other sort of elitism. Tis about obeying orders. In the military it is against orders to be DUI. Tis that simple. The chain of command is vital to safety and security. You break the chain of command...they break your career!
Click to expand...

I presumed Simon was talking about when one is not on duty.....if not on duty, then that is private time, and I don't see why that is a safety or security problem.....do ASIO officers lose their jobs for DUI? no....it isn't a security problem....do Diplomatic Call officers lose their jobs for DUI? no
 
While we have a society that regards ingesting mind-affecting drugs in quantities sufficient to impair judgement as socially acceptable 'entertainment' and 'social lubricant' we're going to continue having the debate over how much mind-affecting is appropriate in various situations.

It's likely that almost everyone commenting will have injested enough of these drugs to provide them with a socially accepted high at one point or another.

And it's also likely that most will have encouraged others to also injest these drugs.

People in wine bottles need to carefully consider their own actions and involvement in propogating this culture before throwing stones.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
thefirstbruce said:
I presumed Simon was talking about when one is not on duty.....if not on duty, then that is private time, and I don't see why that is a safety or security problem.....do ASIO officers lose their jobs for DUI? no....it isn't a security problem....do Diplomatic Call officers lose their jobs for DUI? no
Click to expand...

On and off duty mate.
 
Aceyducey said:
People in wine bottles need to carefully consider their own actions and involvement in propogating this culture before throwing stones.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
Click to expand...


If one wants to be pharmacologically precise, they are justified in taking the stance that alcohol is a dangerous drug in any dose, due to its indeterminate CNS depressant effects on a wide range of people. Therefore, its dosage should be as controlled and discretely packaged as any other pharmaceutical. Hence, there should be no room for alcohol to be dispensed commerically where its measurement is variable or unreasonably indeterminable.

Morphine and other CNS depressants are not commercially dispensed legally in such a manner, so why should alcohol be?
 
Simon said:
Not in the eyes of my Divisional Commander :)
Click to expand...

an anachronistic and patronizing hangover from days of old IMHO. :eek:

basically, the logic goes, the proletariat are too dumb and the job us privileged old public school boys give them on the front line is so distressing, that the poor sods are unable to control their drinking....so you good chaps need to set a good example of sobriety even when you are back home at your local in the Scottish Highlands....never mind what the local judge, constabulary, and lawyer is doing....you boys are special....your country is depending on you...the germans could be just over that hill......:rolleyes:

No offence guys, but no wonder the ADF has trouble attracting and retaining people, especially smart people.

When I was in the USA, a university professor friend who taught education was trying to make a point that school teachers should not be allowed to drink in public because it set a bad example to the children under their care at school.........I argued that he'd be out of a job as a teacher of teachers, because so few people would choose teaching as a career.

So often, idealism is a refuge of the weak, as it shows they are unable to maturely grasp and play the hand they have been dealt at a card table they do not own....
 
thefirstbruce said:
an anachronistic and patronizing hangover from days of old IMHO. :eek:
Click to expand...
Not so. It is a recent attitude. Until recently the forces had a culture of heavy drinking, especially in the Off's and Sgt's messes where official functions were boozy affairs and the other ranks were only slapped on the wrist for indiscretions in town. In the '70s the soldiers kept a couple of our troublesome minorities from stepping too far out of line.

The change from a "cannon fodder" mentality to one of a skilled force would have had something to do with it too. It didn't matter if a 'grunt" killed himself, but they don't want to lose a skilled technician. LOL
 
I believe if you know you're going to drive, don't drink, period.

I agree we need a 0.05 limit since you can't always plan ahead sufficiently, but if you're 0.051 because you didn't count your drinks accurately I have no sympathy at all.

I would much rather they person driving beside me on the road had no alcohol in his or her blood than even just a little.
 
Imagine if it was illegal to even have one alcholic drink and drive. The courts would make a mint because every Tom, Dick & Harry would get caught for the first year. The police revenue would go up dramatically due to fines. We'd have more taxi's on the roads to pick up the people who did go out to the pub and had a drink and business such as 'We'll pick you up' would spout up everywhere - hence more jobs. Woould the people who produce alcholic drinks go out of business? I don't think so, I think they'd just turn their hand at making non-alcholic drinks. AA would definetly have a down turn of clients due to people giving up alchol and hence possibly less domestic violence.

TTB is right, alchol is a drug, so why not ban it. People would say but I like wine...I love my chardy at the end of the day - is it the taste they like or are addicted to the alchol? If its the former buy an non alcholic wine. If its the later go to AA. I drink wine and I like it, but if they made them all non-alcholic it wouldn't faze me in the slighest.

Before some of you jump down my throat, this is abit tongue in cheek :D

Kate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top