Madd

[History_Buff]

The result is that everyone who looks 40 and under ends up getting IDd, because that person might look 25, in which case it would be legal to buy alcohol anyway, so what's the point again? The scenario you mentioned is a justification for Id'ing someone who is 25 or under but not over 25 and certainly not up to 40.

Here's the thought process I'm working from:

1. It's illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under 18.
2. It's quite possible for an 18 year old to appear 25.
3. Therefore, I must ID anyone who looks to be 25 or younger (this is actual guideline the province encourages us to use).

Of course, since I have no a priori knowledge of a person's age aside from their appearance, anyone who looks 25ish will be ID'd, regardless of their actual age. If a 40 year old gets ID'd, so be it.

I don't see why you're having such a hard time of it.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I don't drive, I don't live in a country which requires mandatory ID and I'm not stupid enough to carry around my passport with me. How would I prove my identity to buy alcohol, given that I'm under 40?

In Nova Scotia we have something that is referred to as a "walking ID." Its like a drivers license (it looks almost the same) but it doesnt let you drive. I have one. Im not sure the exact name of it though.

 

[History_Buff]

I don't drive, I don't live in a country which requires mandatory ID and I'm not stupid enough to carry around my passport with me. How would I prove my identity to buy alcohol, given that I'm under 40?

Think to yourself: I'm going out to a bar/liquor store, I should probably bring some ID.

You're probably going to bring a wallet to you know, pay for stuff, and you mean to tell me you don't have even one piece of ID with your age on it in there?

 

[madviking]

I think a "Hands-free" phone should be allowed, but not a regular phone. Like it is in NYS....

The danger isn't from the use of your hands, it's in the sustained dialogue.

 

[amadeus]

...wait, you're against BAC-based prohibitions on drunk driving?

This is a thing that people think?

Yes. Here's two excerpts from "Legalize Drunk Driving" by Lew Rockwell.

What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

...

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.

In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police are more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what's being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn't done any harm.

Of course, enforcement is a serious problem. A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed.

 

[Arwon]

That's... kind of loony. The being drunk and behind the wheel is inherently reckless. This isn't complicated.

 

[Tee Kay]

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property.

As they say, prevention is better than cure. Or, in this case, reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road thereby reducing the number of accidents is better than scraping mutilated body parts from the asphalt.

This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.

Yes, yes he is. An Arab is not a danger just because he happens to be born an Arab. Drunk driving, on the other hand, directly and demonstrably causes slowed reaction times and impaired judgement.

What the hell kind of person writes this crap?

 

[Arwon]

Of course the law deals in probabilities and has to. How the hell else do you even define crimes of negligence and recklessness?

 

[Hygro]

Most people would function fine while violating the legal limit...

No.

You're pretty drunk at 0.08. If you think otherwise you are not perceiving your own mental state accurately. Even 1-2 drinks in already impairs your ability to react.

I think a "Hands-free" phone should be allowed, but not a regular phone. Like it is in NYS....

It has nothing to do with hands. I drive one handed most of the time. It's entirely with being distracted by the conversation.

 

[Arakhor]

You're probably going to bring a wallet to you know, pay for stuff, and you mean to tell me you don't have even one piece of ID with your age on it in there?

I don't even buy alcohol, so it doesn't affect me, but I can safely that I don't even have photo ID in my wallet, let alone proof of age. Plenty with my name on and even some letters at home with my address, but nothing that proves my age besides my birth certificate and passport and (quite frankly) I'm not a moron.

 

[NovaKart]

Here's the thought process I'm working from:

1. It's illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under 18.
2. It's quite possible for an 18 year old to appear 25.
3. Therefore, I must ID anyone who looks to be 25 or younger (this is actual guideline the province encourages us to use).

Of course, since I have no a priori knowledge of a person's age aside from their appearance, anyone who looks 25ish will be ID'd, regardless of their actual age. If a 40 year old gets ID'd, so be it.

I don't see why you're having such a hard time of it.

You're talking about something different. In some US states there's a law that anyone under 40 has to show ID, so this mean anyone who appears to be under 40 has to show an ID, not anyone who appears to be 25. I'm not talking about just your province.

 

[History_Buff]

You're talking about something different. In some US states there's a law that anyone under 40 has to show ID, so this mean anyone who appears to be under 40 has to show an ID, not anyone who appears to be 25. I'm not talking about just your province.

Alright, well, you never actually said that, nor do I have a problem with that. Really I'm pro-IDing everyone.

 

[useless]

What the hell kind of person writes this crap?

The same kind of person that argues that Child Labour in the factories of Britain was a positive thing and that we should be abolishing child labor laws He's a pretty disgusting individual!

And he (if it wasn't paul) apparently wrote Ron Paul's racist newletters, that should give you a pretty good insight into this abomination of a human being

 

[Disgustipated]

No.

You're pretty drunk at 0.08. If you think otherwise you are not perceiving your own mental state accurately. Even 1-2 drinks in already impairs your ability to react.


It has nothing to do with hands. I drive one handed most of the time. It's entirely with being distracted by the conversation.

please, no. just no.

Maybe you are uncoordinated and lack dexterity, but the rest of us can walk fine at 0.08. I've known people who could drive excellent at .15. Mainly because they had such high tolerance to alcohol .15 barely affected their motor skills. .10 was a better standard, .08 is too low.

 

[Hygro]

please, no. just no.

Maybe you are uncoordinated and lack dexterity, but the rest of us can walk fine at 0.08. I've known people who could drive excellent at .15. Mainly because they had such high tolerance to alcohol .15 barely affected their motor skills. .10 was a better standard, .08 is too low.

Yes, turn this into a personal attack against me. Actually, that's pretty funny. Alcoholics are the only ones against the BAC limits, and alcoholics as a group tend to be pretty quick to go on the offense when their problems are attacked.

I'm sniffing a pattern.


Anyway, as someone who can down 10 drinks and be fine, I can still comfortably assure you a 0.08 impairs a driver's ability. It's been studied.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Im not a fan of reducing intelligent debate to simple platitudes , but this thread needs it . The facts are that alcohol impaired drivers are douche bags . And as a tax payer , I'm entitled to have the law protect me from them , as are the non tax payers. It's not brain surgery . The fact that Joe Bloggs just happens to be a hard enough drinker that he can drive OK at .10 is meaningless . The douchbags far outnumber Joe Bloggs

How's them platitudes for ya ?

 

[Hygro]

Im not a fan of reducing intelligent debate to simple platitudes , but this thread needs it . The facts are that alcohol impaired drivers are douche bags . And as a tax payer , I'm entitled to have the law protect me from them , as are the non tax payers. It's not brain surgery . The fact that Joe Bloggs just happens to be a hard enough drinker that he can drive OK at .10 is meaningless . The douchbags far outnumber Joe Bloggs

How's them platitudes for ya ?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Thanks mate . I'm smiling from ear to ear . I think I'll have a beer or 2 ( and stay firmly planted in my favourite easy chair) .

 

[Disgustipated]

Actually I'm curious if there have been less drunken driving deaths since they lowered it from .10 to .08. Does anyone know?

 

[Arwon]

Road fatalities per person have trended down in most of the first world. It would be very difficult to get good statistics about when alcohol was involved and to what degree.