Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
Your post reads like a MADD press release. Luxury tax? Don't be absurd. If you're a neo Prohibitionist then that's cool. As has been said before this is targeting the wrong group. Go after the .08+ group with stiffer penalties, that's the real problem.
|
I agree with you that they should go after the 0.08+ group and I've said that many times in this thread. But you also have to go after the low range a prevent that to. Doing it in a both ways would be best. This is exactly like the NDP and Conservative always argue about preventing crime, the NDP say more education and rehabilitation and the conservatives say tougher penalties, the answer is do both and don't argue which one is better.
Would you agree to the premise that there are a fair number of people who think they would be in the 0.05-0.08 range that are really higher and drive? how many people have you seen down a few and drive and they think they are fine but you don't really think so? If this law lowers what people drink say the people that were at 0.05 would have a drink less and be at 0.03 for example, drink sales have lowered in BC so you have to assume this is happening. Therefore the people at 0.08 when they drive and feel fine would be at 0.05 instead of 0.08 and safer to drive (the magical 2% range). presumably the people that are drunk but feel fine should even worry a bit about losing there car and have a drink or two less. Therefore people that are still not in a condition to drive at say 0.12 may be at a 0.08 instead. Therefore a rule of the would help reduce drunk drivers. Do you disagree with this logic? do you think it would work else wise? Do you think only the people who have 1-2 drinks will reduce their drinking? or would it be the people at 3-4 drinks or 5-6 drinks? Would it make more people say, hey you better not drive you had a few, you could get fined?
BC showed that 1 year of the law Oct 1-sept 30 there were 40% less deaths, but people poo pooed that argument with weird logic? 40% is not a random amount. Say if it was a 5% decrease then that is debatable, but 40%. basically there were 40 less needless deaths in BC with this simple rule and people argue that they are targeting the wrong group. That flawed, they are obviously targeting a significant group to drop it 40%.
Please feel free to argue why it should
only be stiffer crimes for the over 0.08 that prevents drunk driving?
As an aside, I'm not a neo prohibitionist, I drink. Just when I do I plan ahead and have a way to get home. I will DD often when I go out with some people because they are stupid and would drive so I help them get home. And when I have kids I'll have the same rule my dad had for me, I can call him any time if I was drunk and he would pick me up no questions asked and I'd never be in any trouble for it.