Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403
I have to admit I'm not sure how to respond anymore. There's been evidence provided to you that demonstrates our DUI rate is already dropping and dropping fast and for decades now.
People have provided you with links from credible sources showing abuse of police power in our own city, and, how problematic breathalyzers are.
All I get back is your hands clasped on your ears and you shouting back "safety safety safety!". I don't know how to establish a middle ground or even a way to disagree if you're going to ignore everything given to you. Same goes for pepsi.
|
The feeling is mutual.
I think the difference is that you're dead-set on using random examples to falsely support a conclusion.
Showing that an officer has abused their power is not evidence that it will be a widespread issue concerning this law.
Showing that DUI rates have fallen in Canada is not evidence that this law had no effect in other countries.
Showing that BAC tests can be problematic is not evidence that a series of unlikely random events could occur together enough to be statistically significant.
There's been no evidence to suggest that innocent people will be more susceptible to criminal convictions. There's been no evidence to suggest that these laws precipitate a rise in Orwellian police-state antics. There's been no evidence to support many of your situational examples of how this could go wrong, but you continue to produce them as some given end-result of this law.
What there has been, is evidence that shows (despite the error rate with BAC tests, despite officer abuse of powers) this law has had a direct, measurable, and worthy effect on DUI rates in the countries where it has been implemented. This evidence is not in the form of a graph, or an article in the Sun, this evidence is in the form of academic articles produced by people whose job it is to create academic studies that consider many of the factors you name.
If you have any evidence of the negative impact of this law in any of the countries where it has been around, or any academic evidence that disputes the academic evidence provided to you, post it. It's that simple. I've said all I can say (to you) on the matter, so take it or leave it.
tl;dr your "evidence" doesn't support your wild conclusions and academic studies support the effectiveness of this law whether you want to admit any of it or not