breathalyser brings 3 beer limit

[Synchronomyst]

*rubs temples*



"limits and advisories are the problem.
we have a limit of 80 km/hr on the highways but i'm unware of anyone who actually obeys them.
we have a law that states that you cannot overtake on the shoulder, yet it is still done, we have a law which states that you must stay three car lengths away from the vehicle in front you and yet people still disobey them, we have a law that states you cannot drive on the priority and it is still done, and to top it off NONE of these are seriously enforced."

I don't think that you are privy to the wonderfully fallcious logic that you employ.  You are adverse and you advocate the uncontested removal of people freedoms... rather than the actual active enforment of the law? Again, following your logic, we should then stop people from driving en lieu of limits and advisories being the problems if they choose not to adhere to the simple rules of driving. "...and to top it off"...tcht. Heh.

"Outright bans are the next step in a growing degree of corrective actions, you will speak to a child about doing something, but if they don't listen the first time or the second or the 200th and all you do is talk you think that child will have any respect for you or your rules? Hell no."

That's a child. An individual memeber of a household and in the larger scales a population of a country and a society. If you wish to ban anyone you ban those who violate the law. Which, *sighs* coincidentally, is a part of the legislature in larger developing and first world countries. You draw a flawed analogy in comparing a single child to larger soceity. Sorry. Wrong.

"people can't obey simple 'advisories' and 'limits', what is to stop them from doing the same to the three beer limit?"

What is to stop them even if there is an outright ban? Nothing. How can you NOT see that? You enforce and legislate from the ground up so you have strudier laws based on existing ones which are enforced. This is why my initial post stated my discontentment. It's not unlike trying to pass a law here demanding people recycle when the law for littering is completely and utter disregarded.

"Either way, laws are irrelevant in this country nobody obeys them, the people do as they please because they no somebody who know somebody who have gun or who could get them out of it."

Can't argue with that.

Because, of course, this is directly and undeniably linked to the Comtrex and not to his own independent error. Of course, also not taking into account the reverse possibility that he was very much affected by the drug, doubly concious of that fact and decided to work anyway. No. These are not more likely scenarios than him exhibiting entirely different side effects to a drug in the same relative time span. No. Not in the least.

and if he had taken the drug with all your constructive well verbosed excuses and just not used the crane, as simple sense would dictate?
What would have happened, the guy would still have lost the arm i guess? ent?

Did you at all read that post? I ask again: Can you show me the direct and undeniable correlation between the usage of the drug and his depreciated perfomace other than his possibly annecdotal claims that he was unaffected initially then was hampered on the second usage? No. You cannot. It is highly unlikely that it were so and equally as unlikely that it was the first time he used this drug so he was unaware of the side-effects. I presented two completely more viable scenarios. They are there. Whether or not you choose to accept them means little. The fact of the matter most duly remains that -if- he (and in turn most people) are truly uninhibited by the usage of the drug then there is no logical reason why he should not have other than your own overly cautious opinion. Governments realise this...there is no need for me to retread this. All this absolutism and linear thinking...urgh.



"exactly, people who choose to cover up their inadequacies with sarcasm.

take a moment and ask 'what if?' instead of 'why?' "

This is not the first or the last time I've heard this self-help, ad hominem blather spit out, and it is done each time much to my increasing ire. Thanks for the pseudo-psychological assessment and all...but if you choose to base your arguments on conjecture I will respond in this manner. Anyway...I've nothing more to say. I won't change your mind. Whatever the hell I left I can't really take the time to care about...I'm on the phone. I'll edit whatever if I have the time.

[TinyGrasshopper]

What I can't believe is this legislation is only NOW happening. Perhaps it's because I'm exposed to too much foreign media but I just stupidly assume that what we have is close to what one would see on tv. I remember the same thing with seatbelt legislation 'Wait nah, that only NOW illegal?!'

[Cowsquad]

soo one scotch go send the breathilizer off and send you to jail XD

[Kenji]

For the last few posts:

Okay so lemme ask something ; u think it is safe to let a man who had two or more beers, to carry a loaded gun?
Cause driving a car can be deemed the same thing; a car going at plus 50 miles can be consider a dangerous weapon.
The "walk in a straight line" test can test someone’s coordination and concentration, however there is zero way of telling how a person would react under any pressure (skidding on the road, try to avoid objects on the road etc.).

My point is simply that, when it comes to life and death situations; it is impossible to tell how a person will react under the influence of alcohol, and while a single standard may be unfair to some people, but i am sure that the people that devised the now international alcohol standard, has determined that amount can affect someone’s driving ability under any extraneous situation.

[Nephilim]

fuh true with the age limit an driving. is the actual amount of time you drive that determine the ability, not when or how long yuh have it, like it have plenty people i know who have they permit and hardly drive a lick in they life.

aye i just though ah sumthing too, ent mouthwash could set that thing ablaze?
i remember seeing that on myth busters a time.

[SPK]

Yup, I remember when they had an article sometime about a guy who got busted on the Breathalyser test in the US, cuz he uses too much Listerine, so the alcohol content in his breath was high enough.

*wonders how many ppl go claim when driving drunk that they just gargle too much listerine before they got in the car...*

[W1nTry]

If the cop can't tell the difference in breath between listerine and alcohol (esp say... BEERS or Tequila) then well God help us... but that aside I highly doubt somethign like that will happen. Drinking or just a listerine addict, I don't think the police will pull yuh over out of the blue less yuh looking suspicious/driving like a @$$/or you're a ridiculously hot chick. If you are the latter, well is hard luck if yuh get a breathalizer and ur a listerien addict :p