Comments on: Yet More Neoprohibition http://www.theagitator.com/2004/07/15/yet-more-neoprohibition/ It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:12:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Danno49 http://www.theagitator.com/2004/07/15/yet-more-neoprohibition/comment-page-1/#comment-52177 Danno49 Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:02:48 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=4348#comment-52177 Brought to you by the land of the fees and the home of de-brained. Brought to you by the land of the fees and the home of de-brained.

]]> By: Ms. Dani http://www.theagitator.com/2004/07/15/yet-more-neoprohibition/comment-page-1/#comment-52176 Ms. Dani Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:06:21 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=4348#comment-52176 Sad thing is, they probably consider an increase in drunk driving arrests as an indication that the program is successful. Sad thing is, they probably consider an increase in drunk driving arrests as an indication that the program is successful.

]]> By: Chris http://www.theagitator.com/2004/07/15/yet-more-neoprohibition/comment-page-1/#comment-52175 Chris Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:40:44 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=4348#comment-52175 Law Enforcement isn't about protecting anybody. It is a revenue stream, nothing more. And I am sure James is right, alcohol related deaths are probably the same, but before if the driver had a BAC of .08 is wasn't tallied in the alcohol related deaths and now it is. Law Enforcement isn’t about protecting anybody. It is a revenue stream, nothing more. And I am sure James is right, alcohol related deaths are probably the same, but before if the driver had a BAC of .08 is wasn’t tallied in the alcohol related deaths and now it is.

]]> By: Brian J. http://www.theagitator.com/2004/07/15/yet-more-neoprohibition/comment-page-1/#comment-52174 Brian J. Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:37:20 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=4348#comment-52174 But the bill is a resounding success! Missouri continues to receive Federal highway funding. What did you think the goal was? But the bill is a resounding success!

Missouri continues to receive Federal highway funding.

What did you think the goal was?

]]> By: James http://www.theagitator.com/2004/07/15/yet-more-neoprohibition/comment-page-1/#comment-52173 James Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:09:52 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=4348#comment-52173 Look at the total number of ALL accidents. Not just those that involve drunk drivers. If this has gone up, then the bill has not worked. Look at the total number of ALL accidents. Not just those that involve drunk drivers. If this has gone up, then the bill has not worked.

]]> By: James http://www.theagitator.com/2004/07/15/yet-more-neoprohibition/comment-page-1/#comment-52172 James Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:08:38 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=4348#comment-52172 I think you'll find that those extra deaths from drunk driving comes from the extra number of "drunk" drivers the new law creates, that were there all along. Alcohol is involved in something like 2/3rds of all accidents. I would suspect that drunk drivers (with the old 1.0 limit) do not account for all of these however. The difference between "legally drunk" and "had a beer or two" makes up this difference. Just as if you lower the drunk driving limit to absolutely nothing, 100% of accidents would involve drunk drivers. It's simple number fixing. I think you’ll find that those extra deaths from drunk driving comes from the extra number of “drunk” drivers the new law creates, that were there all along. Alcohol is involved in something like 2/3rds of all accidents. I would suspect that drunk drivers (with the old 1.0 limit) do not account for all of these however. The difference between “legally drunk” and “had a beer or two” makes up this difference. Just as if you lower the drunk driving limit to absolutely nothing, 100% of accidents would involve drunk drivers. It’s simple number fixing.

]]> By: cubicle http://www.theagitator.com/2004/07/15/yet-more-neoprohibition/comment-page-1/#comment-52171 cubicle Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:32:41 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=4348#comment-52171 proably the drunk people drove by slowly while the ones being arrested where being made to walk the line proably the drunk people drove by slowly while the ones being arrested where being made to walk the line

]]> By: B-Man http://www.theagitator.com/2004/07/15/yet-more-neoprohibition/comment-page-1/#comment-52170 B-Man Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:02:36 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=4348#comment-52170 You know MADD will just say that even with .08, the problem is spiraling out of control, so we need even tighter control. Let's go to .04. You know MADD will just say that even with .08, the problem is spiraling out of control, so we need even tighter control. Let’s go to .04.

]]> By: MP http://www.theagitator.com/2004/07/15/yet-more-neoprohibition/comment-page-1/#comment-52169 MP Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:02:23 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=4348#comment-52169 Are there studies that relate the arrest rate to the reasons for the arrest? I would suspect that a 14% increase in arrests was not related to a 14% increase in stops due to signs of drunkenness, but rather a 14% increase in arrests due to roadblocks and speeding that lead to DWI accusations. Are there studies that relate the arrest rate to the reasons for the arrest? I would suspect that a 14% increase in arrests was not related to a 14% increase in stops due to signs of drunkenness, but rather a 14% increase in arrests due to roadblocks and speeding that lead to DWI accusations.

]]>