RNOcommctr From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 830 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 920 times:
As most of you know, the Coors family supports a wide variety of conservative and Republican causes. I believe Peter Coors himself has run for office in Colorado. The DUI certainly doesn't help the Coors family politically. As a Democrat, I am not particularly bothered by that.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13197 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 903 times:
I think he has appeared in 'responsibilty' ads in the past for the Coors brands including anti-DUI and against under-21's drinking their product. He did try 2 years ago to run for the Republican Party nomination to run for the US Senate from Colorado.
With his money, he should have a chuffuar or pay for a car service.
Fumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 847 times:
Quoting Slider (Reply 6): I hope he wasn't drinking his namesake beer.
I have been involved with his "aviation department" (sorry, can't specify) and the only beer they put on his planes is coors. I believe it is prohibited to bring anything other beer onboard. Don't know how much he drinks though.
YeahitsK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 835 times:
I would always laugh at their commercials for Coors, where he would be walking through some snowy landscape talking about his pure beer and preaching its responsible consumption. Yet, 10 minutes later, on come the Coors light commercials which seem to be the polar opposite, emphasizing partying and hot girls (cue the twangy "and twins"). I would go so far as to suggest that the silver bullet ads are designed to appeal to a very young demographic. I don't know how Mr. Coors could take himself so seriously in his commercials.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 826 times:
He came clean about it and said he was guilty and did not plan properly, nor use good judgement.
I'd say we should expect some commercials where he uses this experience to show how easy it is to make this mistake. There is no good excuse for DUI/DWI and I'd like to see him make something positive from this.
DrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 813 times:
Quoting AirCop (Reply 3): That does seem quite low. Most states that I'm aware of the legal limit is .08. Anyone else aware of another state that is .05? (excluding the concept impairment to the slightest degree).
Yes, that does seem low, but as (certain) people on this board are so fond of pointing out, the law is the law and a crime is a crime. At least if you're not rich. (And sometimes, as in this case, even if you are .)
In my opinion, it is not really possible to regulate drunk driving in an altogether "appropriate" manner. It's hard to base a judgment of "impairment" on BAC levels when the effect of a certain BAC level varies so widely from person to person, not to mention that peoples' driving abilities vary so widely when sober in the first place.
A good driver would have to drink a LOT of beer to drive as poorly as a lot of bad drivers, but there's no good way to account for that when setting a BAC limit. And even if you could, there would be ethics questions involved. For instance, if a "good driver" has an average rate of 1 collision per 28,000 miles driven and a "bad driver" has an average rate of 1 collision per 8,000 miles, where do you draw the line on impairment for the good driver? Should the good driver be allowed to drink enough to bring his collision rate down to 1/8000? Not drink at all, leaving it at 1/28000? Somewhere in between? And so on...
If I had my way, BAC limits would be raised somewhat, but it would be MUCH harder to obtain a driver's license, and people would need to pass rigorous driving tests every some-number of years in order to keep their licenses. This of course would be wildly unpopular with MADD types and the 30% or so of drivers who shouldn't really be on the road in any condition, so I don't suspect it will ever come to pass.
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.