Fed recmomendation .05% Alc level..getting a little crazy?

[martybegan]

Yes, .05% seems excessive.

I note that Washington State is now considering an equally inappropriate blood THC level for driving, too.

They are thinking of setting it so low that anyone who smoked within the last 48 hours will be considered too high to drive.

(note I did NOT say driving while intoxicated? That's because a non toxic substance cannot make you intoxicated. Word meanings matter.)

I dont think that would stand up on appeal, as long as pot is legal in the juristiction. There has to be a relation between the BTHCC (blood THC Content) and impairment, even if it is only a statistical relation.

 

[JWBooth]

Amazing! The Right is so paranoid that they are willing to compromise safety so they can exercise their right to get drunker than they should behind the wheel!

Big government over reaction?

No, more like a complete abrogation of personal responsibility and then claim it as a protected right. Ridiculous!

Fine, bring back prohibition, everybody is safe.

Let me walk you through this so your bumper sticker thinking can understand it. If lower speed limits prove to be effective in saving lives on the highways, wouldn't lowering the speed limit make perfect sense?

If fewer impaired drivers are on the road, would there me more or fewer accidents as a result?

If lowering the blood alcohol limit results in fewer impaired drivers, would that increase or decrease the number of fatalities on the highways?

Now, lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would in fact save lives, but it would be impractical. Lowering the blood alcohol limit would take more impaired drivers off the roads, wouldn't it? And it's as if you never heard the term "designated driver".

Unadulterated bullshit.
I've been locking up drunks since Reagan was potus. .05 has nothing to do with making the roads safe and everything to do with raising revenues and enlarging databases.
If there was an actual, real, thought out notion about keeping the impaired off of the roads, it would include ignition interlocks.

 

[editec]

All a lower BAC level will do is make the fucking cops feel more justified to set up road blocks so as to increase revenue collection.

This has nothing to do with safety.

How nice that occasionally even you and I can agree, SP.

This is about generating revenue for the criminal justice system.

This is a FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM bill.

Now, is this kind of legalistic nonsense a liberal or a conservative conspiracy?

If you answered " The question makes no sense at all" then you get it.

Its not Right V Left nation we've got, citizens

It's INSIDERS versus the rest of us.

For many people what you just said is utter nonsense...the government would never do this. To that, I say - really? The same government that has done nothing about colleges and universities piling prerequisites on today's students for no other reason other than increased tuition for same. The same government that passed the law protecting Monsanto against wrongful death lawsuits - even if they are at fault! The same government that is thoroughly and completely corrupt with special interest groups - consistently passing legislation to protect their interest over public interest.
The same government that recently acquired the phone calls of 100's of journalist in multiple cities "for the nations security".

I might be wrong about your general POV, I am, but I know that I am right about Skull Pilot...to whit, he leans very much to the right, while I lean very much to the left.

But STILL please note that in many ways the RIGHTIST and LEFTISTS on this board see the VERY SAME KIND OF PROBLEM...an INCREASINGLY OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS.


Push hard enough and everbody (not in power) is some sort of LIBERTARIAN...me, you, Skull, all of us want and ONLY want enough government to make the nation work.

It is seldom WHAT we want, but rather HOW TO GET IT that typically divides the right from the left.

That is why I think being partisan is the very worst thing a CITIZEN can be.

Partisans of both parties are being played like pawns by the INSIDERS who are not in their heart of hearts really Dems or Reps.. (as most partisans understand those terms)

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How nice that occasionally even you and I can agree, SP.

This is about generating revenue for the criminal justice system.

This is a FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM bill.

Now, is this kind of legalistic nonsense a liberal or a conservative conspiracy?

If you answered " The question makes no sense at all" then you get it.

Its not Right V Left nation we've got, citizens

It's INSIDERS versus the rest of us.

For many people what you just said is utter nonsense...the government would never do this. To that, I say - really? The same government that has done nothing about colleges and universities piling prerequisites on today's students for no other reason other than increased tuition for same. The same government that passed the law protecting Monsanto against wrongful death lawsuits - even if they are at fault! The same government that is thoroughly and completely corrupt with special interest groups - consistently passing legislation to protect their interest over public interest.
The same government that recently acquired the phone calls of 100's of journalist in multiple cities "for the nations security".

I might be wrong about your general POV, I am, but I know that I am right about Skull Pilot...to whit, he leans very much to the right, while I lean very much to the left.

But STILL please note that in many ways the RIGHTIST and LEFTISTS on this board see the VERY SAME KIND OF PROBLEM...an INCREASINGLY OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS.


Push hard enough and everbody (not in power) is some sort of LIBERTARIAN...me, you, Skull, all of us want and ONLY want enough government to make the nation work.

It is seldom WHAT we want, but rather HOW TO GET IT that typically divides the right from the left.

That is why I think being partisan is the very worst thing a CITIZEN can be.

Partisans of both parties are being played like pawns by the INSIDERS who are not in their heart of hearts really Dems or Reps.. (as most partisans understand those terms)

Oh that is an easy one for me. Ever since I have been posting on political forums back in 2004...I have been adamant about the "blue vs. red" mentality and it's horrific effectiveness in keeping corrupt politicians in power and maintaining status quo.
The last election should have been a HUGE wake up call to Americans - the government approval rating has never been so low in history - YET THE SAME PEOPLE WERE ELECTED almost 100%. We have the exact same governance now as before the election - insanity.
But it again shows the effectiveness of the red vs. blue mentality in stopping change from occurring. We are not losing this country to special interest - we already lost.

 

[jwoodie]

Fine, bring back prohibition, everybody is safe.

Let me walk you through this so your bumper sticker thinking can understand it. If lower speed limits prove to be effective in saving lives on the highways, wouldn't lowering the speed limit make perfect sense?

If fewer impaired drivers are on the road, would there me more or fewer accidents as a result?

If lowering the blood alcohol limit results in fewer impaired drivers, would that increase or decrease the number of fatalities on the highways?

Now, lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would in fact save lives, but it would be impractical. Lowering the blood alcohol limit would take more impaired drivers off the roads, wouldn't it? And it's as if you never heard the term "designated driver".

Unadulterated bullshit.
I've been locking up drunks since Reagan was potus. .05 has nothing to do with making the roads safe and everything to do with raising revenues and enlarging databases.
If there was an actual, real, thought out notion about keeping the impaired off of the roads, it would include ignition interlocks.

Spot on. Is there ANY real world data that drivers with .05 BAC cause significantly more death or injury? This is nothing more than a theoretical feel-good exercise with concomitant benefits to government coffers.

 

[Spoonman]

How nice that occasionally even you and I can agree, SP.

This is about generating revenue for the criminal justice system.

This is a FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM bill.

Now, is this kind of legalistic nonsense a liberal or a conservative conspiracy?

If you answered " The question makes no sense at all" then you get it.

Its not Right V Left nation we've got, citizens

It's INSIDERS versus the rest of us.

For many people what you just said is utter nonsense...the government would never do this. To that, I say - really? The same government that has done nothing about colleges and universities piling prerequisites on today's students for no other reason other than increased tuition for same. The same government that passed the law protecting Monsanto against wrongful death lawsuits - even if they are at fault! The same government that is thoroughly and completely corrupt with special interest groups - consistently passing legislation to protect their interest over public interest.
The same government that recently acquired the phone calls of 100's of journalist in multiple cities "for the nations security".

I might be wrong about your general POV, I am, but I know that I am right about Skull Pilot...to whit, he leans very much to the right, while I lean very much to the left.

But STILL please note that in many ways the RIGHTIST and LEFTISTS on this board see the VERY SAME KIND OF PROBLEM...an INCREASINGLY OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS.


Push hard enough and everbody (not in power) is some sort of LIBERTARIAN...me, you, Skull, all of us want and ONLY want enough government to make the nation work.

It is seldom WHAT we want, but rather HOW TO GET IT that typically divides the right from the left.

That is why I think being partisan is the very worst thing a CITIZEN can be.

Partisans of both parties are being played like pawns by the INSIDERS who are not in their heart of hearts really Dems or Reps.. (as most partisans understand those terms)

totally editec. the government is grabbing too much power. doesn't matter if it is the right or left in control they both grab power. and they do it with the comfort that they have at least half the population supporting them when they do it.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

God, I'm glad I quit drinking. And smoking. Sleep is my only drug now. : )

No more bad habits to defend. It's liberating, it really is. : )

(Okay, this was kind of a taunt! SORRY! The devil made me say it.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I rest my case.

Oh, brother. I can't stand MADD, you know that? Can't stand that organization because of their...I don't know...righteous indignation. So you may not have me pegged as well as you think you do.

No offense Koosh. I didn't mean to single you out but you gotta realize that 12 steppers and other former drinkers become annoying evangelists.

Let me make this clear...I am not a 12-stepper. I do not attend AA meetings. I did a few times a long time ago and decided it wasn't for me. I'm too much of a free-thinker to mold to the AA mentality.

I also didn't want to just trade one addiction (alcohol) for another (AA meetings/mentality).

I'm a former smoker, too. But I'm not one of "those" former smokers. My husband still smokes, I run to the store and buy cigarettes for him. He has thanked me for not being one of "those" former smokers. I have made it clear to him that I would love it if he would quit, for his own good, but that's the end of it. I leave him alone.

One other thing I understand...not everyone who drinks is a problem drinker. So I understand that some people can continue drinking because they are not addicted and because they handle it responsibly...but I cannot. Just because I have a problem does not mean that everyone else does, too. But I am pretty good at spotting the problem drinkers...they stand out like a sore thumb when you've been there yourself. You recognize all the signs, all the rationalizations, all the delusions.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I think the crux of the matter is, are skills people need to drive safely impaired at .05? That's the question that needs to be answered. I believe it has been answered, that yes, impairment is starting at that level.

If that's the case, why not lower the limit to that? Why not? And remember, two wrongs don't make a right, so just because someone might drive when they're sleepy doesn't justify someone driving when the alcohol in their system is at a level that can impair their driving.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I think the crux of the matter is, are skills people need to drive safely impaired at .05? That's the question that needs to be answered. I believe it has been answered, that yes, impairment is starting at that level.

If that's the case, why not lower the limit to that? Why not? And remember, two wrongs don't make a right, so just because someone might drive when they're sleepy doesn't justify someone driving when the alcohol in their system is at a level that can impair their driving.

So then we should also make drinking energy drinks and driving a jailable offense. According to the Dept. of Transportation's own test, driving after drinking energy drinks impairs driving.
So then we should also make driving within a 24 hour period of less than 6 hours sleep also a jailable offense then.
By your own words - why not - if safety is the primary reason, then it would be irresponsible to do one without the others.

 

[NLT]

Stupid law wont get passed, even hardcore liberals drink and if they tighten up DUI laws that will include weed as well.

 

[martybegan]

I think the crux of the matter is, are skills people need to drive safely impaired at .05? That's the question that needs to be answered. I believe it has been answered, that yes, impairment is starting at that level.

If that's the case, why not lower the limit to that? Why not? And remember, two wrongs don't make a right, so just because someone might drive when they're sleepy doesn't justify someone driving when the alcohol in their system is at a level that can impair their driving.

Impairment happens to different people at different levels, and that impairment has different effects on people depending on how crappy of a driver they were to start with.

Again, I would bet that most fatalities involving DWI are caused by idiots pushing 0.20 and higher, never mind 0.05.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I think the crux of the matter is, are skills people need to drive safely impaired at .05? That's the question that needs to be answered. I believe it has been answered, that yes, impairment is starting at that level.

If that's the case, why not lower the limit to that? Why not? And remember, two wrongs don't make a right, so just because someone might drive when they're sleepy doesn't justify someone driving when the alcohol in their system is at a level that can impair their driving.

Impairment happens to different people at different levels, and that impairment has different effects on people depending on how crappy of a driver they were to start with.

Again, I would bet that most fatalities involving DWI are caused by idiots pushing 0.20 and higher, never mind 0.05.

I don't think that's correct. It's not that different people experience impairment at different levels. It's that people differ in the rate at which they reach those levels.

In other words, I might reach .05 more easily than you do...quicker and with less to drink. But once we're both at .05, we are similarly impaired.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I think the crux of the matter is, are skills people need to drive safely impaired at .05? That's the question that needs to be answered. I believe it has been answered, that yes, impairment is starting at that level.

If that's the case, why not lower the limit to that? Why not? And remember, two wrongs don't make a right, so just because someone might drive when they're sleepy doesn't justify someone driving when the alcohol in their system is at a level that can impair their driving.

So then we should also make drinking energy drinks and driving a jailable offense. According to the Dept. of Transportation's own test, driving after drinking energy drinks impairs driving.
So then we should also make driving within a 24 hour period of less than 6 hours sleep also a jailable offense then.
By your own words - why not - if safety is the primary reason, then it would be irresponsible to do one without the others.

Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because other things also impair driving doesn't mean we shouldn't address the blood alcohol level. One step at a time.