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

[iamwhatiseem]

It's a win-win for the feds. They get to dominate State governments and they offer the trial lawyer lobby a windfall with double the DUI cases. If the feds had it their way we would be back to 30 mph electric cars.

Only if Nosmo can be inspector Kluso

 

[hjmick]

Wow, this is funny! I used to be a drinker and couldn't, for example, enjoy a nice dinner unless there was some alcohol involved.

You should hear yourselves. The rationalization is deafening. : )

Thank God I was able to find out there is life without alcohol. And thank God I was able to do it without the "help" of AA. : ) It's great to drive around now, and if a cop pulls up behind me I'm not going "Oh, shit!!!"

Those were NOT... the "good old days." lol

Now you see, in twenty-seven years I have never once said, "Oh shit!!!" when a cop pulled up behind me. Unlike you, apparently, I was smart enough to not drink to excess, or have a designated driver, or call for a ride, or just crash where I'm drinking. It's called personal responsibility. When you have it, you tend to resent other folks, like the government, passing laws that effect everyone because some do not possess the aforementioned, personal resonsibility.

 

[whitehall]

You can bring up religion but nobody is more self righteous than a former drinker who is now on the wagon. I expect a hundred anecdotal tales of drinking and driving. Not many from pot heads though.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Wow, this is funny! I used to be a drinker and couldn't, for example, enjoy a nice dinner unless there was some alcohol involved.

You should hear yourselves. The rationalization is deafening. : )

Thank God I was able to find out there is life without alcohol. And thank God I was able to do it without the "help" of AA. : ) It's great to drive around now, and if a cop pulls up behind me I'm not going "Oh, shit!!!"

Those were NOT... the "good old days." lol

Now you see, in twenty-seven years I have never once said, "Oh shit!!!" when a cop pulled up behind me. Unlike you, apparently, I was smart enough to not drink to excess, or have a designated driver, or call for a ride, or just crash where I'm drinking. It's called personal responsibility. When you have it, you tend to resent other folks, like the government, passing laws that effect everyone because some do not possess the aforementioned, personal resonsibility.

Or...you deluded yourself into thinking you were fine to drive, when in reality your reflexes were impaired. Its common knowledge that one of the first things alcohol begins to affect is our judgement. So some drinker telling me that they were smart enough not to drink to excess...just makes me laugh.

The only way to be safe is not to drink and drive.

You're probably just lucky you didn't get caught. Stopped for something else and then found out. I've seen that happen to people, and surprise, surprise...they're drunker than they thought.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

You can bring up religion but nobody is more self righteous than a former drinker who is now on the wagon. I expect a hundred anecdotal tales of drinking and driving. Not many from pot heads though.

There's a difference between being self-righteous and just "no longer being deluded."

You've heard the saying, "It takes one to know one"? lol

You don't have to be visibly drunk to be impaired, you know that, right?

 

[hjmick]

Wow, this is funny! I used to be a drinker and couldn't, for example, enjoy a nice dinner unless there was some alcohol involved.

You should hear yourselves. The rationalization is deafening. : )

Thank God I was able to find out there is life without alcohol. And thank God I was able to do it without the "help" of AA. : ) It's great to drive around now, and if a cop pulls up behind me I'm not going "Oh, shit!!!"

Those were NOT... the "good old days." lol

Now you see, in twenty-seven years I have never once said, "Oh shit!!!" when a cop pulled up behind me. Unlike you, apparently, I was smart enough to not drink to excess, or have a designated driver, or call for a ride, or just crash where I'm drinking. It's called personal responsibility. When you have it, you tend to resent other folks, like the government, passing laws that effect everyone because some do not possess the aforementioned, personal resonsibility.

Or...you deluded yourself into thinking you were fine to drive, when in reality your reflexes were impaired. Its common knowledge that one of the first things alcohol begins to affect is our judgement. So some drinker telling me that they were smart enough not to drink to excess...just makes me laugh.

The only way to be safe is not to drink and drive.

You're probably just lucky you didn't get caught. Stopped for something else and then found out. I've seen that happen to people, and surprise, surprise...they're drunker than they thought.

Sorry to burst your bubble, bub, I have neve driven drunk or impaired. If I am driving, I limit myself to one, maybe two, beers depending on the content. Any more than that and someone else has driven. Designated driver, cab, or I called a friend. I have known too many, before I reached the legal drinking age, who died to do it any other way... Personal responsibility.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Now you see, in twenty-seven years I have never once said, "Oh shit!!!" when a cop pulled up behind me. Unlike you, apparently, I was smart enough to not drink to excess, or have a designated driver, or call for a ride, or just crash where I'm drinking. It's called personal responsibility. When you have it, you tend to resent other folks, like the government, passing laws that effect everyone because some do not possess the aforementioned, personal resonsibility.

Or...you deluded yourself into thinking you were fine to drive, when in reality your reflexes were impaired. Its common knowledge that one of the first things alcohol begins to affect is our judgement. So some drinker telling me that they were smart enough not to drink to excess...just makes me laugh.

The only way to be safe is not to drink and drive.

You're probably just lucky you didn't get caught. Stopped for something else and then found out. I've seen that happen to people, and surprise, surprise...they're drunker than they thought.

Sorry to burst your bubble, bub, I have neve driven drunk or impaired. If I am driving, I limit myself to one, maybe two, beers depending on the content. Any more than that and someone else has driven. Designated driver, cab, or I called a friend. I have known too many, before I reached the legal drinking age, who died to do it any other way... Personal responsibility.

All right, I apologize. I believe you. But there are a lot of people who are not as responsible as you are.

It has been demonstrated that people at .05 are impaired. If you have never driven drunk or impaired, then you shouldn't have any problem with lowering the limit to .05. Right?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Or...you deluded yourself into thinking you were fine to drive, when in reality your reflexes were impaired. Its common knowledge that one of the first things alcohol begins to affect is our judgement. So some drinker telling me that they were smart enough not to drink to excess...just makes me laugh.

The only way to be safe is not to drink and drive.

You're probably just lucky you didn't get caught. Stopped for something else and then found out. I've seen that happen to people, and surprise, surprise...they're drunker than they thought.

Sorry to burst your bubble, bub, I have neve driven drunk or impaired. If I am driving, I limit myself to one, maybe two, beers depending on the content. Any more than that and someone else has driven. Designated driver, cab, or I called a friend. I have known too many, before I reached the legal drinking age, who died to do it any other way... Personal responsibility.

All right, I apologize. I believe you. But there are a lot of people who are not as responsible as you are.

It has been demonstrated that people at .05 are impaired. If you have never driven drunk or impaired, then you shouldn't have any problem with lowering the limit to .05. Right?

It has been demonstrated...by who?
If a person is too dangerous to drive at .05...then surely they are at .04 also.
I have little doubt, in fact I know for a fact that a person with little alcohol tolerance is impaired at .05...and less. But that is a small-small percentage of the population.
There are many people who are light sensitive. I am one of them, it is definitely a traffic hazard for me to drive at night on a two lane highway, and all others like me. But it is not illegal.
People with sleep disorders can be seriously impaired, but it is not illegal.
People who are deaf are certainly impaired, but they can drive.
People blind in one eye are impaired, but drive.

Point being, and the actual subject at hand, when is "impaired" an actual danger. Like I say, if .05 is...then how is .04 not? And is .05 less dangerous than a person with sleep disorder, or someone who just pulled a 16 hour shift????

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Sorry to burst your bubble, bub, I have neve driven drunk or impaired. If I am driving, I limit myself to one, maybe two, beers depending on the content. Any more than that and someone else has driven. Designated driver, cab, or I called a friend. I have known too many, before I reached the legal drinking age, who died to do it any other way... Personal responsibility.

All right, I apologize. I believe you. But there are a lot of people who are not as responsible as you are.

It has been demonstrated that people at .05 are impaired. If you have never driven drunk or impaired, then you shouldn't have any problem with lowering the limit to .05. Right?

It has been demonstrated...by who?
If a person is too dangerous to drive at .05...then surely they are at .04 also.
I have little doubt, in fact I know for a fact that a person with little alcohol tolerance is impaired at .05...and less. But that is a small-small percentage of the population.
There are many people who are light sensitive. I am one of them, it is definitely a traffic hazard for me to drive at night on a two lane highway, and all others like me. But it is not illegal.
People with sleep disorders can be seriously impaired, but it is not illegal.
People who are deaf are certainly impaired, but they can drive.
People blind in one eye are impaired, but drive.

Point being, and the actual subject at hand, when is "impaired" an actual danger. Like I say, if .05 is...then how is .04 not? And is .05 less dangerous than a person with sleep disorder, or someone who just pulled a 16 hour shift????

It's not subjective. It's easily demonstrable. You get people to a .05 level and then you run tests on them. Simple as that.

■.03-.12: Individual will begin to experience a mild euphoria that is often accompanied by increased sociability and talkativeness. At this point, they will also begin to lose inhibitions, and their self-confidence will increase. Sensory-motor impairment will begin, while judgment and control faculties are lessened.

While individuals differ in what it takes to get them to .05, they do not really differ much in the effects of being at .05.

When an individual’s blood alcohol content reaches between 0.03% and 0.059%, the brain’s ability to handle tasks required for safe driving becomes impaired and more severely hindered as the BAC level increases. The brain’s ability to control eye movements and process information is affected simultaneously. This means that alcohol-impaired drivers take more time to read signs or respond to traffic signals or other drivers. At this BAC level, steering is affected in combination with the driver’s ability to stay in the proper lane.

Alcohol-impaired drivers also have difficulty concentrating on multiple tasks at a time. For example, a driver may be able to stay within the boundaries of a lane but forget to monitor his or her speed.

http://www.duifoundation.org/drunkdriving/impairment/

I'm still researching who and how this research is done. Just don't have enough time right now. But it's obviously not that complicated. Pretty clear-cut stuff.

 

[whitehall]

You can bring up religion but nobody is more self righteous than a former drinker who is now on the wagon. I expect a hundred anecdotal tales of drinking and driving. Not many from pot heads though.

There's a difference between being self-righteous and just "no longer being deluded."

You've heard the saying, "It takes one to know one"? lol

You don't have to be visibly drunk to be impaired, you know that, right?

I rest my case.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

All right, I apologize. I believe you. But there are a lot of people who are not as responsible as you are.

It has been demonstrated that people at .05 are impaired. If you have never driven drunk or impaired, then you shouldn't have any problem with lowering the limit to .05. Right?

It has been demonstrated...by who?
If a person is too dangerous to drive at .05...then surely they are at .04 also.
I have little doubt, in fact I know for a fact that a person with little alcohol tolerance is impaired at .05...and less. But that is a small-small percentage of the population.
There are many people who are light sensitive. I am one of them, it is definitely a traffic hazard for me to drive at night on a two lane highway, and all others like me. But it is not illegal.
People with sleep disorders can be seriously impaired, but it is not illegal.
People who are deaf are certainly impaired, but they can drive.
People blind in one eye are impaired, but drive.

Point being, and the actual subject at hand, when is "impaired" an actual danger. Like I say, if .05 is...then how is .04 not? And is .05 less dangerous than a person with sleep disorder, or someone who just pulled a 16 hour shift????

It's not subjective. It's easily demonstrable. You get people to a .05 level and then you run tests on them. Simple as that.

■.03-.12: Individual will begin to experience a mild euphoria that is often accompanied by increased sociability and talkativeness. At this point, they will also begin to lose inhibitions, and their self-confidence will increase. Sensory-motor impairment will begin, while judgment and control faculties are lessened.

While individuals differ in what it takes to get them to .05, they do not really differ much in the effects of being at .05.

When an individual’s blood alcohol content reaches between 0.03% and 0.059%, the brain’s ability to handle tasks required for safe driving becomes impaired and more severely hindered as the BAC level increases. The brain’s ability to control eye movements and process information is affected simultaneously. This means that alcohol-impaired drivers take more time to read signs or respond to traffic signals or other drivers. At this BAC level, steering is affected in combination with the driver’s ability to stay in the proper lane.

Alcohol-impaired drivers also have difficulty concentrating on multiple tasks at a time. For example, a driver may be able to stay within the boundaries of a lane but forget to monitor his or her speed.

Alcohol Impairment | DUI Foundation

I'm still researching who and how this research is done. Just don't have enough time right now. But it's obviously not that complicated. Pretty clear-cut stuff.

Say you are right, what about insomnia? Surely you would agree that someone who hasn't slept in 48 hours or more is far-far-far more impaired that one beer in less than an hour?
What about these caffeine fiends drinking giant cans of Red Bull? The National Safety Commision has released several warnings about people driving on energy drinks.
You have drove with a bad headache? Shame on you...clearly more impaired than a one beer buzz.
Drove angry? Incomprehensible. Your judgement is obviously impaired you should be locked up...again...far more than one or two beers in an hour or more.
I could go on.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

You can bring up religion but nobody is more self righteous than a former drinker who is now on the wagon. I expect a hundred anecdotal tales of drinking and driving. Not many from pot heads though.

There's a difference between being self-righteous and just "no longer being deluded."

You've heard the saying, "It takes one to know one"? lol

You don't have to be visibly drunk to be impaired, you know that, right?

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.

 

[whitehall]

There's a difference between being self-righteous and just "no longer being deluded."

You've heard the saying, "It takes one to know one"? lol

You don't have to be visibly drunk to be impaired, you know that, right?

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.

 

[waltky]

Sounds like a good idea.

 

[editec]

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.)

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

Not as bad as those who recently quit smoking.
Back in the 90's was when quitting smoking really took hold, it is when I quit also.
Holy Cow...they were relentless - "you know that will kill you...when are you going to quit...I quit so can you....it takes willpower....

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

This has nothing to do with safety.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

In a nutshell this is my point:

At what point does "impaired" no longer offer a viable threat?
I have made comparisons (that I notice those for the increased limitations have ignored [ahem])
to other means of impairment that are greater than the physical change of .05%...if the point is to reduce danger to the public than why should there not be laws against driving if you have insomnia, or someone with one blind eye?
hjmick makes a good point - it IS about personal responsibility. No one can disagree that new drinkers are certainly impaired at .04%. My 22 year old daughter weighs 115lbs soaking wet, drinks rarely simply because she just can't handle alcohol. One weak margarita at a restaurant and she is noticeably tipsy. Using the police's own ABC calculator she is only about .03% after one margarita. So guess what? She never drinks anything and drives. For someone who has drank moderately for years one margarita is hardly noticed.
SO if you are going to change the law to .05%, IMHO - it is irresponsible not to change laws for the myriad other causes of impairment that kill people everyday. But then that would be ridiculous...and so is lowering to .05%

 

[editec]

All a lower BAC level will do is make the ******* 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.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

All a lower BAC level will do is make the ******* 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".