PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Feds want a 1 drink DUI


Bump
05-14-2013, 07:02 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/14/feds-recommend-lower-drunken-driving-threshold/

WASHINGTON A federal agency is proposing that states lower the threshold for drunken driving to the point where a woman could be charged for driving after one drink and a man after two in a move officials say would save thousands of lives.

The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all states drop the blood-alcohol level at which motorists can be charged with driving drunk to .05, down from the current rate of .08 that all 50 states impose. The threshold is a matter of state law, but the federal government can pressure states to meet its standard by threatening to withhold highway funding.

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable."

- Deborah Hersman, chair of NTSB

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable," NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said. "Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents, they are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will."

More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to an NTSB report. In Europe, drunken driving deaths were cut by more than half a decade after the stricter standard was implemented.

Studies show a woman weighing less than 120 pounds can reach .05 after just one drink, while a man weighing up to 160 pounds reaches .05 after two drinks.

New approaches are needed to combat drunken driving, which claims the lives of more than a third of the 30,000 people killed each year on U.S highways a level of carnage that that has remained stubbornly consistent for the past decade and a half, the board said.

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable," NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said. "Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents, they are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will."

But the recommendation to lowering the alcohol content threshold to .05 is likely to meet strong resistance from states, said Jonathan Adkins, an official with the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety offices.

"It was very difficult to get .08 in most states so lowering it again won't be popular," Adkins said. "The focus in the states is on high (blood alcohol content) offenders as well as repeat offenders. We expect industry will also be very vocal about keeping the limit at .08."

The lower alcohol content threshold was one of nearly 20 recommendations aimed at reducing drunken driving made by the board, including that states adopt measures to ensure more widespread use of use of alcohol ignition interlock devices. Those require a driver to breathe into a tube, much like the breathalyzers police ask suspected drunken drivers to use.

The board has previously recommended states require all convicted drunken drivers install the interlock devices in their vehicles as a condition to resume driving. Currently, 17 states and two California counties require all convicted drivers use the devices.

However, only about a quarter of drivers ordered to use the devices actually end up doing so, NTSB said. Drivers use a variety of ways to evade using the devices, including claiming they won't drive at all or don't own a vehicle and therefore don't need the devices, staff said.

The board recommended the National Highway Safety Administration, which makes safety grants to states, develop a program to encourage states to ensure all convicted drivers actually use the devices. The board also recommended that all suspected drunken drivers whose licenses are confiscated by police be required to install interlocks as a condition of getting their licenses reinstated even though they haven't yet been convicted of a crime.

Courts usually require drivers to pay for the devices, which cost about $50 to $100 to buy plus a $50 a month fee to operate, staff said.

The board has previously called on the safety administration and the auto industry to step up their research into technology for use in all vehicles that can detect whether a driver has elevated blood alcohol without the driver breathing into a tube or taking any other action. Drivers with elevated levels would be unable to start their cars.

But the technology is still years away.

Studies show more than 4 million people a year in the U.S. drive while intoxicated, but about half of the intoxicated drivers stopped by police escape detection, the NTSB report said. The board made several recommendations aimed at increasing both the visibility and effectiveness of police enforcement, including expanded use of passive alcohol devices. The devices are often contained in real flash lights or shaped to look like a cellphone that officers wear on their shirt pockets or belts. If an officer points the flashlight at a driver or the cellphone-like device comes in close proximity to an intoxicated driver, the devices will alert police who may not have any other reason to suspected drunken driving.

The use of the devices currently is very limited, the report said.

Dramatic progress was made in the 1980s through the mid-1990s after the minimum drinking age was raised to 21 and the legally-allowable maximum level of drivers' blood alcohol content was lowered to .08, the report said. Today, drunken driving claims about 10,000 lives a year, down from over 18,000 in 1982. At that time, alcohol-related fatalities accounted for about 40 percent of highway deaths.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/14/feds-recommend-lower-drunken-driving-threshold/#ixzz2TJpMJl2M

unnecessary drama
05-14-2013, 07:04 PM
what's the difference between a slightly impaired driver killing someone or a FUCKING TERRIBLE DIPSHIT driver killing someone?

I can see getting the SERIOUS DRUNK drivers off the road...

but if a guy gets pulled over making an improper lane change or some bullshit and blows a .12 he shouldn't have to pay THOUSANDS of dollars and have his life ruined because of it

unnecessary drama
05-14-2013, 07:05 PM
I have driven with terrifying people, mostly girls, over the years that are WAY MORE DANGEROUS than a drunk driver.

unnecessary drama
05-14-2013, 07:05 PM
girls who text and drive are more dangerous than drunk drivers

Superturtle
05-14-2013, 07:10 PM
what's the difference between a slightly impaired driver killing someone or a FUCKING TERRIBLE DIPSHIT driver killing someone?

I can see getting the SERIOUS DRUNK drivers off the road...

but if a guy gets pulled over making an improper lane change or some bullshit and blows a .12 he shouldn't have to pay THOUSANDS of dollars and have his life ruined because of it
What? That's a pretty damn high number to blow. Most people will be driving impaired at that point.

Bump
05-14-2013, 07:12 PM
What? That's a pretty damn high number to blow. Most people will be driving impaired at that point.

I don't think he's very good at math.

NewChief
05-14-2013, 07:13 PM
Two drinks is my max before I won't drive, already.


I can guarantee that I'm a better driver after a six pack than my wife stone sober, though.

Superturtle
05-14-2013, 07:15 PM
That big of a deal move to fucking Ireland. You can Legally drive drunk some places.

ClevelandBronco
05-14-2013, 07:15 PM
And in a related story, Colorado is moving toward setting the THC level that would define DUI for potheads. The allowable level might be quite low. (Of course the legal level the feds would recommend would be 0.0 nanograms.)

"A Colorado House committee advanced a bill to set marijuana blood limits for drivers Monday.

House Bill 1114, also known in previous years as the marijuana DUI bill, would say that drivers are legally impaired if their blood contains more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/colorado-marijuana-dui-bill-pot-drivers_n_2996604.html

Warning: Dated material. It's happening, but the above story might not reflect the latest developments.

Bump
05-14-2013, 07:18 PM
And in a related story, Colorado is moving toward setting the THC level that would define DUI for potheads. The allowable level might be quite low. (Of course the legal level the feds would recommend would be 0.0 nanograms.)

"A Colorado House committee advanced a bill to set marijuana blood limits for drivers Monday.

House Bill 1114, also known in previous years as the marijuana DUI bill, would say that drivers are legally impaired if their blood contains more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/colorado-marijuana-dui-bill-pot-drivers_n_2996604.html

Warning: Dated material. It's happening, but the above story might not reflect the latest developments.

which is absolutely absurd.

What are they going to do though? Surely they wont be administrating blood tests if the cop suspects something?

and there is no fucking way it should be treated the same as alcohol. Alcohol kills, weed helps. They are not the same thing.

BigChiefTablet
05-14-2013, 07:20 PM
And in a related story, Colorado is moving toward setting the THC level that would define DUI for potheads. The allowable level might be quite low. (Of course the legal level the feds would recommend would be 0.0 nanograms.)

"A Colorado House committee advanced a bill to set marijuana blood limits for drivers Monday.

House Bill 1114, also known in previous years as the marijuana DUI bill, would say that drivers are legally impaired if their blood contains more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/colorado-marijuana-dui-bill-pot-drivers_n_2996604.html

Warning: Dated material. It's happening, but the above story might not reflect the latest developments.

The real trick is going to be determining what constitutes probable cause to check their THC level in the first place.

Bump
05-14-2013, 07:24 PM
The real trick is going to be determining what constitutes probable cause to check their THC level in the first place.

they still need the arrest money, it's all about keeping people down and getting their money. Since weed arrests will be lower, they lose money. So they up the DUI arrests off some bullshit.

That level of thc in your blood means that if you smoke up once, you must wait anywhere from 24-48 hours to drive. Which is absolutely fucking retarded.

It's simply about keeping people down. Nothing more. Our government is scum.

LoneWolf
05-14-2013, 07:25 PM
which is absolutely absurd.

What are they going to do though? Surely they wont be administrating blood tests if the cop suspects something?

and there is no ****ing way it should be treated the same as alcohol. Alcohol kills, weed helps. They are not the same thing.

You are one stupid mother fucker. Smoking weed impairs your ability to operate a vehicle the same as alcohol. The medicinal benefits of marijuana have nothing to do with the what level should be allowed in your system when driving.

Bump
05-14-2013, 07:27 PM
You are one stupid mother ****er. Smoking weed impairs your ability to operate a vehicle the same as alcohol. The medicinal benefits of marijuana have nothing to do with the what level should be allowed in your system when driving.

you are fucking retarded dude.

no it does not.

Bewbies
05-14-2013, 07:28 PM
which is absolutely absurd.

What are they going to do though? Surely they wont be administrating blood tests if the cop suspects something?

and there is no ****ing way it should be treated the same as alcohol. Alcohol kills, weed helps. They are not the same thing.

Weed helps? LMAO

It makes you dumb as shit too I guess.

A Salt Weapon
05-14-2013, 07:28 PM
Good ol' government and its "solutions", hey too many people are driving over the legal limit right now, what should we do?

How about lowering the limit.

Great idea, another dumb fucking law that doesn't address the problem. Maybe if we ban 30rd magazines that will decrease the number of drunk drivers too.

HonestChieffan
05-14-2013, 07:29 PM
which is absolutely absurd.

What are they going to do though? Surely they wont be administrating blood tests if the cop suspects something?

and there is no ****ing way it should be treated the same as alcohol. Alcohol kills, weed helps. They are not the same thing.

So. Pothead car wreck kills people less dead than a boozer? Could you be more stupid?

Superturtle
05-14-2013, 07:30 PM
you are fucking retarded dude.

no it does not.
You aren't smoking good weed then.

LiveSteam
05-14-2013, 07:31 PM
So. Pothead car wreck kills people less dead than a boozer? Could you be more stupid?

You just cant find enough auto deaths as a result of mother nature to justify any kind of comparison to DUI deaths

Bump
05-14-2013, 07:32 PM
Weed helps? LMAO

It makes you dumb as shit too I guess.

yes, it helps lots of people, moron. I didn't mean it helps driving. One shouldn't rip a huge bong and then immediately go drive. But it wears off in hours. Not 48.

A Salt Weapon
05-14-2013, 07:32 PM
You are one stupid mother ****er. Smoking weed impairs your ability to operate a vehicle the same as alcohol. The medicinal benefits of marijuana have nothing to do with the what level should be allowed in your system when driving.

While I don't partake in weed anymore and haven't in about 10yrs or so, your statement is fucking retarded. While probably not 100% of people can drive stoned, it does not impair driving in the least. I would actually say the opposite.

That said, What's the difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver?

The drunk runs a stop sign and the stoner waits for it to turn green.

LoneWolf
05-14-2013, 07:32 PM
you are ****ing retarded dude.

no it does not.

Look, I get it, you are really an advocate of weed. I agree that it has many medicinal uses that could be beneficial to people with certain ailments, but to say that it doesn't effect your reflexes and awareness is just plain stupid. It's an absolute fact that it does and you sound more and more like a fucking asshole the more you try to argue against this fact.

Bewbies
05-14-2013, 07:33 PM
Good ol' government and its "solutions", hey too many people are driving over the legal limit right now, what should we do?

How about lowering the limit.

Great idea, another dumb ****ing law that doesn't address the problem. Maybe if we ban 30rd magazines that will decrease the number of drunk drivers too.

The penalties should be higher for sure. Way higher.

Bump
05-14-2013, 07:33 PM
Look, I get it, you are really an advocate of weed. I agree that it has many medicinal uses that could be beneficial to people with certain ailments, but to say that it doesn't effect your reflexes and awareness is just plain stupid. It's an absolute fact that it does and you sound more and more like a ****ing asshole the more you try to argue against this fact.

It's still not the same as alcohol. Not even close.

Bewbies
05-14-2013, 07:34 PM
yes, it helps lots of people, moron. I didn't mean it helps driving. One shouldn't rip a huge bong and then immediately go drive. But it wears off in hours. Not 48.

Fair enough, I agree with that.

cosmo20002
05-14-2013, 07:36 PM
Alcohol kills, weed helps. They are not the same thing.

Weed helps? Helps what? Cancer patients have an appetite? What does that have to do with driving? You just want to get stoned.

You have to be the absolute worst advocate for anything ever. I've always been for legalizing it, but reading some of your posts really makes me reconsider.

LoneWolf
05-14-2013, 07:37 PM
It's still not the same as alcohol. Not even close.

Never said that it was. I've smoked more than my share of pot in my lifetime. The difference between weed and alcohol is it doesn't matter how stoned you get, the effects wear off in pretty much the same amount of time. With alcohol, the drunker you get the longer it takes to wear off.

Bump
05-14-2013, 07:37 PM
I will say this.

If there were a way to test if someone had toked up within the last hour or 2, when it affects you. Then fine, give that person a DUI.

But to say that you have to wait 24-48 hours after a toke. That means everybody on the road that smokes weed will get a DUI. And that's some bullshit.

LiveSteam
05-14-2013, 07:38 PM
It's still not the same as alcohol. Not even close.

This. For the every day user like myself.
Now if you smoke for the first time or first time in years, you may wanna find a couch.

Bump
05-14-2013, 07:39 PM
Weed helps? Helps what? Cancer patients have an appetite? What does that have to do with driving? You just want to get stoned.

You have to be the absolute worst advocate for anything ever. I've always been for legalizing it, but reading some of your posts really makes me reconsider.

uh, it helps a shit ton of people with many different kinds of problems. You haven't heard anything about that? wow.

KC native
05-14-2013, 07:39 PM
girls who text and drive are more dangerous than drunk drivers

Anyone who texts and drives is more dangerous than drunk drivers.

Everyday I see a couple near accidents because some dipshit can't put their phone down for a few fucking minutes. DFW drivers are bad enough as it is. Adding cell phones makes them even worse.

LoneWolf
05-14-2013, 07:39 PM
it does not impair driving in the least. I would actually say the opposite.

A stupider statement has never been typed on this board.

Saul Good
05-14-2013, 07:42 PM
What? That's a pretty damn high number to blow. Most people will be driving impaired at that point.

I don't think he's very good at math.

.12 used to be the legal limit.

cosmo20002
05-14-2013, 07:43 PM
uh, it helps a shit ton of people with many different kinds of problems. You haven't heard anything about that? wow.

I agree. But those benefits have nothing to do with driving, nor does it have anything to do with your desire to get stoned.

GloucesterChief
05-14-2013, 07:44 PM
Not a fan of punishing behavior that may lead to the violation of someone else's rights. Until there is actual or planned damage to another person or their property, there is no criminal behavior.

Saul Good
05-14-2013, 07:46 PM
I agree. But those benefits have nothing to do with driving, nor does it have anything to do with your desire to get stoned.

Weed makes you a better driver like alcohol makes you a better dancer.

HonestChieffan
05-14-2013, 07:46 PM
Potheads give all the ammo needed to defeat them. If you test positive you can bet in many jobs the man will fire your ass and the courts will support the decision.

LoneWolf
05-14-2013, 07:47 PM
Not a fan of punishing behavior that may lead to the violation of someone else's rights. Until there is actual or planned damage to another person or their property, there is no criminal behavior.

So you're OK with drunk driving as long as nobody actually gets hurt?

BucEyedPea
05-14-2013, 07:49 PM
This is absolutely NONE of the Federal govt's business.

cosmo20002
05-14-2013, 07:50 PM
Not a fan of punishing behavior that may lead to the violation of someone else's rights. Until there is actual or planned damage to another person or their property, there is no criminal behavior.

So, let's get rid of "attempted" murder. The 'No harm, no foul' approach.

notorious
05-14-2013, 07:53 PM
Increased revenue for the States that they can blame on the Feds.

Saul Good
05-14-2013, 07:53 PM
So, let's get rid of "attempted" murder. The 'No harm, no foul' approach.

Planned damage

GloucesterChief
05-14-2013, 07:58 PM
So you're OK with drunk driving as long as nobody actually gets hurt?

If there was no damage to property or persons what crime was committed? You are confusing what should be considered immoral with what should be considered illegal. Illegal things are things that damage another person and/or their property and planning to damage another person and/or their property.

For example, most would consider adultery immoral, not many would consider making it illegal.

KCUnited
05-14-2013, 08:00 PM
That big of a deal move to ****ing Ireland. You can Legally drive drunk some places.

Or KCMO

GloucesterChief
05-14-2013, 08:01 PM
Planned damage

Exactly, it also needs to be pointed out that attempted murder still requires an action to be committed. Just saying that you will murder someone is not enough to be convicted of attempted murder. Attempting to hire a hitman would be considered attempted murder because you took a planned action towards a person.

cosmo20002
05-14-2013, 08:02 PM
If there was no damage to property or persons what crime was committed? You are confusing what should be considered immoral with what should be considered illegal. Illegal things are things that damage another person and/or their property and planning to damage another person and/or their property.

For example, most would consider adultery immoral, not many would consider making it illegal.

Behavior that creates a substantial risk of substantial harm to others should be illegal or "heavily regulated." If there's a decent chance what you are doing might kill someone, you shouldn't be doing it.

Pawnmower
05-14-2013, 08:02 PM
So you're OK with drunk driving as long as nobody actually gets hurt?

no shit , i was wondering the same thing...like he is cool with unloading an AK 74 into a crowd but if miraculously no damage is done, its all good?

dumbest thing i have ever heard

BigChiefTablet
05-14-2013, 08:11 PM
How many of you have never driven with a blood alcohol content above the legal limit?

I'm guessing a lot of you are OK with driving drunk as long as nobody actually gets hurt. You've probably done it. Recently...frequently....

LoneWolf
05-14-2013, 08:12 PM
If there was no damage to property or persons what crime was committed? You are confusing what should be considered immoral with what should be considered illegal. Illegal things are things that damage another person and/or their property and planning to damage another person and/or their property.

For example, most would consider adultery immoral, not many would consider making it illegal.

If a driver gets pulled over for making an illegal lane change and they are found to be driving drunk, I want the officer to give them a DUI and get them off the road. Who's to say that if they wouldn't have been pulled over that they wouldn't have gotten into an accident and killed another driver. If you think the driver should just be issued a citation for the illegal lane change and sent on his merry way, then you are one stupid son of a bitch.

LoneWolf
05-14-2013, 08:14 PM
How many of you have never driven with a blood alcohol content above the legal limit?

I'm guessing a lot of you are OK with driving drunk as long as nobody actually gets hurt. You've probably done it. Recently...frequently....

Yes, I've made the stupid decision to drive drunk. I've also been fully aware of the consequences and willing to face them if caught. I've gotten wiser as I've gotten older and do not drive after drinking anymore.

Bump
05-14-2013, 08:15 PM
I agree. But those benefits have nothing to do with driving, nor does it have anything to do with your desire to get stoned.

never said that it did.

GloucesterChief
05-14-2013, 08:16 PM
Behavior that creates a substantial risk of substantial harm to others should be illegal or "heavily regulated." If there's a decent chance what you are doing might kill someone, you shouldn't be doing it.

Define a "substantial risk". Your risk of getting into a fatal car accident is quite low. Your risk of getting into a fatal car accident where alcohol is involved is even lower.

LoneWolf
05-14-2013, 08:20 PM
Define a "substantial risk". Your risk of getting into a fatal car accident is quite low. Your risk of getting into a fatal car accident where alcohol is involved is even lower.

Are you a professional fucking moron, or are you holding onto your amateur status until after the next dumb fuck Olympics?

Bump
05-14-2013, 08:22 PM
Potheads give all the ammo needed to defeat them. If you test positive you can bet in many jobs the man will fire your ass and the courts will support the decision.

and that makes it right?

I know that you believe that weed is illegal because the government is protecting you from the plant. I know that you think that alcohol is fine and not harmful because it's legal compared to weed. I know that you would only believe what you see on fox news or what your preacher tells you.

You believe so badly that Murica is the perfect country and the government is doing this war of marijuana and spending so much money on it to protect you from this plant. I know that you truly believe that.

So, there's really not any point in speaking with you.

Fox news isn't going to report on it for you until the evidence is so damning that it becomes self evident and accepted and I'm not sure how much longer that is going to take. It will be in my life time, I'm confident of that though.

GloucesterChief
05-14-2013, 08:25 PM
If a driver gets pulled over for making an illegal lane change and they are found to be driving drunk, I want the officer to give them a DUI and get them off the road. Who's to say that if they wouldn't have been pulled over that they wouldn't have gotten into an accident and killed another driver. If you think the driver should just be issued a citation for the illegal lane change and sent on his merry way, then you are one stupid son of a bitch.

I don't believe in punishment when someone else's rights haven't been infringed or they haven't been damaged. That is like banning guns, knives, and baseball bats because there is a chance that the person owning them may hurt themselves or others.

Now, this isn't to say that driving drunk is at all a good idea. I, and most people, consider it immoral. I am fine with public pressure against drunk driving. I don't think that government should be able to punish you for something in which there was no victim.

Superturtle
05-14-2013, 08:28 PM
Define a "substantial risk". Your risk of getting into a fatal car accident is quite low. Your risk of getting into a fatal car accident where alcohol is involved is even lower.
Ooooooookay then.......

dirk digler
05-14-2013, 08:34 PM
This. For the every day user like myself.
Now if you smoke for the first time or first time in years, you may wanna find a couch.

I didn't you know you smoked weed. That explains everything :)

LoneWolf
05-14-2013, 08:35 PM
I don't believe in punishment when someone else's rights haven't been infringed or they haven't been damaged. That is like banning guns, knives, and baseball bats because there is a chance that the person owning them may hurt themselves or others.

Now, this isn't to say that driving drunk is at all a good idea. I, and most people, consider it immoral. I am fine with public pressure against drunk driving. I don't think that government should be able to punish you for something in which there was no victim.

Well, I hope that you or someone you love is never killed by a drunk driver that was let go by an officer because "hey, you haven't hurt anyone."

cosmo20002
05-14-2013, 08:47 PM
I don't believe in punishment when someone else's rights haven't been infringed or they haven't been damaged. That is like banning guns, knives, and baseball bats because there is a chance that the person owning them may hurt themselves or others.

Now, this isn't to say that driving drunk is at all a good idea. I, and most people, consider it immoral. I am fine with public pressure against drunk driving. I don't think that government should be able to punish you for something in which there was no victim.

Some things are so reckless, with potential for such great harm such as death, that they should be illegal. Yes, that is the argument some use against guns. However, you can make a reasonable argument about self defense and that responsible gun owners are not reckless.

However, there is no reasonable or responsible drunk driving. Unlike using a knife, a baseball bat, or even a gun, there is no safe way to drive drunk. It is reckless and inherently and unnecessarily puts others lives needlessly at risk.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2013, 08:48 PM
How many of you have never driven with a blood alcohol content above the legal limit?


I never have. I never drive with even one drink either.

dirk digler
05-14-2013, 08:51 PM
I never have. I never drive with even one drink either.

you shouldn't be driving period.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2013, 08:51 PM
you shouldn't be driving period.

Are you my ex?

KCUnited
05-14-2013, 08:52 PM
How many of you have never driven with a blood alcohol content above the legal limit?

I'm guessing a lot of you are OK with driving drunk as long as nobody actually gets hurt. You've probably done it. Recently...frequently....

I'm too busy getting drunk off ****ing my 10, who's had my 2 kids.

chiefzilla1501
05-14-2013, 08:53 PM
Some things are so reckless, with potential for such great harm such as death, that they should be illegal. Yes, that is the argument some use against guns. However, you can make a reasonable argument about self defense and that responsible gun owners are not reckless.

However, there is no reasonable or responsible drunk driving. Unlike using a knife, a baseball bat, or even a gun, there is no safe way to drive drunk. It is reckless and inherently and unnecessarily puts others lives needlessly at risk.

Except that .05 isn't drunk. Not even close to it.

I can guarantee you that restaurants and bars take a big hit. There are plenty of people who like to have a meal with 2 or 3 beers or a glass of wine.

notorious
05-14-2013, 08:55 PM
I don't believe in punishment when someone else's rights haven't been infringed or they haven't been damaged. That is like banning guns, knives, and baseball bats because there is a chance that the person owning them may hurt themselves or others.

Now, this isn't to say that driving drunk is at all a good idea. I, and most people, consider it immoral. I am fine with public pressure against drunk driving. I don't think that government should be able to punish you for something in which there was no victim.

They aren't trying to ban alcohol, they are trying to punish an act while under the influence of alcohol.


Carrying your gun through town = good

Shooting your gun randomly in town = bad

Drinking = good

Drinking and driving = bad

dirk digler
05-14-2013, 08:58 PM
Are you my ex?

So I was right :D

cosmo20002
05-14-2013, 09:02 PM
Except that .05 isn't drunk. Not even close to it.

I can guarantee you that restaurants and bars take a big hit. There are plenty of people who like to have a meal with 2 or 3 beers or a glass of wine.

I wasn't commenting about .05 or a particular limit. Dude thinks .1, .2 or any level is ok, as long as you don't happen to kill anyone that day.

chiefzilla1501
05-14-2013, 09:08 PM
I wasn't commenting about .05 or a particular limit. Dude thinks .1, .2 or any level is ok, as long as you don't happen to kill anyone that day.

Yeah, I'll agree with you there. There is definitely a limit.

Discuss Thrower
05-14-2013, 09:32 PM
Well at least the govt is going after a drug that's much more damaging to the fabric of society than weed or Molly

ThaVirus
05-14-2013, 11:42 PM
How many of you have never driven with a blood alcohol content above the legal limit?

I'm guessing a lot of you are OK with driving drunk as long as nobody actually gets hurt. You've probably done it. Recently...frequently....

Yeah...

blaise
05-15-2013, 05:30 AM
and that makes it right?

I know that you believe that weed is illegal because the government is protecting you from the plant. I know that you think that alcohol is fine and not harmful because it's legal compared to weed. I know that you would only believe what you see on fox news or what your preacher tells you.

You believe so badly that Murica is the perfect country and the government is doing this war of marijuana and spending so much money on it to protect you from this plant. I know that you truly believe that.

So, there's really not any point in speaking with you.

Fox news isn't going to report on it for you until the evidence is so damning that it becomes self evident and accepted and I'm not sure how much longer that is going to take. It will be in my life time, I'm confident of that though.


It's kind of interesting that you always post, "Murica" as if you're doing a parody of a dumb person, when clearly you yourself are a dumbass.

WhiteWhale
05-15-2013, 05:40 AM
You are one stupid mother ****er. Smoking weed impairs your ability to operate a vehicle the same as alcohol. The medicinal benefits of marijuana have nothing to do with the what level should be allowed in your system when driving.

Impairs yes... the same? No. Just no.

Look man I can smoke a ton of weed and do a back-flip. Seriously.

I can't do that after 3 beers. Weed does not impair either your reaction time or your coordination nearly as badly as alcohol. That doesn't mean it has no effect, but it's not the same at all.

Having said that I'm interested to see how they'd administer this test, because they can't just take your blood for some random suspicion and I don't know of any test that can be done outside of a UA. These things require more red tape than breathing into a tube.

Cave Johnson
05-15-2013, 07:31 AM
I wasn't commenting about .05 or a particular limit. Dude thinks .1, .2 or any level is ok, as long as you don't happen to kill anyone that day.

The crash data suggests the BAL cutoff shouldn't be .08 and sure as fuck shouldn't be .05.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AY240_numbGu_NS_20090609160308.gif

Backwards Masking
05-15-2013, 08:12 AM
But to say that you have to wait 24-48 hours after a toke. That means everybody on the road that smokes weed will get a DUI. And that's some bullshit.

States to the Federal Govt: "It's our right to grow and use this helpful plant whether you like or not, and we're going to pass laws that override the tyrannical illegalization of this plant because it's our state right to do so."

Federal Gov. response to the states : "Oh yeah, we'll just a pass a federal law that says anyone that gets stoned can't drive for 2 or 3 days and throw everyone we can in jail that does and then fine them absurd sums of money. HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!"

Garcia Bronco
05-16-2013, 06:17 AM
Weed helps? LMAO

It makes you dumb as shit too I guess.

Nah bro, there is no test that shows you are under the influence of THC. I could smoke it on a Wednesday and it'll show up in my blood for at least a week if not longer.

FishingRod
05-16-2013, 06:37 AM
The crash data suggests the BAL cutoff shouldn't be .08 and sure as **** shouldn't be .05.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AY240_numbGu_NS_20090609160308.gif

That is interesting. It looks like there is not a real benifit to making the limit lower than it is now. Other than more arrests and fees for Uncle Sam.

notorious
05-16-2013, 06:56 AM
. Other than more arrests and fees for Uncle Sam.

And there you have it, except it would be State income, not Federal.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-16-2013, 07:08 AM
Do not drink or smoke but the Feds should stay out of it.

blaise
05-16-2013, 07:28 AM
People like Wickedson that want all guns banned should support a one drink limit, I would think.

King_Chief_Fan
05-16-2013, 08:00 AM
Good ol' government and its "solutions", hey too many people are driving over the legal limit right now, what should we do?

How about lowering the limit.

Great idea, another dumb ****ing law that doesn't address the problem. Maybe if we ban 30rd magazines that will decrease the number of drunk drivers too.

I don't really care what the limit is but I think your point is spot on.

The limit does not address the problem

FishingRod
05-16-2013, 11:30 AM
And there you have it, except it would be State income, not Federal.

How about 2nd cousin twice removed Sheldon for the State and local folks

RedNeckRaider
05-16-2013, 02:05 PM
It is about money and nothing else. It does nothing other than allow them to charge people not intoxicated with a crime~

Comrade Crapski
05-16-2013, 02:06 PM
It is about money and nothing else. It does nothing other than allow them to charge people not intoxicated with a crime~

Yup.

If they really wanted to stop drunk driving, they would make it a mandatory jail sentence. Municipalities are hurting bad after 5 years in a Ocommie economy, looking for new creative ways to sap revenue out of the citizenry.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2013, 02:08 PM
It is about money and nothing else. It does nothing other than allow them to charge people not intoxicated with a crime~

It sure is. In Florida, the govt has shortened the duration time on yellow lights, in order for more drivers to run red lights where there are cameras. Record breaking number of moving violations. It's getting almost as bad as Massholes, by being assholes.

Backwards Masking
05-16-2013, 02:28 PM
It sure is. In Florida, the govt has shortened the duration time on yellow lights, in order for more drivers to run red lights where there are cameras. Record breaking number of moving violations.

There's a main road near me with like 10 stoplights within 7-8 miles, that I swear allows all the 25 MPH sidestreets more green light time than the 35-40 MPH Main Road between 4 and 7 PM every week night. And I pass at least 3 cops on those side streets anytime I drive during rush hour, and I don't think I've ever driven it between those times without seeing at least one person getting a ticket. The intersections are always backed up during rush hour and one light in particular requires a two cycles to get through every time, even though its side streets are almost always empty.

There's also a 60 MPH state highway nearby with lights that turn red at 2-3 in the morning when no one is waiting on the side streets. And while I don't think they're ticketing from the cams on these corssings (yet), they make you choose between unnecessarily wasting gas and time and wear and tear on your car or running the risk of a ticket. It's a big crock of shit.

BigMeatballDave
05-16-2013, 02:38 PM
Good.

Drink at home or call a cab.

BigMeatballDave
05-16-2013, 02:39 PM
I don't drink, so not a single fuck given here.

Bowser
05-16-2013, 02:50 PM
It is about money and nothing else. It does nothing other than allow them to charge people not intoxicated with a crime~

Exactly. This is a money grab, plain and simple.

Saul Good
05-16-2013, 02:53 PM
The crash data suggests the BAL cutoff shouldn't be .08 and sure as **** shouldn't be .05.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AY240_numbGu_NS_20090609160308.gif

Your chart doesn't provide any useful data, because it doesn't show the percentage of drivers who fall into each category.

It's like posting data showing that people driving Ferraris only account for 2% of all speeding tickets while people driving Fords account for 5% and inferring that people who drive Fords tend to drive faster than people who drive Ferraris.

If you take into account the fact that 20% of people drive Fords while .02% drive Ferraris, you come to the opposite conclusion.

Garcia Bronco
05-16-2013, 05:01 PM
It doesn't matter. Setting a one size fits all BAC on a traffic stop might not be the best idea.

RedNeckRaider
05-16-2013, 05:43 PM
Yup.

If they really wanted to stop drunk driving, they would make it a mandatory jail sentence. Municipalities are hurting bad after 5 years in a Ocommie economy, looking for new creative ways to sap revenue out of the citizenry.

This is nails on the money. Just like gun crimes, if you inflict the proper pain on those breaking the laws the problem becomes manageable. That goes against money and power grabs~

Dayze
05-16-2013, 07:06 PM
If they were serious they would ban selling it at restaurants.

It's horseshit. Just an excuse to nail more people and keep feeding local municipalities money.

I don't condone drunk driving, but if they're truly serious then just outlaw it being sold in scenarios where people would drive Home

Fruit Ninja
05-17-2013, 12:45 AM
Drunk drivers/Text drivers should all face harsh penalties. Fuck them both.

RedNeckRaider
05-17-2013, 04:17 AM
Drunk drivers/Text drivers should all face harsh penalties. **** them both.

And that has what to do with the discussion? I don't see anyone defending either~

durtyrute
05-17-2013, 07:34 AM
IT makes no sense for alcohol to be legal and weed to be illegal.

durtyrute
05-17-2013, 07:36 AM
If they were serious they would ban selling it at restaurants.

It's horseshit. Just an excuse to nail more people and keep feeding local municipalities money.

I don't condone drunk driving, but if they're truly serious then just outlaw it being sold in scenarios where people would drive Home

I have never understood that. How can it be illegal to drive drunk, but you can drink alcohol in places you normally have to drive home from. IT'S A TRAP!!

unnecessary drama
05-17-2013, 07:45 AM
What? That's a pretty damn high number to blow. Most people will be driving impaired at that point.

I probably don't feel "impaired" until I get to the .2 range...

That said, I just won't drive after drinking anymore. The penalties are absurd.

It's just hilarious to me that terrible drivers are tolerated but someone who had a couple beers after work and doesn't use a turn signal is subjected to life ruining penalties.

cosmo20002
05-17-2013, 07:50 AM
How can it be illegal to drive drunk, but you can drink alcohol in places you normally have to drive home from. IT'S A TRAP!!

You can drink without getting drunk. I mean, it is possible, in theory. I've heard of it being done.

Maybe not I guess if they keep lowering the level though.

blaise
05-17-2013, 07:52 AM
It's possible to be a passenger in a vehicle and walk to a restaurant, too.

jd1020
05-17-2013, 07:57 AM
I probably don't feel "impaired" until I get to the .2 range...

That said, I just won't drive after drinking anymore. The penalties are absurd.

It's just hilarious to me that terrible drivers are tolerated but someone who had a couple beers after work and doesn't use a turn signal is subjected to life ruining penalties.

ROFL

A couple of beers = .2... ROFLROFLROFL Have I seen you on an episode of cops?

Why am I getting arrested for blowing over 2 times the legal limit officer?

duncan_idaho
05-17-2013, 08:12 AM
Of course, the NTSB is presenting statistics without context. That's what it's all about (Speed kills! Look at all these accidents where the driver was going over the speed limit! We won't talk about the percentage of drivers that are being counted in this stat that were going 5-10 over, or the percentage of drivers who go 5-10 over the speed limit at all times, because that context would kill our argument!)

I'd honestly rather see the limit made 0.0 than 0.5. It's more honest (though this would be a crippling blow to the restaurant and bar industries). I also think a random BAC content taken during a traffic stop is a poor measure of how impaired an individual is.

Citing Europe as an example for what America should do for its drunken driving laws is pretty stupid, though. In Europe, mass public transit is cheap and widely available. Things are less spread and spaced out.

It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Inmem58
05-17-2013, 08:32 AM
I actually drive better when drunk.


I tend to follow the rules more cautiously.

cosmo20002
05-17-2013, 09:31 AM
I actually drive better when drunk.


I tend to follow the rules more cautiously.

I don't know if you are being serious, but anyone I've ever known that has said something like this is fucking moron. Maybe you're the exception though.

ptlyon
05-17-2013, 09:54 AM
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Canada

jd1020
05-17-2013, 10:05 AM
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Canada

Canada doesn't have states and Quebec says hi.

Bump
05-17-2013, 12:09 PM
I actually drive better when drunk.


I tend to follow the rules more cautiously.

yes, smart drunk drivers (oxymoron) try to follow the road laws perfectly. Been there, done that, was young and dumb. But if something came out at you and you needed to react fast. What's gonna happen?

unnecessary drama
05-17-2013, 04:00 PM
yes, smart drunk drivers (oxymoron) try to follow the road laws perfectly. Been there, done that, was young and dumb. But if something came out at you and you needed to react fast. What's gonna happen?

So if another driver fucks up and hits a cautious drunk driver the drunk driver is at fault for being drunk.

I understand the need to keep drunks off the road I just think there should be a lowered tier for drunk drivers who make a mistake rather than throwing the book at them for an illegal lane shift and one failed breathalyzer.

Citations instead of arrests.

unnecessary drama
05-17-2013, 04:03 PM
ROFL

A couple of beers = .2... ROFLROFLROFL Have I seen you on an episode of cops?

Why am I getting arrested for blowing over 2 times the legal limit officer?

I don't know what to tell you. I can drink 8 beers and safely drive a car.

Now I refuse to do it because it's not worth it.

I think .08 is a joke.

Of course if you're pulled over for doing something minor and now that and get arrested more often than not it'll get thrown out.

jd1020
05-17-2013, 05:17 PM
This is how stupid a BAC of .08 is...

http://www.intheknowzone.com/substance-abuse-topics/alcohol/bac.html

BAC .02
Drinkers begin to feel moderate effects.
BAC .04
Most people begin to feel relaxed, mildly euphoric, sociable, and talkative.
BAC .05
Judgment, attention, and control are somewhat impaired. Ability to drive safely begins to be limited. Sensory-motor and finer performance are impaired. People are less able to make rational decisions about their capabilities (for example, about driving.)
BAC .08
This is legal level for intoxication in some states. There is a definite impairment of muscle coordination and driving skills.
BAC .10
This is legally drunk in most states. There is a clear deterioration of reaction time and control.
BAC .12-.15
Vomiting usually occurs, unless this level is reached slowly or a person has developed a tolerance to alcohol. Drinkers are drowsy.
Drinkers display emotional instability, loss of critical judgment, impairment of perception, memory, and comprehension.
Lack of sensor-motor coordination and impaired balance are typical. Decreased sensory responses and increased reaction times develop. The vision is significantly impaired, including limited ability to see detail, peripheral vision, and slower glare recovery.
BAC .15
This blood-alcohol level means the equivalent of 1/2 pint of whiskey is circulating in the blood stream.
BAC .18-.25
Drinkers are disoriented, confused, dizzy, and have exaggerated emotional states. Vision is disturbed, as is perception of color, form, motion, and dimensions.
Drinkers have increased pain threshold and lack of muscular coordination. Drinkers stagger or lose the ability to walk and have slurred speech. Apathy and lethargy are typical.
BAC .25-.30
Drinkers display general inertia, near total loss of motor functions, little response to stimuli, inability to stand or walk, vomiting, and incontinence. Drinkers may lose consciousness or fall into a stupor.
BAC .30-.50
Symptoms are complete unconsciousness, depressed or absent reflexes, subnormal body temperature, incontinence, and impairment of circulation and respiration.

Death may occur at .37% or higher. BACs of .45% and higher are fatal to nearly all individuals.

Drunk drivers should only be punished for causing something and not because they haven't caused something yet... logical. Lets wait until they kill someone first!

I would think that for being such a "great drunk driver" you would be able to avoid something "minor" while driving, but I will admit it is very difficult to flick the turn signals on.

RedNeckRaider
05-17-2013, 05:52 PM
This is how stupid a BAC of .08 is...

http://www.intheknowzone.com/substance-abuse-topics/alcohol/bac.html



Drunk drivers should only be punished for causing something and not because they haven't caused something yet... logical. Lets wait until they kill someone first!

I would think that for being such a "great drunk driver" you would be able to avoid something "minor" while driving, but I will admit it is very difficult to flick the turn signals on.
Lets play the study game or how about not :rolleyes: it is a money grab nothing more nothing less~

Dayze
05-17-2013, 07:36 PM
It is about money and nothing else. It does nothing other than allow them to charge people not intoxicated with a crime~

Bingo.

Earthling
05-17-2013, 11:53 PM
Colorado is already a .05 state so I'm not sure why they want to raise the ante from DWAI (driving while ability impaired) which starts at .05 to a DUI (driving under the influence) which starts at .075 and beyond. They will already arrest you at .05 so the new law proposal will do little, if anything, here as far as keeping more drinkers off the streets.

I suspect the alcohol classes , fines, etc. are a bit higher for a DUI, versus a DWAI, and I think the County, State, get a bit more coins in their coffers as a result. I went to jail here for blowing a .062 many years back. In most States at that time the cops would have thanked me for not driving under the influence and sent me on my merry way.

notorious
05-18-2013, 07:29 AM
My views on drinking and driving have changed over the years.

When I was young, I didn't see the big deal. I will admit, I was as guilty as anyone else.

When I grew up, reality set in.

Trivers
05-18-2013, 08:18 AM
Question:

Thousands are maimed/killed each year nationwide because people don't have the personal responsibility to ensure they are sober before driving.

Why shouldn't there be ZERO tolerance of boose/weed and driving?

Loss of license, major $$ fines, and jail time?? Here in Wisconsin, I read all the time of people getting their 3rd, 4th, 5th, OWI/DUI.

notorious
05-18-2013, 08:20 AM
Question:

Thousands are maimed/killed each year nationwide because people don't have the personal responsibility to ensure they are sober before driving.

Why shouldn't there be ZERO tolerance of boose/weed and driving?

Loss of license, major $$ fines, and jail time?? Here in Wisconsin, I read all the time of people getting their 3rd, 4th, 5th, OWI/DUI.

If you drink, don't get behind the wheel or it's your ass.

Drinking and Driving is a lesson learned AFTER you get caught by 95% of the population.

The first punishment should be tough enough to teach them a lesson, but the second should be horrific.

Hydrae
05-18-2013, 04:40 PM
Nah bro, there is no test that shows you are under the influence of THC. I could smoke it on a Wednesday and it'll show up in my blood for at least a week if not longer.

That is why I have always said we will never be able to legalize pot. There is no way to determine if the driver is currently stoned or just smoked some in the last couple of weeks.

Easy answer to the whole issue (I have posted this several times in this forum): self-driving cars. Then it doesn't matter the condition of the "driver."

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2013, 05:06 PM
That is why I have always said we will never be able to legalize pot. There is no way to determine if the driver is currently stoned or just smoked some in the last couple of weeks.

Easy answer to the whole issue (I have posted this several times in this forum): self-driving cars. Then it doesn't matter the condition of the "driver."
I have said a similar thing to people when talking about weed. They might legalize it but companies will still test for it and not allow it. I have read depending on the fat percentage of the user it stays in the system for up to a month (regular user)