Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Push for Blood Alcohol Level to be 0.05 now?

Who gives a phucqk about the poor slack piece of chit that got the ticket. It is about the thousands that get phuqcked up by those of the same ilk that stubbornly refuse to simply separate driving and substance use. BTDT. Been diverted twice and your statement is 180 opposite of what I experienced in the "system". The day will come with no second chances and sooner the better. Deniers of the profound negative consequences of impaired driving have zero ground to stand on. Cheers!

It sounds good to me. Don't like the BAC levels, don't drink and drive. Pretty simple really. Have you every had your BAC checked when you're at .08? Most people are pretty trashed at that point.

And by the way, it IS about public safety.

Seems simple: Don't drink and THEN drive.

So what point does someone become "impaired"? .05? How impaired is a person at .05? ...it will vary between people.

At what age does a driver's natural reaction time become impaired? 70? 65? 60? ...maybe 55? Might be a lot more not-so-elderly drivers out there with reaction times more impaired than an individual at .05. We need a law making these not-so-elderly drivers give up their license. ...not....

I've no use for drunk driving but I've less use for more laws!

In accidents...Probably. I'd not take that bet in fatalities though.

Over 100 countries already use a .05% limit for DUI. There must be a reason for the .05% standard.

They're all trying to get seafire pissy. Looks like it's working.

First, I'm not sure who you're talking about when you refer to "profound negative deniers." Hopefully not me because I'm not one.

My post was a simple reply to your contention that "it's not about money." It is about money for the companies that run "the system," and IMO it's a huge conflict of interest to give an organization the power to decide who stays in the system and for how long when they have a vested interest in the way of financial benefits for keeping people in the system.

Last, maybe I'm interpreting your post wrong, but did you just say "who gives a [bleep] about the poor slack piece of chit that got a ticket," and then follow that up with "I got the ticket twice??"

There are a lot of holy mofo's on here per always.

Hard to argue against "impaired" drivers. Let's not be hypocritical though. The driver's license tests should be more strict, and more often, and on a graduated scale so that by the time you increase in age you get tested more often. Drug levels for drivers should not be limited to alcohol, THC, and opioids. It should also include, all the xanex, etc that the Dr.'s hand out like candy. Old folk with slow reflex's and poor eyesight are no less a threat than joe six pack who had a beer after work and headed home. If you live in a wintry environ, the test should include winter driving, i.e. on snow and ice. If you drive with no license, or not within your restrictions (corrective lenses etc) you should face the same penalty as a DUI.

I'd put more blame on phones than alcohol in today's world. Lady that centered us last spring at 11:00 AM in the morning never saw the white crew cab 350 Ford pickup towering over her as as she drifted into our lane in a 25 mph zone. She did, however, have a death grip on her phone as they wheeled her into the ambulance.

When her insurance company finally establish fault, they suddenly became very accommodating on our end.

Back on alcohol: It would be interesting to simultaneously experience monitoring and abilities in a controlled environment. No experience at all in that realm, so I cannot relate the figures and degree of inebriation. I'd pay 50 to $100 for such a session if it was offered though. Could be a good business to take on.

In our state, the average total cost for a DUI is $10,000.00 before even before considering the possible impact a DUI has on employment. A DUI can destroy a persons life.

quote=smokepole



First, I'm not sure who you're talking about when you refer to "profound negative deniers." Hopefully not me because I'm not one. No I did not say you were. Others here obviously are. Posting from my phone and being a bit lax. Sorry it appeared that way.

My post was a simple reply to your contention that "it's not about money." It is about money for the companies that run "the system," and IMO it's a huge conflict of interest to give an organization the power to decide who stays in the system and for how long when they have a vested interest in the way of financial benefits for keeping people in the system. And I totally disagree. the system is absolutely not controlled by companies that provide diversion services. That is absurd. People get phucqked up all the time from drunks. That is what drives the system.

Last, maybe I'm interpreting your post wrong, but did you just say "who gives a [bleep] about the poor slack piece of chit that got a ticket," and then follow that up with "I got the ticket twice??" YES, Second chance put me out there for many years drinking and driving. I did not deserve that chance to potentially ruin other people's lives. Drinking and driving is inexcusable and needs to be put to an end. I did not learn this in diversion BTW. I'm absolutely living on borrowed time. I drove blacked out hundreds of times after that second chance. None since the third though... Though it means nothing, I am not aware of causing any accidents, but how would I know... I was 0.23 five hours after drinking....
[/quote]

Cheers again.

Maybe it's different where you are. My son who's now 28 made a stupid decision at 21 and got pulled into the system. He had to work with counselors employed by private companies who were the decision-makers for how much longer he needed "counseling" and what kind of "counseling" he needed. In other words, how much longer he would be paying their salaries. He described his appointments to me and his counselors were basically worthless slugs with a vested interest in keeping people in counseling as long as possible. They were not helping him, just pushing paper. He knew he'd done wrong and he knew how to avoid repeating it long before his "counseling" was finished. If you don't see that as a conflict of interest (racket is the word I use) I don't know what to tell you.

Couple of points:

100 other countries using .05 doesn't mean much to me, 100 other countries also have very restrictive gun laws. Lets stick to what is salient, is .05 a level where driving is impaired. I don't think so...

I don't think .08 impairs driving much.

I'll agree that "drunk" driving is a problem, but there is a difference between being .23 five hours after drinking, and .081 twenty minutes after drinking.

If the penalties for impaired driving are going to be as tough as they are, seems fair that the limit ought not to be, "maybe impaired a little". I guess there could be different penalties for different BACs, might work better.

Texting on cell phones is really impaired, I'd say well over .08 BAC worth of impairment.

Or they could be tied to the consequences. Crash and injure someone else at 0.08 should probably be treated differently than being flagged at a DUI checkpoint with no apparent impairment at 0.08.

So because you can't control your impulses and choose to drive while plastered with a .23 BAC five hours after drinking you want to turn someone who has two beers with dinner and is sober by any realistic measure into a criminal with a ridiculous .05 BAC thus ruining his life?

That's a profound lack of judgement and reasoning. The two scenarios are completely different. In your case you were a threat and should have been locked up. The guy that had two beers with dinner isn't a threat at all but this ridiculous proposal would have him treated the same. Someone already mentioned the roughly $10,000 cost to defend a DUI, plus I know that in my line of work it would cost me my job, not to mention packing the jails with people that are no threat to society.

It's the mentality of one guy schits himself and everybody's got to wear diapers. Some thug robs a convenience store so we need to confiscate guns from everyone. Someone drives plastered and gets into a wreck so let's make it illegal for someone to drive after two beers even though they're not statistically any more dangerous than someone that has a 0.0 BAC. It makes the soccer moms feel better so why not? Group think at it's best.

It's threads like this that make me realize how we end up with someone like Obama as our president. Everyone wants the government in the other's guys business. It doesn't matter if he's actually doing anything harmful to society, he's doing something I don't like so I want you to use the power of government to screw with him.

We should make murder illegal so people are responsible too. Murders would stop if we did it. Just like we don't have a heroin issue because it is illegal.

What we really need is more public transportation so you can get falling down drunk and don't have to drive yourself home. I'd much rather puke on a city bus than on the upholstery of my own car.

Or, do the Irish/British model and have neighborhood bars on every other corner so you never have to stagger more than a couple hundred yards in any direction to sleep in your own front yard.

Not at all. Folks very often are involved in accidents with BAC far under what mine was. I'd like there to be zero injuries, crippling said deaths attributed to intoxicated drivers who are being stubborn pricks thinking they're ok. 0.00% BAC unapologeticly. Those guys that had the two beers are the same ones that end up having two more... Check out some DUI victims panels and tell me about rights. Fugg that. You don't have the right to mix substance use and driving. Nor does anyone else. And you can kiss Obama's black ass.

That might apply to you, but you've already admitted you routinely drove drunk. You're too blinded to see that others don't have the same substance abuse issues you have so you assume your problems are theirs also. Maybe you're hanging out with the wrong crowd of people if they can't stop after a couple of beers, but everybody I know can. I had dinner with eight guys a couple of nights ago at a mexican restaurant and every one of them had one or two beers with dinner, somehow they were able to control themselves, didn't leave drunk and didn't crash their trucks on the way home.

There are no bigger prohibitionists than reformed smokers or alcoholics.