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

Actual scientific studies show that measurable impairment begins at .02, is absolutely measurable at .035, and prohibits numerous vision, motor skills, and cognitive processing abilities associated with driving at levels between .04-.05.

The reason the .05 BAC number was chosen is because at that point, anyone in a scientific study has eroded their own skills to the point that it is without any doubt provable that they are incapable of performing safely.

In other words, you are already "drunk" at .05, and incapable of performing up to your own standards on any test that they give.

So, if the govt is supposed to be involved in these acts of monitoring, then .05 is the highest level that should be passed over. Most studies would indicate .035 as a "scientifically provable" threshold.


https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa25.htm [links to many studies in the footnotes]

http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safe...nk-driving-statistics/effects-of-alcohol [the accident commission notes that studies show multi-tasking impairment begins at .005, and most other impairments are provable at .03]

https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/how-alcohol-impairs-your-ability-to-drive [scroll down for an easy chart showing what impairments happen at what BAC levels]

https://www.onhealth.com/content/1/alcohol_impairment_chart [chart for body weight and BAC levels and impairment]

Not pushing impaired driving, but I'm sure there are instances where accidents are not actually the fault of the impaired person. Maybe the same as pedestrians sometimes being at fault when they're run over.

The brother of a distant acquaintance was obviously impaired and driving a pickup and stock trailer on a remote NE Oregon road. He stopped to drain his bladder, and the rig was only about 50% off the pavement. A tourist came down the road and rear ended the setup. All were checked for impairment, and the cowboy came back positive. Tourist sued, and cowboy lost the long paid for family ranch.

Ever just for a minute, suppose these so called "studies" are as valid as global warming?

I am seriously against drunks on the highway, but for the most part, today's DUI laws are revenue driven witch hunts.

You could wonder that. Or you could observe people with just 1 or 2 drinks in them, and know that the studies confirm the "eye test."

"Lower legal BAC to .05%"

Campfire: "'Bout time - damn drunks are everywhere. No responsible person can handle more than a two beers and get behind the wheel, absolutely selfish and irresponsible. Far as I'm concerned it should be 0 drinks and zero tolerance!"



"Gun control/Open Carry/Concealed Carry/Mag Restrictions/Ammo Shipping et al"

Campfire: "JESUS CHRIST - these libs just don't get it. If I want a this that and the other its none of their business!!! If they outlaw them criminals will just get them anyway. Government needs to stay out. Its a right."


Summary: If its something I don't care about or doesn't affect my world view - FUGGIT, bring on the legislation. Everyone else get focked and take your medicine. Something I care about or affects me - GOV'T NEEDS TO STAY THE FUGG OUT!!! Anyone don't like it, fugg'em.

Buncha hypocrits.

Actually, the latest numbers do say cell phones are more deadly than alcohol... remember, the average drunk is so relaxed he survives...

You are so blind to reality.

.05 BAC

that ought to really put a damper on those Michelob Ultra phags and 98lb sorority bimbos

One big factor in these laws, are the Lawyer's lobby. They make big Fun bucks off these laws.

Only crime I ever heard of that ya can commit a felony, and not know it until they tell ya.

If that ain't bullshit, IDK what is.

When they gotta take away your right ta remain silent to get the easy conviction, somethin's wrong with a law.

The money in the war against drugs took away mosta the people's rights, and the hysteria generated bout DUIs is aimed ta take away the rest.

Weren't no money in it, .gov wouldn't givva shat bout it.

There’s a lot of logic and truth in the above post. Asians should be tested weekly and those over 80 daily. 😉

Driving around parts of Arizona during the height of gray hair snowbird season is far more dangerous than driving with an equal number of drunks.

If it saves just one life it’s worth it....🖕

No ass kissing needed...

So, folks drink those couple of beers for a little buzz, don't they? That's intoxication plain and simple. Simply relying on good folks to not drink too much certainly don't work 100% no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions. You are correct, not everyone is affected the same nor prone to overindulgence. Alcohol is absolutely intoxicating. I am adamant that nobody ought be a victim of anyone's decision to not separate their use of substances and driving vehicles. I also drove hundreds of times not hammered, say buzzed. It sure as hell does not improve one's driving abilities and that is irrefutable fact.

Anyway I am home from 3 weeks on the road sober as sober can be and I am thinking about having an O'doul's Amber. I'm totally against cigarettes too! LOL.

We have a constitutional right to own and bare arms. We don't have the same for endangering others by driving intoxicated. That be the difference.

As a self proclaimed EXPERT on BAC and impairment, I'm gonna chime in here...I'm 66 now and I might drink 2-3 times a year...If I drink ONE beer now, I'll feel about as "buzzed" as I did when I was 30 after drinking a six pack....in all my years of driving "under the influence" not once did I get in an accident....never got so much as a "fix-it-ticket", much less a DUI....

IMHO, your level of "impairment" is going to be directly related to how often and how much you drink....same with heroin addicts...there's a schittload of junkies and prescription drug addicts who take enough of their drug of choice to kill any two sober people....until they get to the point where body organs start shutting down. I'm in no way advocating for drinking and driving, but "level of impairment" can't be measured by BAC.

It'll never fly though, just too easy for the dried up old biddies and holy rollers to rail on that demonic firewater. If it were TRULY about impaired driving, it would include psychotropics, age, and retardation levels in the penalty/restrictions. I'm not advocating for drunk driving, it just irks the hell out of me to be preached to. Germany is often brought up as an example of driving nirvana. As I've yet to make a trip there, I don't know, but I'd guess it's probably a little harder to get a license and there are a host of moving violations that carry stiffer penalties than here. Which BTW I'm ok with. Less drivers the better lol

Thank GOD short sleeves was in the constitution!

Don't think a person can represent them self on a DUI charge in my County Court. They have to hire a lawyer.

Definitely a racket. I mean really - what's a couple thousand crippled kids got to do with it.....

Nice try but you're really reaching now. I never he he should be able to decide for himself, did I?

What I said was, someone who has a financial interest in keeping him in the program should not be the one making the decision to keep him in the program.

Are you going to argue that point?

More laws are always the answer.....