Latest drive now, drop the BLA to 0.05...Utah is already doing so..
small enough and 1 beer or wine glass will give you that BLA... 2 will definitely get ya there, unless you wait 2 hours plus to drive..
From a person who doesn't drink alcohol, this is ridiculous...
it has nothing to do with safety as the motivation, its just another way to bilk more money out of the public...
I hate DRUNK Drivers as much as the next guy....but this is just another revenue generating scheme liberals have come up with now...
on the flip side of the insanity... they want to do this, while the liberal left is doing a big push to legalize marijuana...nation wide.
and I'm sure Oregon won't be the only one.. but our illustrious LesBo Governor, has made it legal to be caught with small quantities of meth, heroin, oxy, and a host of other drugs and no penalty or arrest......
So liberals don't want to be hit by some conservative who has been drinking, while they are driving home stoned and have impaired reaction time...
of course the usual dope smoker suspects will be along to explain why that makes perfect sense... Followed by the usual mandatory derogatory comments about my parents, my family and my intelligence, my dog etc...
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
DUI enforcement is mostly about the revenue stream. This looks like a move to assist that. Very few laws are actually designed to enhance public safety.
This was quite a battle in Utah last year. At one point, the opponents of the measure pointed out that a driver over the age of 65 is naturally more 'impaired' than a younger person at .05 BAC. The governor, who is 70, was not amused.
He must have got a lot of push back from the tourism industry though, because he has been walking this back, talking about a tiered penalty system and having the legislature revisit the measure.
The first great thing is to find yourself and for that you need solitude and contemplation. I can tell you deliverance will not come from the rushing noisy centers of civilization. It will come from the lonely places. Fridtjof Nansen
What did they blame it on before cell phones. The percentage of drivers with cell phones has gone from almost 0% to over 99% in about 30 years. During the same period the number of traffic accidents has plummeted to all time lows. I know there are accidents caused by drivers distracted by phones. And I get as annoyed by some drivers as much as anyone. But the numbers don't add up. I don't think they are causing nearly as many problem as we're being told. There are certain people who simply can't drive worth a crap and the phone just makes them worse. I"m of the opinion that anyone who can't "talk" on a phone and drive simply can't drive anyway. Those people will end up causing a crash with, or without a phone. I don't have a problem with talkers. It is the texting where the danger lies.
The .05 standard has applied to anyone with a CDL all along even when not driving a commercial vehicle. I simply don't know enough to say whether someone at .08 is impaired enough to matter. But I certainly don't want impaired drivers out there. Sounds like they are just applying the same rules to everyone.
Just a word of warning if you do drink and drive, even a little. About 10 years ago we had a crash where a young mother pulled out of an intersection in front of a guy on his way home from work. The young mother did not have the right of way, the guy did. But the guy had stopped for a beer on the way home. I don't know what his BAC registered, but they could not charge him with DUI. But an overly aggressive DA did push for and win a conviction claiming that the alcohol contributed to the crash. He spent several months in prison before having the conviction thrown out on appeal. There should have never been a trail, but his life was basically ruined by the time he got out.
Most people don't really want the truth.
They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth.
alcohol is involved in one third of fatal traffic accidents.
I'm betting cell phones beat that percentage...
I wouldn't doubt it...
It's been proven. I've seen studies that compare delayed reaction times of intoxicated subjects vs drivers distracted by cell phones. In distracted drivers response time was affected the same as someone with a BAC of 0.08, the lower limit of DUI in most states.
And the use of hands-free devices didn't matter.
With marijuana users, accident rates skyrocketed when they were distracted by a bag of doritos placed on the passenger seat.
Is there any evidence to suggest that people with alcohol content 0.08 and below are statistically responsible for more accidents? Honest question. I have called 911 on drivers that are weaving all over the road once or twice in my lifetime, given the plate numbers to them and direction of travel, however if I have a glass of wine with my dinner I don't necessarily even feel like I have had any wine by the time we leave. Now 2 glasses of wine I can feel so I don't drink that for sobriety and $8.00 a glass reasons. I just wonder why they are pushing it down to 0.05 and if they have statistically proven data collected by a neutral source that at 0.05 you are 10,20,30% more likely to have a wreck. This looks more like a social justice type campaign against say "tobacco" than a real problem to me unless its a hard cold proven fact by an independent research organization that has no dog in the fight.
BAC and its effects are well-documented and the effects are fairly consistent with most people so although I haven't seen what you're asking for I'm sure there's reams of data on it. I've called in a few myself, guys weaving all over on the interstate during rush hour, things like that. Safe to say those guys are well above 0.08.
And to seafire's OP, one of the issues with DUI for marijuana is that the dose/response effects are not nearly as consistent over the whole population. There's a blood concentration number that's been selected and is used for DUI but it's not backed by anywhere near the amount of data that BAC effects are so it's being challenged in court. Marijuana advocates maintain that the number is arbitrary, too low, and not backed by data. So the court challenges will continue.
After living and driving in Germany, it's amazing how horrible US drivers are. Over there they do not text and drive. The only ones you see doing it are American (different license plates). A .05 is a DUI. Any alcohol in your system with an accident is automatically your fault, even if it isn't your fault. No passing on the right on the autobahn. If you're not passing anyone, stay you the right regardless of how fast you're going. Simple rules that work. In 16 months there I saw a total of about 5 accidents. My first week back in the US I saw more than that. It works because it is very expensive to get your license and if you're stupid, you'll lose it.
Here's what I don't get in the legalize pot crap. We, as a society, are doing LOTS to discourage BOTH drinking and driving and smoking (sin taxes, not public buildings etc etc ). Then we take something that has the bad effects of BOTH and fight to make it legal? That makes no sense.
I will say this, the domain of drinking and driving is that of the young and foolish. I don't do it. Usually the only time I hit it hard is when I am traveling with work and there is a bar in the hotel, or we're taking Ubers.
But at .05 my opinion is you either don't drink and drive, or you're driving drunk. Doesn't leave much error for margin.
Last edited by KFWA; 01/18/18.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
It's pretty simple. If you're driving, don't drink. I drink plenty at home and away, but when I'm driving I don't. I'm not an alcoholic that has to drink, regardless of circumstance. I can say no when I need to. If some people can't, they need to get help, or not drive.
It is all about revenue for governments. Just like recreational pot. Some of these states depend on the tax base from it big time now. If anyone thinks they GAF about Joe citizen , they are sorely mistaken. It's about the revenue that can be generated and used for politician job security with government programs.
What did they blame it on before cell phones. The percentage of drivers with cell phones has gone from almost 0% to over 99% in about 30 years. During the same period the number of traffic accidents has plummeted to all time lows. I know there are accidents caused by drivers distracted by phones. And I get as annoyed by some drivers as much as anyone. But the numbers don't add up. I don't think they are causing nearly as many problem as we're being told. There are certain people who simply can't drive worth a crap and the phone just makes them worse. I"m of the opinion that anyone who can't "talk" on a phone and drive simply can't drive anyway. Those people will end up causing a crash with, or without a phone. I don't have a problem with talkers. It is the texting where the danger lies.
The .05 standard has applied to anyone with a CDL all along even when not driving a commercial vehicle. I simply don't know enough to say whether someone at .08 is impaired enough to matter. But I certainly don't want impaired drivers out there. Sounds like they are just applying the same rules to everyone.
Just a word of warning if you do drink and drive, even a little. About 10 years ago we had a crash where a young mother pulled out of an intersection in front of a guy on his way home from work. The young mother did not have the right of way, the guy did. But the guy had stopped for a beer on the way home. I don't know what his BAC registered, but they could not charge him with DUI. But an overly aggressive DA did push for and win a conviction claiming that the alcohol contributed to the crash. He spent several months in prison before having the conviction thrown out on appeal. There should have never been a trail, but his life was basically ruined by the time he got out.
Splitting hairs here but it's .04 if you have a CDL.
NYH1.
Take nothing I say personal, remember....it's just the interweb!
I decided long ago, if I have a beer at dinner the wife drives. If she wants to have one of her margarita's then I drive! No drinking and driving . If you drink and drive you earned the consequences, pretty simple in my mind! I have lost two good friends to drinking and driving. One friend just back from Vietnam, and one a few years ago coming home from fishing! Luckily they only killed themselves!
A few places I have lived had a zero tolerance policy with roadside stops. Jail ensued. When we drink we are home so no worries for us. And, yes, a money collector as I would guess that 99% of alcohol related accidents folks are well above the current legal threshold.
What did they blame it on before cell phones. The percentage of drivers with cell phones has gone from almost 0% to over 99% in about 30 years. During the same period the number of traffic accidents has plummeted to all time lows.
I suspect the reason accidents are down is because of draconian DUI laws compared to 30 years ago. Most of the drinkers that I know do it at home or with a designated driver.....they don't take any chances because it is simply not worth it.....and that is with it at 0.08. In my state, Georgia, it is illegal to text and drive but the fines are pretty mild compared to DUI. You do NOT want a DUI in Georgia these days.
"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants". --- William Penn
When I was growing up in my state it was.15 which is reasonable, you’re pretty impaired at that level. It was changed to .10 later then .08 with the nationwide mandate. .08 is already pretty ridiculous, I liken it to the 55 mph speed limit, it brings in a lot of revenue but does nothing for safety. Never underestimate the willingness of housewives to vote for anything when a politician wails “it’s for the children”. At .05 you’re not impaired in any way. If you have an accident it’s got some other reason than the drinking, correlation does not equal causation. It’s an idea only a leftist nanny state totalitarian would support. It’s a terrible idea but people are sheep and it’ll probably pass.
Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
What did they blame it on before cell phones. The percentage of drivers with cell phones has gone from almost 0% to over 99% in about 30 years. During the same period the number of traffic accidents has plummeted to all time lows. I know there are accidents caused by drivers distracted by phones. And I get as annoyed by some drivers as much as anyone. But the numbers don't add up. I don't think they are causing nearly as many problem as we're being told. There are certain people who simply can't drive worth a crap and the phone just makes them worse. I"m of the opinion that anyone who can't "talk" on a phone and drive simply can't drive anyway. Those people will end up causing a crash with, or without a phone. I don't have a problem with talkers. It is the texting where the danger lies.
The .05 standard has applied to anyone with a CDL all along even when not driving a commercial vehicle. I simply don't know enough to say whether someone at .08 is impaired enough to matter. But I certainly don't want impaired drivers out there. Sounds like they are just applying the same rules to everyone.
Just a word of warning if you do drink and drive, even a little. About 10 years ago we had a crash where a young mother pulled out of an intersection in front of a guy on his way home from work. The young mother did not have the right of way, the guy did. But the guy had stopped for a beer on the way home. I don't know what his BAC registered, but they could not charge him with DUI. But an overly aggressive DA did push for and win a conviction claiming that the alcohol contributed to the crash. He spent several months in prison before having the conviction thrown out on appeal. There should have never been a trail, but his life was basically ruined by the time he got out.
Traffic accidents are increasing, not decreasing. Fatal accidents are decreasing.
alcohol is involved in one third of fatal traffic accidents.
I'm betting cell phones beat that percentage...
I wouldn't doubt it...
It's been proven. I've seen studies that compare delayed reaction times of intoxicated subjects vs drivers distracted by cell phones. In distracted drivers response time was affected the same as someone with a BAC of 0.08, the lower limit of DUI in most states.
And the use of hands-free devices didn't matter.
With marijuana users, accident rates skyrocketed when they were distracted by a bag of doritos placed on the passenger seat.
I have not seen the same here with our wreck calls, but we are rural and often rural trends a bit differently than the rest of the world thankfully.
I do agree hands or hands free, phones, a conversation, the radio, messing with the AC or heat, thinking of something else, and impairment are all going to be factors in wrecks at one time or another.
I"m about sick of us still blaming something in animate rather than the person that had the wreck... or caused it I guess I should say.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
i am all for 0.05 % on politicians. make it mandatory upon arrival to work and after every meal. go over and lose pay for a year! better yet go over and lose your head.!
the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded. Robert E Lee ~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
When I was growing up in my state it was.15 which is reasonable, you’re pretty impaired at that level. It was changed to .10 later then .08 with the nationwide mandate. .08 is already pretty ridiculous, I liken it to the 55 mph speed limit, it brings in a lot of revenue but does nothing for safety. Never underestimate the willingness of housewives to vote for anything when a politician wails “it’s for the children”. At .05 you’re not impaired in any way. If you have an accident it’s got some other reason than the drinking, correlation does not equal causation. It’s an idea only a leftist nanny state totalitarian would support. It’s a terrible idea but people are sheep and it’ll probably pass.
I'd agree with about all of that.
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up.
The laws themselves may not be related to funds collection but if you do get a DUI then the privately-owned companies running the system basically have you by the balls. You get deferred adjudication predicated on complying with a "system" that's run by organizations with a financial interest in keeping you in the system because you are their revenue source.
When I was growing up in my state it was.15 which is reasonable, you’re pretty impaired at that level. It was changed to .10 later then .08 with the nationwide mandate. .08 is already pretty ridiculous, I liken it to the 55 mph speed limit, it brings in a lot of revenue but does nothing for safety. Never underestimate the willingness of housewives to vote for anything when a politician wails “it’s for the children”. At .05 you’re not impaired in any way. If you have an accident it’s got some other reason than the drinking, correlation does not equal causation. It’s an idea only a leftist nanny state totalitarian would support. It’s a terrible idea but people are sheep and it’ll probably pass.
I'd agree with about all of that.
"Impaired" driving, "drunk" driving, "buzzed" driving, et al, should be subject to severe penalty no doubt about it. But I'd like to see the numbers supporting 0.05 as the break point. I don't get "impaired" and drive. Matter of fact my average consumption level is low; maybe 2 or 3 beers or glasses of wine a week at the most. Liquor is a rarity though a few times a year a wee dram of Scotch or Irish does speak to me. I just don't keep it on hand. But on the fairly rare occasion when wife and I splurge and have a nice steak dinner, upscale Italian of something similar I very well may have 2 glasses of wine. Now state, don't tell me I just lost my ability to drive safely or that I'm endangering others on the road. In that scenario if I'm at 0.05 then that is an undue burden on my freedom to choose and is no increased risk to the public.
Even worse is the limitation on concealed carry. Here in NC if a CCW holder can be shown to have had any recent alcohol consumption while carrying concealed it's a state crime. Give me a break. Just because I may have had a beer at a friends house I'm suddenly a danger to society? Why should this not be based on real impairment rather than a yes/no question? Freedoms are much easier to lose than to regain.
Quote
You get deferred adjudication predicated on complying with a "system" that's run by organizations with a financial interest in keeping you in the system because you are their revenue source.
How about the insurance lobby? Let's say just hypothetically you get a DUI for being at 0.052 Are you really a high risk driver at that point of just subject to much higher insurance rates. If that's the only violation indicating your increased risk you're a good client to have. More revenue for no real increased risk. And like I said, I'd just like to see proof that 0.05 is a valid reference point.
Colossians 3:17 (New King James Version) "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."
Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up.
excuse me?
What utopia do you live in?
you think the complaint is, over people getting injured, crippled or killed is acceptable because of thinking dropping the BAL to this 0.05?
I don't drink or use drugs at all... strictly because of these issues.. personal choice...
one common denominator in people hurt, crippled, or killed in car accidents is they were in a car..
lets ban cars and everyone walk, that would great reduce the problems don't ya think?
or are you another campfire member who thinks, that if someone doesn't think the exact way you do... they are 'ignorant, frankly pathetic and need to grow the Phucqk up"....
sure sounds like it...
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
I'm cool with 0.00% alcohol and 0.00% pot. 0.00%.....
Agreed.
Sick of the overuse and glorification of that poison. "Mommy juice" ...who are we kidding? It's a scourge on society, and no, I'm not 'recovering' as I've drank sparingly in my lifetime. I like a good bourbon, but seeing the end results for so many?..... f*ck no, I'll pass.
My dad taught me from an early age that the [bleep] kills, maims and destroys lives; and as usual, dad was right.
Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up.
The laws themselves may not be related to funds collection but if you do get a DUI then the privately-owned companies running the system basically have you by the balls. You get deferred adjudication predicated on complying with a "system" that's run by organizations with a financial interest in keeping you in the system because you are their revenue source.
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!
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
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.
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!
Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up.
The laws themselves may not be related to funds collection but if you do get a DUI then the privately-owned companies running the system basically have you by the balls. You get deferred adjudication predicated on complying with a "system" that's run by organizations with a financial interest in keeping you in the system because you are their revenue source.
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!
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.
In training to be an obedient master to my two labs
Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up.
The laws themselves may not be related to funds collection but if you do get a DUI then the privately-owned companies running the system basically have you by the balls. You get deferred adjudication predicated on complying with a "system" that's run by organizations with a financial interest in keeping you in the system because you are their revenue source.
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!
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.
Last edited by MtnBoomer; 01/18/18. Reason: more words
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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....
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.
Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up.
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.
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
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.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
Those guys that had the two beers are the same ones that end up having two more...
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.
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.
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.
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.
DUI enforcement is mostly about the revenue stream. This looks like a move to assist that. Very few laws are actually designed to enhance public safety.
You are so blind to reality.
NRA Benefactor Member
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
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.
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....🖕
�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.
Those guys that had the two beers are the same ones that end up having two more...
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.
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.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
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.
Originally Posted by hillestadj
"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.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
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.
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.
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.
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....🖕
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
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.
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.
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.
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....🖕
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
There may be studies, but I am not buying it. I watched many a golfer score just fine, well over .05 BAC...if golf isn't a coordination game, I don't know what is.
MadMooner:
I get where you are coming from, but zero tolerance isn't practical in most instances. If one really wanted to stop auto deaths, just outlaw cars, then no one dies from them. Obviously not going to happen. There needs to be balance, and IMHO, .05 BAC being a DUI is not balanced. For you, 0.0 sounds like a good idea.
I appreciate hillestadj's post...
Freedom and personal responsibility, let the government and do gooders stay out of it.
True, but she's been amended 17 times - we're all good with it if they decided we go ahead and repeal it for the general good? No more endangering others through negligent handling, accidental discharges, etc...
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
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.
Originally Posted by hillestadj
"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.
Not what I was saying, not advocating for more laws. Simply not to cherry pick. Impaired driving is impaired driving. It's pretty cool to say there should be a .00000001 BAC for DUI, but my how that sentiment would change if actual driving ability were factored in. Meaning DUI should apply to all brain affecting drugs, and distractions.
Definitely a racket. I mean really - what's a couple thousand crippled kids got to do with it.....
Won't downplay crippled kids but if you think it's more about them than the $$$$ then explain the glaring public safety issue (and imminent threat of child paralysis) justifying DUI's being issued to people on bicycles, horses, recreational vehicles (on private ground), sitting in a car without keys in the ignition, etc.
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.
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?
Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system? You have the offender, the treatment folks and the judge. If you think it's fugged up, what's better? I know the experience, it's just as you explained it... You are in there paying them through the ass for sessions you think are bullchit. Checking chit off the list of things you have to do in the time frame you have to. Sessions, victims panels, group deals, urine tests.... That keeps you from having a conviction for something you are guilty of. You are guilty of it. It's simple. Yes sir, no mam, thank you, please, yes I phucqked up and then you move on. The reason there are DUI laws are not to make money. That was my original objection and was related to something someone else posted. The reason we have the system is to keep guilty folks from killing someone or at reducing that likelihood. Folks like I was or your son, they're in the system because of their own actions. What's better? A simple conviction then? So? Who's going to be deciding if it ain't the treatment folks? In my experience the treatment folks had no need for more business, they were swamped because DUI is soooo prevalent.
To me the part that had any lasting effect were the victims panels. Don't remember the sessions at all. Should I have been given that second chance at a driver's license? I don't know. First time I just learned that I shouldn't get caught. Ultimately some time after the third chance I learned more about my condition and a year of bicycling helped get it through my thick skull that booze and me were not a good fit regardless of driving. Nobody should forget, if they are in diversion it is because they were guilty of a crime that screws up thousands of lives. Goodtimes.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
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....
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.
I was going to post my own reply until I read this one and it totally summed it up for me. .05 is utter and complete bullshit and anybody that denies that is either someone who has never drank or someone who is now holier than thou, because they did drink...too much.
Last edited by Rooster7; 01/18/18.
The deer hunter does not notice the mountains
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - Isoroku Yamamoto
There sure are a lot of America haters that want to live here...
Definitely a racket. I mean really - what's a couple thousand crippled kids got to do with it.....
Won't downplay crippled kids but if you think it's more about them than the $$$$ then explain the glaring public safety issue (and imminent threat of child paralysis) justifying DUI's being issued to people on bicycles, horses, recreational vehicles (on private ground), sitting in a car without keys in the ignition, etc.
I don't argue with those points, much. My first, I was asleep in my car.... Oh it was running and there weren't bottles strewn all around. I was guilty.
Drunk bicycling can definitely cause meham but surely ain't related to one's driver's license. I'll leave the drunk horse riding to others but figure the same. Still I think that's more over-dogooding than some. gov money scam.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
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....
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.
I was going to post my own reply until I read this one and it totally summed it up for me. .05 is utter and complete bullshit and anybody that denies that is either someone who has never drank or someone who is now holier than though, because they did drink...too much.
Holier than though..... LOL. Love it.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.
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?
Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system? You have the offender, the treatment folks and the judge. If you think it's fugged up, what's better? I know the experience, it's just as you explained it... You are in there paying them through the ass for sessions you think are bullchit. Checking chit off the list of things you have to do in the time frame you have to. Sessions, victims panels, group deals, urine tests.... That keeps you from having a conviction for something you are guilty of. You are guilty of it. It's simple. Yes sir, no mam, thank you, please, yes I phucqked up and then you move on. The reason there are DUI laws are not to make money. That was my original objection and was related to something someone else posted. The reason we have the system is to keep guilty folks from killing someone or at reducing that likelihood. Folks like I was or your son, they're in the system because of their own actions. What's better? A simple conviction then? So? Who's going to be deciding if it ain't the treatment folks? In my experience the treatment folks had no need for more business, they were swamped because DUI is soooo prevalent.
To me the part that had any lasting effect were the victims panels. Don't remember the sessions at all. Should I have been given that second chance at a driver's license? I don't know. First time I just learned that I shouldn't get caught. Ultimately some time after the third chance I learned more about my condition and a year of bicycling helped get it through my thick skull that booze and me were not a good fit regardless of driving. Nobody should forget, if they are in diversion it is because they were guilty of a crime that screws up thousands of lives. Goodtimes.
Victim's panels? Most DUI offenders have no victims, that's the point. If you had victims you deserved all you got.
FACE FACTS. This "push" for a lowered BAL to .05 is about MONEY & NOTHING more than MONEY. (Are you really NAIVE enough to believe that the government bureaucrats CARE about traffic accidents??)
Btw, I drink about ONE beer a month & have never driven "under the influence" BUT I was a peace officer for 3 plus decades & I know that laws like "speed limits" are ONLY about MORE MONEY for the government jurisdictions. (Even the National Safety Council admits that speed limits are a REVENUE SOURCE & have little or nothing to do with traffi/public safety.)
yours, tex
"VICTORY OR DEATH"
William Barrett Travis, Lt.Col., comdt. Fortress of The Alamo, Bejar F'by 24, 1836
DUI enforcement is mostly about the revenue stream. This looks like a move to assist that. Very few laws are actually designed to enhance public safety.
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.
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?
Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system? You have the offender, the treatment folks and the judge. If you think it's fugged up, what's better? I know the experience, it's just as you explained it... You are in there paying them through the ass for sessions you think are bullchit. Checking chit off the list of things you have to do in the time frame you have to. Sessions, victims panels, group deals, urine tests.... That keeps you from having a conviction for something you are guilty of. You are guilty of it. It's simple. Yes sir, no mam, thank you, please, yes I phucqked up and then you move on. The reason there are DUI laws are not to make money. That was my original objection and was related to something someone else posted. The reason we have the system is to keep guilty folks from killing someone or at reducing that likelihood. Folks like I was or your son, they're in the system because of their own actions. What's better? A simple conviction then? So? Who's going to be deciding if it ain't the treatment folks? In my experience the treatment folks had no need for more business, they were swamped because DUI is soooo prevalent.
To me the part that had any lasting effect were the victims panels. Don't remember the sessions at all. Should I have been given that second chance at a driver's license? I don't know. First time I just learned that I shouldn't get caught. Ultimately some time after the third chance I learned more about my condition and a year of bicycling helped get it through my thick skull that booze and me were not a good fit regardless of driving. Nobody should forget, if they are in diversion it is because they were guilty of a crime that screws up thousands of lives. Goodtimes.
Victim's panels? Most DUI offenders have no victims, that's the point. If you had victims you deserved all you got.
Actually not sure what your point is so adding this.... And speaking figuratively... If you are guilty and the system lets you off by diversion then you should be thankful for the system as a conviction would be 10X severe.
Victims panels are folks that did have victims. Or were victims. Or had family members or friends that were victims. Like folks that lost their daughter, wife, friend, father to someone who was mixing their substance use and driving or the driver that caused such.... Or some poor para or quad wheeled in. Or kids with missing limbs. Chit like that. Real bad chit resulting from real DUI occurrences. You know, as an attempt to get you to understand the seriousness and not do it anymore... To wise the hell up. Because it's damned serious chit. Seems a lot of folks, generally speaking and not directly, here have not seen the consequences or realize how common or widespread the negative effects of DUI are. Seriously, i hope folks will think about it and maybe just have those couple of beers at home. It is that easy to avoid 100%... Mine were 15 and 25 years ago. I'm comfortable with it now. Had I killed someone the next time out, or the myriad of other possibilities had occurred, it'd be damned different....
Last edited by MtnBoomer; 01/18/18. Reason: .more words and changed words
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
OK. Say, you're living in a rural environment. Your closest neighbor is a mile away and has a party. You and your wife are drinking/socializing and having fun.
The time comes to go home.
Do you:
A) drive the mile home with a beer between your legs on a lonesome gravel road talking about much fun you had? B) Make it totally awkward and say we have to stay here because there was alcohol involved? C) We better wake someone up, don't know who yet, but they should come and get us because we had a few beers? D)Well, sorry neighbors. We're just gonna call the cops on this party and maybe they will give us a ride home.
See what I mean? There are a TON of different scenarios to this topic. It's not an easy one by any means.
The deer hunter does not notice the mountains
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - Isoroku Yamamoto
There sure are a lot of America haters that want to live here...
OK. Say, you're living in a rural environment. Your closest neighbor is a mile away and has a party. You and your wife are drinking/socializing and having fun.
The time comes to go home.
Do you:
A) drive the mile home with a beer between your legs on a lonesome gravel road talking about much fun you had? B) Make it totally awkward and say we have to stay here because there was alcohol involved? C) We better wake someone up, don't know who yet, but they should come and get us because we had a few beers? D)Well, sorry neighbors. We're just gonna call the cops on this party and maybe will give us a ride home.
See what I mean? There are a TON of different scenarios to this topic. It's not an easy one by any means.
DUI is an industry, ARD classes, ignition interlock breathalyzers, dedicated DUI courts. This all isn’t going to just go away because the majority of people are obeying the law and staying under the legal limit.
There may be studies, but I am not buying it. I watched many a golfer score just fine, well over .05 BAC...if golf isn't a coordination game, I don't know what is.
They would have scored measurably higher against their own score without the alcohol. That is demonstrated in every study that ever gets done.
Heck, play a video game for score. Drink a couple beers, wait 15 minutes, and play the same game again. It's not hard to prove it to yourself.
To argue against alcohol as an intoxicant at any BAC-level is simply denial of reality due to the chemistry of our bodies. There's no way around it.
Now, whether the govt should be involved in regulating that intoxication is a whole other question.
Dakota: ata There may be studies, but I am not buying it. I watched many a golfer score just fine, well over .05 BAC...if golf isn't a coordination game, I don't know what is.
They would have scored measurably higher against their own score without the alcohol. That is demonstrated in every study that ever gets done.
Heck, play a video game for score. Drink a couple beers, wait 15 minutes, and play the same game again. It's not hard to prove it to yourself.
To argue against alcohol as an intoxicant at any BAC-level is simply denial of reality due to the chemistry of our bodies. There's no way around it.
Now, whether the govt should be involved in regulating that intoxication is a whole other question.
Not trying to argue that alcohol is not an intoxicant at low levels, just trying to argue that it doesn't seriously impact driving ability at .05. By seriously, I mean there is a meaningful statistical difference in that person's chances of driving without an accident.
And no, the golfers would not have scored measurably better. FWIW, I don't drink while playing, but have played with and against many that do (both while they are sober or have had a couple)...at some point the game degenerates, but it takes more than a couple of beers to do it (at least for those guys that like to drink and play). I won't argue video games, but neither driving nor golf happen at video game speeds.
On the government side, I have watched a state get ruined by BAC .05=DUI kind of thinking, and that is why I posted.
Riding lawn mower. It's what they do down the bayou here.
Not so. At least not in MN.
You can get a DUI on any motorized vehicle. Cars, boats, lawn mowers etc.
So, on par with the OP, you could tip your lawn mower mowing a ditch in your own yard and need medical attention. Technically, they could test you and if you were at a .05, you could get a DUI.
The deer hunter does not notice the mountains
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - Isoroku Yamamoto
There sure are a lot of America haters that want to live here...
Not what I was saying, not advocating for more laws. Simply not to cherry pick. Impaired driving is impaired driving. It's pretty cool to say there should be a .00000001 BAC for DUI, but my how that sentiment would change if actual driving ability were factored in. Meaning DUI should apply to all brain affecting drugs, and distractions.
FACE FACTS. This "push" for a lowered BAL to .05 is about MONEY & NOTHING more than MONEY. (Are you really NAIVE enough to believe that the government bureaucrats CARE about traffic accidents??)
Btw, I drink about ONE beer a month & have never driven "under the influence" BUT I was a peace officer for 3 plus decades & I know that laws like "speed limits" are ONLY about MORE MONEY for the government jurisdictions. (Even the National Safety Council admits that speed limits are a REVENUE SOURCE & have little or nothing to do with traffi/public safety.)
yours, tex
I live in a state that had no "speed limit".
I have also been the captain on a Jaws-of-Life truck in a large district with interstate highway.
drunks that 'thought they were ok to drive' gave us more work than the speeders by a wide margin
Guns don't kill people, drivers with cell phones kill people.
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.
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?
Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system?
That's the easy answer but IMO it's a cop-out and does not negate the fact that it's a huge conflict of interest to have people with a financial interest in a decision making that decision. You could ask "who better to write traffic tickets than trained LEOs" but that doesn't mean local police departments don't use traffic citations as a means of generating revenue rather than keeping the public safe. That's wrong plain and simple.
So my answer to your question is, "someone without a vested financial interest in the decision." Or if you prefer, remove the financial incentive to keep people "in the system" or make the financial incentive results-oriented (percentage of re-offenders) rather than what it is now.
Not trying to argue that alcohol is not an intoxicant at low levels, just trying to argue that it doesn't seriously impact driving ability at .05. By seriously, I mean there is a meaningful statistical difference in that person's chances of driving without an accident.
All the studies ever done prove otherwise. Noticeable and effective impairment on driving skills tests begins by .02 at the least, and by .035 someone performs at best with half the ability they started with. And yes, car accidents are caused/avoided in milliseconds of response time and coordination.
If your golfer buddies were going to play for money in an amateur tournament tomorrow morning with a chance for the winner to make sizable one-time earnings and get a shot at pro sponsorship if they performed exceptionally well, would they knock down two beers at 8am and a short shot of whiskey just before taking the greens?
If those same gentleman were supposed to drive the school bus to your kids basketball game tonight, would you meet them at the bar at 3:30 this afternoon and buy them free shots?
If you were out walking your dog on a side road coming back to your house and one of those buddies was driving oncoming after drinking just two beers less than an hour ago while at the same time there was traffic from the other direction, would you be content that he can pass you within a couple of feet and not mess up?
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
This is BS that is pushed by MADD. I saw an interview with a Mad mother once, her 17 year old daughter was "killed by a drunk driver" and she was on the warpath. I investigated her story and, yes, her daughter was driving her Camaro and the wreck was at 1 am. Mom had given the daughter the Camaro.
In the first place, it is not real smart to give a high school kid a hot rod car, most of them can't handle it. Secondly, your high school junior should not be out at 1 am, nothing good happens after midnight. And yes, the guy who she collided with was drunk, but, I bet the girl was drunk too.
What you have is a case of incompetent parenting, this Mad mother was on a guilt trip so she wants to punish everyone in society.
.08 is a perfectly good marker they should leave it there.
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.
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?
Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system?
That's the easy answer but IMO it's a cop-out and does not negate the fact that it's a huge conflict of interest to have people with a financial interest in a decision making that decision. You could ask "who better to write traffic tickets than trained LEOs" but that doesn't mean local police departments don't use traffic citations as a means of generating revenue rather than keeping the public safe. That's wrong plain and simple.
So my answer to your question is, "someone without a vested financial interest in the decision." Or if you prefer, remove the financial incentive to keep people "in the system" or make the financial incentive results-oriented (percentage of re-offenders) rather than what it is now.
Cop-out? Portrayal of the guilty as 'victims' of the system is the cop-out. Simply don't drink and drive and they'd not be subject to those awful councilors with vested financial internet to keep them in the system - which you don't offer any evidence of, nor viable solution to. Remember your son was guilty of DUI and got off wayyyy easy. But you still bitch about it. How about just not offering diversion? There's your viable solution. How about just don't offend? Easy and 100% viable. More cheers.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.
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?
Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system?
That's the easy answer but IMO it's a cop-out and does not negate the fact that it's a huge conflict of interest to have people with a financial interest in a decision making that decision. You could ask "who better to write traffic tickets than trained LEOs" but that doesn't mean local police departments don't use traffic citations as a means of generating revenue rather than keeping the public safe. That's wrong plain and simple.
So my answer to your question is, "someone without a vested financial interest in the decision." Or if you prefer, remove the financial incentive to keep people "in the system" or make the financial incentive results-oriented (percentage of re-offenders) rather than what it is now.
Cop-out? Portrayal of the guilty as 'victims' of the system is the cop-out. Simply don't drink and drive and they'd not be subject to those awful councilors with vested financial internet to keep them in the system - which you don't offer any evidence of, nor viable solution to. Remember your son was guilty of DUI and got off wayyyy easy. But you still bitch about it. How about just not offering diversion? There's your viable solution. How about just don't offend? Easy and 100% viable. More cheers.
Bullsh**. I never bitched about it, or portrayed offenders as victims. All I said was that people with a vested financial interest in the outcome should not be making the decisions on whether someone needs "more counseling.". This whole back-and-forth between you and I started because you said "it's not about the money," which is also bullsh**.
And I did give viable alternatives, you just chose to ignore them.
Those that are saying .05 is BS, what is that based on? I honestly don't know what .05 does to a person, I believe hte studies posted that it has an effect, but I don't know what the effect is. Could be as simple as a pulse change, or not.
It is all about revenue for governments. Just like recreational pot. Some of these states depend on the tax base from it big time now. If anyone thinks they GAF about Joe citizen , they are sorely mistaken. It's about the revenue that can be generated and used for politician job security with government programs.
.05? Best not gargle with Listerine and drive. Better not use that asthma inhaler either. Lots of products use alcohol as a preservative. Honey buns, hot sauce, sugarless gum, rum cake, hand sanitizers...
Bullsh**. I never bitched about it, or portrayed offenders as victims. All I said was that people with a vested financial interest in the outcome should not be making the decisions on whether someone needs "more counseling.". This whole back-and-forth between you and I started because you said "it's not about the money," which is also bullsh**.
And I did give viable alternatives, you just chose to ignore them.
Wahhhhhh! Poor poor poor offeners getting off without a conviction when they've pled guilty... It's about the victims not the money dude.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
I participated in drunk driving studies in impairment when I was younger. The departments provided the booze and after each drink we did sobriety tests and drove a course. I did it for the free room, board and booze for the weekend at Ft. Worden, plus there was also this incredibly hot chick that I wanted to hook up with. Several of us guys didn’t show signs of impairment until we were .10 or above while some of the girls showed impairment under .10 (legal BAC at the time). It was a blast and after we were done and sufficiently drunk it started snowing and the hot chick “accidentally” locked herself out of her room and stayed with me. I compiled plenty of data that night and well into the morning. I still can’t drink a screwdriver without thinking about that natural platinum blond. 😁
�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.
Problem is, .05 percent does not act the same on everybody. miles
No, it doesn't....I'm not a medical expert, but I've known a boatload of people who could drink beer all day and not show any outward sign of impairment....whether or not their body somehow metabolizes it faster than others, I don't know.
I'll chime in. I did DUI enforcement as a primary responsibility for almost 9 years. I am (was) a drug recognition expert as well as an instructor. I went all over the country teaching DUI/drug impairment to other LEOs. I investigated more than a hundred fatal accidents; many hundred of more serious accidents. I am also a certified reconstructionist for both commercial and passenger vehicles.
When I first started we had one level, .10 BAC. Later they lowered it to .08 and added extreme DUI for those who were over .16% (I think). I have arrested people for DUI for being as low as .06% and as high as .37%. I have seen some .400+ but they weren't driving. I met a nurse at Phoenix Indian hospital who had seen several over .70%. That is mind boggling.
I also put on many "alcohol workshops" I would enlist volunteers to come drink and I supplied the booze. I fed them and their alcohol intake was carefully monitored by scientists. They were tested frequently to see what their BAC was. We would then let the cops in training run them through a battery of field sobriety tests. They had to determine whether they person was above or below a .100 BAC.
I got to see what people behaved like as they progressed.
The first things that happen are inhibitions are removed and judgement is altered. You can't test this with a straight line on the sidewalk. It is impossible to replicate the complicated task of driving a motor vehicle- especially in the mix with other traffic.
I investigated a LOT of accidents where the at-fault driver was a .06% or .07%. Was he legally drunk? No but most state laws describe "impaired to the slightest degree".
A guy can smoke a big fatty joint and nail the walk and turn test yet ask him to estimate 30 seconds and he will likely go beyond 2 minutes or maybe only 5 seconds. That's what weed does to you. This affects your judgement in perceiving threats and situations. You don't look impaired until you are asked to do a task that requires judgement.
Another thing that most people are getting wrong here is that 2 beers at dinner will not put anyone except maybe the most petite person to a .05%.
As some has stated, alcohol tolerance has some affect on you "feel". Your judgement is likely still impacted regardless your drinking history. There are many things that can impair your ability to drive, alcohol is just one of them and it impairs everyone who drinks it to excess. Having sex while driving will also impair your ability to drive. We don't have anything on the books about it though. Texting is gaining some traction and I see a few signs around the country where it is illegal.
I am not in favor of the .05 for the most part in that it is extremely difficult to detect that level of intoxication in the field with rudimentary testing. I am not against charging someone for DUI should they have an incident that is their fault and a chemical test shows a .05 BAC.
Pilots and truck drivers are already at a .04% BAC threshold and have been for a long time. We don't bitch about that!
NRA Benefactor Member
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Not trying to argue that alcohol is not an intoxicant at low levels, just trying to argue that it doesn't seriously impact driving ability at .05. By seriously, I mean there is a meaningful statistical difference in that person's chances of driving without an accident.
All the studies ever done prove otherwise. Noticeable and effective impairment on driving skills tests begins by .02 at the least, and by .035 someone performs at best with half the ability they started with. And yes, car accidents are caused/avoided in milliseconds of response time and coordination.
If your golfer buddies were going to play for money in an amateur tournament tomorrow morning with a chance for the winner to make sizable one-time earnings and get a shot at pro sponsorship if they performed exceptionally well, would they knock down two beers at 8am and a short shot of whiskey just before taking the greens?
If those same gentleman were supposed to drive the school bus to your kids basketball game tonight, would you meet them at the bar at 3:30 this afternoon and buy them free shots?
If you were out walking your dog on a side road coming back to your house and one of those buddies was driving oncoming after drinking just two beers less than an hour ago while at the same time there was traffic from the other direction, would you be content that he can pass you within a couple of feet and not mess up?
Some of those golfing buddies have sipped beer throughout a morning round in an amateur tournament, no money at stake, but plenty of pride. Not condoning it, just commenting on performance. 2 beers and a shot at 8:00 am is going to put you above the BAC I thought we were talking about.
No, I wouldn't buy the bus driver shots at 3:30.
I wouldn't be worried walking my dog with a two beer driver coming my way...well, maybe if he was messing with his cell phone at the time.
Response times vary greatly between people and age groups, lots of people with poor response times are legally driving.
Aces below tells of another study with different findings, maybe bias, maybe they were trying to evaluate something other than maximum performance.
Is someone with .05 BAC a much greater risk on the road than one with .08? You say there is a difference, I say the difference isn't worth a new restriction.
I live in a state where safety laws are regularly passed (including gun laws), all in the name of good...sure has changed the living experience over the past 50-60 years. Some good, some not so good...it surely isn't as "free" as it used to be. Laissez faire doesn't work all that well, trying to legislate 100% safety doesn't work all that well either, there needs to be balance. IMO .05 BAC = DUI is too far on the safety side. Sounds like your opinion differs. I have spoken my piece, take it fwiw.
Officers already cite people for DUI based on the person's performance on field sobriety test even when they blow less than 0.08. Might as well make the BAC value lower, than it will be more black and white and not left to some officer's opinion.
About 25 yrs ago or so, my roomate had gotten pulled over for speeding after leaving the bar. He failed a field sobriety test in the opinion of the rookie cop. He took him in and he blew 0.07 (and this was back when the legal limit was 0.10) but still got the DUI charge. He ended up paying a bunch of money for a lawyer and getting the ticket reduced to just speeding but that cost him a lot of money.
I was drinking with him at the bar and left right before him. I sure didn't think he was impaired at the time. Seems like it is left up to the interpretation of the officer anyway no matter what value BAC you have. Ever since then, I've always wished they could just do away with field sobriety tests and simply go by BAC level (and if they want to lower it a little bit more, so be it).
Is someone with .05 BAC a much greater risk on the road than one with .08? You say there is a difference, I say the difference isn't worth a new restriction.
I live in a state where safety laws are regularly passed (including gun laws), all in the name of good...sure has changed the living experience over the past 50-60 years. Some good, some not so good...it surely isn't as "free" as it used to be. Laissez faire doesn't work all that well, trying to legislate 100% safety doesn't work all that well either, there needs to be balance. IMO .05 BAC = DUI is too far on the safety side. Sounds like your opinion differs. I have spoken my piece, take it fwiw.
Your response shows discernment, and I agree with your reflection that doing nothing results in anarchy while doing everything results in bondage.
"Your piece" is why I enjoy the 'Fire so much, and it demonstrates the power of social media to influence a preferred future. Truly, thank you.
Bullsh**. I never bitched about it, or portrayed offenders as victims. All I said was that people with a vested financial interest in the outcome should not be making the decisions on whether someone needs "more counseling.". This whole back-and-forth between you and I started because you said "it's not about the money," which is also bullsh**.
And I did give viable alternatives, you just chose to ignore them.
Wahhhhhh! Poor poor poor offeners getting off without a conviction when they've pled guilty... It's about the victims not the money dude.
LOL, you're the only one whining and you're using emotional arguments rather than facts. Your problem (and the source of our disagreement) is, you can't tell the difference between an alcoholic repeat DUI offender who blows a .23 BAC five hours later and a young kid who makes a stupid mistake once and never repeats it. You keep bringing up victims, an emotional appeal if I ever saw one. The alcoholic repeat DUI offender either has victims or is likely to have them in the near future. The young kid who never repeats his mistake doesn't. There is a difference whether you want to admit it or not.
Bullsh**. I never bitched about it, or portrayed offenders as victims. All I said was that people with a vested financial interest in the outcome should not be making the decisions on whether someone needs "more counseling.". This whole back-and-forth between you and I started because you said "it's not about the money," which is also bullsh**.
And I did give viable alternatives, you just chose to ignore them.
Wahhhhhh! Poor poor poor offeners getting off without a conviction when they've pled guilty... It's about the victims not the money dude.
LOL, you're the only one whining and you're using emotional arguments rather than facts. Your problem (and the source of our disagreement) is, you can't tell the difference between an alcoholic repeat DUI offender who blows a .23 BAC five hours later and a young kid who makes a stupid mistake once and never repeats it. You keep bringing up victims, an emotional appeal if I ever saw one. The alcoholic repeat DUI offender either has victims or is likely to have them in the near future. The young kid who never repeats his mistake doesn't. There is a difference whether you want to admit it or not.
LOL
If you think all folks that get fugged by DUI is emotional, you're right, just ask their families.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
If you think every DUI results in a crash and victims, and every offender requires counseling from organizations that profit from it you're a fool.
Don't believe I made such claims. How do you propose diversion should work if you are unhappy with your son's experience? Been better to just have a conviction or what? Like some sort of staggered levels of treatment based on BACs? You say someone that does not have a vested interest in prolonging treatment should decide how long treatment lasts. Who and how? And what evidence do you have that such abuse of the system occurs? You said that's what your son said. Was his treatment unfairly extended? Do you have evidence of your future prediction that there will be no re-occurrance? If you think DUI laws are purely driven by financial interests of diversion councilors and not the seriousness of the offenders' action you are a fool. Your guilty son got off without a conviction, sounds like a bargain. Cheers.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
.05-.10 BAC been making widows and orphans for YEARS!
Well, not really.....
As a member of present society, I do not care. Dope, abortion, illegal alien and federally funded depravity missed the attention the Volstead Act seems to conjure up in the social justice warrior or lawyer induced heroine.
Three beers in an hour sets the world alight with indignation whilst an inner city crack whore gets unlimited abortions, medicinal pot and five welfare checks plus an EBT card.
FWIW, "Whitey" is more apt to be the three beers an hour type. "Jesus" is more apt to be the .30 and kill your kid type, but let's not be judgemental rascists and settle for the middle class crackers.
Ya wanna avoid dead people, drink all ya want, and text while drivin, all ya want.
But, don't do it at more than ten miles per hour.
Oh, they've done the science, just like the breathalyzer "science".
99% of all traffic fatalities could be avoided, if all vehicles were limited to 10 miles per hour.
But, nobody wants ta drive 10 miles per hour.
So, the simple fact is, that people are willing to accept a certain amount of carnage, even affecting those they "know", in order to travel in the manner we are accustomed to.
Some people is gonna cause that carnage cause they's on a cell phone.
Some is gonna cause it cause they're fcked up.
But the simple fact is that, in order ta get from point a ta point b, at the speed people want ta move, you're rollin the dice.
It's a fairy tale ta think you can change that fact.
Perfect example of why some people shouldn't be near a key board when they have a BAL of 10.00......
how's that hot romance going?
you two married yet, or is she pregnant yet?
in your neck of the world... a quick marriage, or someone getting pregnant into a 2 week relationship... usually involves lots of alcohol consumption...
Wishing you two love birds all the best...
thanks for dropping by!
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
After reading thru the thread tonight, some very interesting discussions..
and some interesting posts by LEOs and former LEOs....
Boomer in your case, is your responses coming from your drinking actually hurting someone permanently? alot of time around 12 step programs sure makes me suspect of that...if you posted so, then sorry I missed it..
but that would certainly explain your stance.....
a few posts from Minnesota.....that place is looney tunes on the subject..
Lord knows how many rehab facilities are in the state... the biggest being Hazeltine...
two quick stories of MN and DUIs..
1. Brother in law had worked a 24 hours straight at the Post Office, and he gets home to finding a note on the frig about being out of milk for the kids for cereal in the morning and would he go down to the store and get some.. he gets down to the store, goes in and gets the milk.
then out in his car, he's too tired to even drive home...he puts the seat back for a quick nap, its winter time so he turns the engine on....cops knocks on his window to wake him up an hour later... asks him if he has been drinking, he says no.....asked does he need to take a breathe test... he answers no... Cops states that was a refusal... arrests him, impounds the car.. drops him off at Hazeltine on Medicine Lake.. for 72 hours observation.....
2. my younger brother worked a 16 hours double shift at his job.. they were having a get together at a bar/restaurant over in Corcoran....he drops by at midnight, and stays until the place closes at 1 am... out in the parking lot after most had left, he was tired and put the seat back....he had had one non alcoholic beer... knowing he was tired... 15 below outside... so he turns the engine on for the heat... 2 hours later, cop knocks on the window....sees a beer can by the car....
gets my brother out to produce a D/L and Registration/Insurance... which he does.. while checking that, cops casually asks if he would like to take a Breath test..
Brother says, "not really"... cop spends him around, tells him he is under arrest for a DUI for refusing the test....in MN it is evidently illegal or considered a DUI for being in a vehicle behind the steering wheel.. with the engine running, even in winter time for running the heater.. even if the vehicle is in park....and the cop is knocking on the window because the vehicle hasn't moved in 1 to 2 hours....
both times, the cop duped each of these two into a "refusal"...
both got DUIs for being in a parked vehicle, behind the wheel, with the motor running and observed the car being parked for several hours.. the drivers with the seat back.. engine running for heat when it was below zero outside....
if all of this isn't about revenue nationally... it certainly is in Hennepin County....
being a traveler, with a job of on the road sales rep, I've had similar situations when I was too tired to drive... but I always had the common sense to put the seat back in the passenger side.. and not be behind the wheel... and cops would rap on the window if you weren't in a rest area...
and they always asked if I would like to take a breath test... I always answered sure.. get it out.. answered positively, they never took it out... guess they could see I was straight.. but that never stopped them from trying to sucker one into refusing it...
I've been pulled over locally here, 3 times in the last year or so....cops ask if I had been drinking tell them no.... asked if I would take a breath test, sure.. as I don't drink period or use drugs.. then they want to know why I am driving 5 mph under the posted speed limit....
because not everyone is a speeder... thats why....
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
How do you propose diversion should work if you are unhappy with your son's experience?
That's not my area of expertise and it's not my job to fix what's wrong with the system. But I can spot a racket when I see one, and I see one. Are you a counselor or employed by the system? You seem to have a keen interest in defending the system.
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
If you think DUI laws are purely driven by financial interests of diversion councilors and not the seriousness of the offenders' action you are a fool.
I may be a fool, but at least I can read and remember what I read and I can tell the difference between the laws, the reason they're on the books, and the privately-run system that handles offenders. I already said the laws themselves were not driven by financial interests, remember:
Originally Posted by smokepole
The laws themselves may not be related to funds collection but if you do get a DUI then the privately-owned companies running the system basically have you by the balls.
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Was his treatment unfairly extended? Do you have evidence of your future prediction that there will be no re-occurrance?
Yes, I do believe it was unfairly extended. And yes I do have evidence that he won't do it again and it's not a "future prediction," it was ten years ago. Beyond that, he's never been an alcoholic or even a heavy drinker so it's very easy for him to avoid getting into situations where he has to drive after drinking because he doesn't drink that often. Not every DUI offender is a raging alcoholic. After he was arrested his biggest regret was letting down his parents. He was mortified, especially since he was in school at the time so I had to pay for everything. He told me he'd pay back every penny and he did and that sooner than I expected, it was the first thing he spent money on when he got his first job out of school. Even now when we go out for a meal he grabs the check and says "you've been paying for me all my life, it's my turn now."
He truly regrets what he did and he's not going to repeat it. Not because he endangered anyone, and not because of "counseling" or victims panels. Because it was a stupid mistake he never should have made.
A gentleman from Sweden was visiting our family last fall. He would not even drink a beer because he was driving. It appears that the Swedes, and I assume, those from most European countries value the right to drive highly. If they plan on going out for an evening they will take some form of public transportation because there is a much more stringent enforcement of DUI laws with stiff penalties that are unforced.
Two months ago my wife and three youngest children were almost killed when an amped up guy driving a semi bobtail passed a line of traffic going up a long hill. He kept the pedal down all the way to the top and hit a 70 yo man head on. The semi tractor was immediately beside my family in our vehicle and they saw the whole thing happen. We are still dealing with anxiety when driving.
This guy had a history of abuse but wasn’t intimidated by the penalties he would face. If we actually enforced what is on the book these stupid pols wouldn’t be grandstanding like they are saving the world. Wasted empty suits they are.
There are a lot of long lonesome highways in Wyoming, a long ways between stops. It used to be that many drivers measured distances not in miles or hours but sixpacks. Not so bad now as it used to be, but there are still some of them out there.
Smoke. I write this in good faith. Glad to hear that he's not prone to repeat. I don't know the solution to eliminate the conflict you suggest either, though from what I saw the councilors were already absolutely swamped with customers and I believe had genuine interest in helping folks to not re-offend. Likely it varies in places and with individuals... No not my area of work nor education but I can not fathom how it'd operate otherwise as anyone involved is going to be paid and the offender will be paying... I can wholeheartedly say that the vast majority of individuals mandated to attend victims panels or group sessions that I attended had chit attitudes contending they didn't do nothin' and I shared that attitude in 1993... A statement of fact not an accusation. Folks from all walks of life.... Would anything have unfolded differently had I had more severe penalty that time? I don't know, as I was prone to overindulgence more so than many, but if I'd lost that driver's license for a year like a conviction, and I was guilty of the crime, it'd definitely gotten more attention from me. Years later, greater than ten so it was once more treated as a first offence, I got caught again in very different life circumstances, actually the lowest day of my life so understand I ain't bragging. Seems I got a little more out of the 'system' , or was more open to admit my role in the wrongdoing. I took it beyond the mandates and from there over the next few years I learned a great deal about not just the system but people and the overwhelming horrors resulting from DUI, substance abuse and the often chit selfish attitudes that contribute. Hundreds of stories and individuals. My 'defense of the system' is really more of an appreciation of the severity of the 'problem' of mixing driving on public roads with intoxication. It's intolerable once as it is 100 times. I have zero flexibility on this stance nor sympathy for individuals that get themselves into it - as it's absolutely 100% avoidable. I know folks are generally ok with a little BAC but dammit the consequences are too severe for others that it can, and really does effect. I don't know the perfect max BAC to establish... Certainly it's not something that can just be left to self-regulation, that is obvious. If anyone here has not met anyone fucqked up by DUI, that's swell, just know it is truly very prevalent and has caused extreme yet totally avoidable 'hardship'. For comic relief, to admit what a dumbass I WAS, I'll offer that both DUI events involved the same town, same bar and the same affinity for Black Velvet and Cokes. Cheers.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
Lowering the standards isn't a cure in itself. The punishments need to be increased as well
Repeat offenders should be a capitol crime.
First offenses should be a minimum.mandatory12 months confinement with no visitation
Followed by 10 years probation with periodic at will residence checks
If you cause an accident while intoxicated every personal asset you have, to inude your home should be sold with profits going to the victim
In addition to the lawsuit for any injury sustained. Noplea bargains for dui offenses. Either plea guilty to the full charges or take your chance on a trial
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
Lowering the standards isn't a cure in itself. The punishments need to be increased as well
Repeat offenders should be a capitol crime.
First offenses should be a minimum.mandatory12 months confinement with no visitation
Followed by 10 years probation with periodic at will residence checks
If you cause an accident while intoxicated every personal asset you have, to inude your home should be sold with profits going to the victim
In addition to the lawsuit for any injury sustained. Noplea bargains for dui offenses. Either plea guilty to the full charges or take your chance on a trial
Alcoholics are drug addicts just any other drug addict but they are treated better by our legal system because alcohol is a legal drug and socially acceptable. I knew a guy whose 6 year daughter was run over and killed by a drunk driver at a school crossing. His solution for relieving his grief was to become an alcoholic himself and drive drunk.
You can beat just about any DUI charge, THAT DOESNT INVOLVE an ACCIDENT if you have enough money. And beating the first one is advisable if you think there’s a chance you will get a second one. THAT’S where it gets hairy.
Just look at dui charges in different counties with similar populations if you think the revenue stream doesn’t play a big part in dui Enforcement.
If you think arbitrary BAC levels should be the deciding factor in charging a person with dui, you are ignoring some relevant facts. I’ve known guys who were a real danger driving if their BAC was not at a comfortable level FOR THEM.
Like Miles said, it’s a different deal for different people.
And... in Texas.... you can be charged with a dui with a BAC as low as .02. The .08 level is just prima facie evidence that needs no supporting evidence.
In most small towns the rich guys kid will get a ride home and the poor kid will go to jail no matter if the level is reduced or raised.
Lowering the standards isn't a cure in itself. The punishments need to be increased as well
Repeat offenders should be a capitol crime.
First offenses should be a minimum.mandatory12 months confinement with no visitation
Followed by 10 years probation with periodic at will residence checks
If you cause an accident while intoxicated every personal asset you have, to inude your home should be sold with profits going to the victim
In addition to the lawsuit for any injury sustained. Noplea bargains for dui offenses. Either plea guilty to the full charges or take your chance on a trial
Alcoholics are drug addicts just any other drug addict but they are treated better by our legal system because alcohol is a legal drug and socially acceptable. I knew a guy whose 6 year daughter was run over and killed by a drunk driver at a school crossing. His solution for relieving his grief was to become an alcoholic himself and drive drunk.
Alcoholics and Drug Addicts are two different species. The Medical Professionals recognize this. The Medical Codes for the two conditions are different.
Boomer, thanks for your post and what you said makes sense. I know there are good counselors who really want to help, and I know there are a lot of people who need the help and benefit by it. Probably most who get a DUI, and I'm not saying my son shouldn't have had to go through the program. I guess the thing that grated on me (and him) was that he didn't get many if any of the good counselors. One of the people who he had to work with was a fat lazy woman who treated him like schit and didn't do anything to help. Another guy ran group sessions and would show up 15 minutes late every time and then just have the group sit around and talk about their issues and not add anything--no insight, advice, or actual counseling. And they kept their jobs because there was nothing the people paying the bill could do about it they were a captive audience you might say.
I know that doesn't mean all counselors are like that and I didn't mean to imply that they are. Sounds like you had a much better experience, and that's all good.
Lowering the standards isn't a cure in itself. The punishments need to be increased as well
Repeat offenders should be a capitol crime.
First offenses should be a minimum.mandatory12 months confinement with no visitation
Followed by 10 years probation with periodic at will residence checks
If you cause an accident while intoxicated every personal asset you have, to inude your home should be sold with profits going to the victim
In addition to the lawsuit for any injury sustained. Noplea bargains for dui offenses. Either plea guilty to the full charges or take your chance on a trial
This is way over the top...I hope God doesn't judge you as harshly as you judge others.
Lowering the standards isn't a cure in itself. The punishments need to be increased as well
Repeat offenders should be a capitol crime.
First offenses should be a minimum.mandatory12 months confinement with no visitation
Followed by 10 years probation with periodic at will residence checks
If you cause an accident while intoxicated every personal asset you have, to inude your home should be sold with profits going to the victim
In addition to the lawsuit for any injury sustained. Noplea bargains for dui offenses. Either plea guilty to the full charges or take your chance on a trial
You were born in the wrong century and missed your calling. You should have been Henry VIII’s headsman.
Lowering the standards isn't a cure in itself. The punishments need to be increased as well
Repeat offenders should be a capitol crime.
First offenses should be a minimum.mandatory12 months confinement with no visitation
Followed by 10 years probation with periodic at will residence checks
If you cause an accident while intoxicated every personal asset you have, to inude your home should be sold with profits going to the victim
In addition to the lawsuit for any injury sustained. Noplea bargains for dui offenses. Either plea guilty to the full charges or take your chance on a trial
This is way over the top...I hope God doesn't judge you as harshly as you judge others.
Shouldn't be a problem for one so much holier than thou......
I haven't read all the responses here, but this is obviously a very charged subject. I lost a girlfriend when I was 16. She died at the hands of a drunk driver who hit her car, killing her instantly. I lost my father to alcoholism. I can only imagine how many times my dad drove drunk.
.05 seems very low. I think it's safe to say most folks would blow a .05 shortly after drinking one beer, or two at the most. Do I think this is little more than a revenue generator for the police? No. But I also fully understand that way too many people aren't afraid to get behind the wheel when they have no reason to be driving.
Lots of arguing here, but can we all agree that the best remedy here is just to not drive drunk in the first place? I'd have to think most of us have lost a friend or loved one to a drunk driver.
I have made north of 400 DUI arrests over the last 20 years. I can tell you from experience that at .05 most people show very little sign of impairment. It varies from person to person but I think .05 is too low. The idea is to keep people safe. I do not believe at .05 a driver is automatically unsafe. I did not read all the replies but did notice the a few about DUI being a revenue stream for the police. Here that is actually completely untrue. None of the fines return to the PD. We pay for the officer's processing time and court time. NO money comes back into the PD we actually have a budget line to pay for blood tests.
Lots of the comments about revenue streams came from me, and mine were not directed at the police, just the people who make money off the offenders after sentencing.
Lowering the standards isn't a cure in itself. The punishments need to be increased as well
Repeat offenders should be a capitol crime.
First offenses should be a minimum.mandatory12 months confinement with no visitation
Followed by 10 years probation with periodic at will residence checks
If you cause an accident while intoxicated every personal asset you have, to inude your home should be sold with profits going to the victim
In addition to the lawsuit for any injury sustained. Noplea bargains for dui offenses. Either plea guilty to the full charges or take your chance on a trial
Lowering the standards isn't a cure in itself. The punishments need to be increased as well
Repeat offenders should be a capitol crime.
First offenses should be a minimum.mandatory12 months confinement with no visitation
Followed by 10 years probation with periodic at will residence checks
If you cause an accident while intoxicated every personal asset you have, to inude your home should be sold with profits going to the victim
In addition to the lawsuit for any injury sustained. Noplea bargains for dui offenses. Either plea guilty to the full charges or take your chance on a trial
I hope you’re being sarcastic.
Should be the same as driving with high blood pressure. What if they should stroke out and cross the double line?
Diabetics often present as drunk. I went to a call many years ago for a possible DUI and when we got there the cop was behind the lady and she was going round and round at a roundabout at no more than 5mph. I reached in and put her car in neutral and got her stopped, once stopped that cop was hell bent on dragging the pregnant lady through the window in an angry response to her not respecting his absolute authority. I suspected that she wasn’t drunk in her third trimester but suffering a diabetic emergency. We told the cop to stand down or he was going to have to go through all 4 of us and not like the outcome. Our lieutenant told him that if he didn’t get out of our way to render aid that he would be restrained on our gurney while we did our job. Her blood sugar was so high it didn’t register on our machine so we got an IV and transported her. She and her baby were okay after medical intervention but Mr. Cop got some remedial anger management training after we all filed complaints. If it had been a different crew responding that lady and her unborn baby were going to have the chit knocked out of them by a badge heavy douchebag.
Lowering the BAC won’t do anything positive for society, it’s just more feel good liberalism. Cardiac patients, diabetics, hypertension, epilepsy, stroke, etc should be treated the same way if you Stalinists want to be tough on potential crimes. Throwing someone in jail over what could happen is very different than being tough on someone that actually causes injury or damage.
There’s a lot of liberals here and they mask themselves as conservatives until a thread like this comes up. Pathetic really...
�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.
.05 going down .02, but let's get all the legalization of marijuana we want no big deal get stoned and drive around no big deal. Now I'm all for marijuana usage for medical reasons if it's a help have no problem with that as long as it's controlled like other medical drugs. But recreational use of it everybody wants to jump on somebody that drinks but by god let's go out and smoke all we want.
.05 going down .02, but let's get all the legalization of marijuana we want no big deal get stoned and drive around no big deal. Now I'm all for marijuana usage for medical reasons if it's a help have no problem with that as long as it's controlled like other medical drugs. But recreational use of it everybody wants to jump on somebody that drinks but by god let's go out and smoke all we want.
Originally Posted by smokepole
Seafire, arrests for DUI/marijuana along ŵith training for all the local police have been a focus here and in the news.
I'm not defending intoxicated drivers of any type but your post seems to imply that marijuana users get a free pass and they don't.
.05 going down .02, but let's get all the legalization of marijuana we want no big deal get stoned and drive around no big deal. Now I'm all for marijuana usage for medical reasons if it's a help have no problem with that as long as it's controlled like other medical drugs. But recreational use of it everybody wants to jump on somebody that drinks but by god let's go out and smoke all we want.
Equating a drunk (truly drunk) driver to someone that smokes a joint and drives is not even in the same ballpark. It’s an apples to potatoes comparison.
�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.
.05 going down .02, but let's get all the legalization of marijuana we want no big deal get stoned and drive around no big deal. Now I'm all for marijuana usage for medical reasons if it's a help have no problem with that as long as it's controlled like other medical drugs. But recreational use of it everybody wants to jump on somebody that drinks but by god let's go out and smoke all we want.
Equating a drunk (truly drunk) driver to someone that smokes a joint and drives is not even in the same ballpark. It’s an apples to potatoes comparison.
Bulshit they're both mind-altering drugs. But let's take it there what one joint equals a beer one joint equals two beers it takes 5 beers to equal joint what you tell me mr. expert
What I've read says that reaction time is slowed measurably for drivers who smoked marijuana, but the effects on individuals of a given blood concentration are more variable than they are with alcohol, FWIW.
What I've read says that reaction time is slowed measurably for drivers who smoked marijuana, but the effects on individuals of a given blood concentration are more variable than they are with alcohol, FWIW.
The how I'm taking that is you have read a source that says measured by blood or breath alcohol has more predicted effects up on each individual than marijuana? If that's what you're saying I don't believe that for one bit.Each individual is affected by marijuana, alcohol ,drugs individually some people can be really messed up and you won't hardly realize that other people can be well below the limit in a complete dumbass. That's why I don't always agree with set limits on test but I understand there's got to be a point somewhere to judge by I get that but I think comprehension and ability test more like a field sobriety tests are really more reliable than Ron blood or breath a lot of times I know it's a classic argument.
Lowering the BAC won’t do anything positive for society, it’s just more feel good liberalism. Cardiac patients, diabetics, hypertension, epilepsy, stroke, etc should be treated the same way if you Stalinists want to be tough on potential crimes. ...
Pulls a lot more into the pool of dangerous drivers when you add these legitimate health risks.
What I've read says that reaction time is slowed measurably for drivers who smoked marijuana, but the effects on individuals of a given blood concentration are more variable than they are with alcohol, FWIW.
The how I'm taking that is you have read a source that says measured by blood or breath alcohol has more predicted effects up on each individual than marijuana? If that's what you're saying I don't believe that for one bit.Each individual is affected by marijuana, alcohol ,drugs individually some people can be really messed up and you won't hardly realize that other people can be well below the limit in a complete dumbass. That's why I don't always agree with set limits on test but I understand there's got to be a point somewhere to judge by I get that but I think comprehension and ability test more like a field sobriety tests are really more reliable than Ron blood or breath a lot of times I know it's a classic argument.
I'm talking about closely controlled repeatable tests that measure objective factors that can be measured like degradation of reaction time.
Not 100 % subjective judgments on whether an untrained observer thinks someone is "acting like a dumbass."
I grew up with a .04 limit, and that was a little more than three beers for me. It takes a six pack to get me over 0.08, and at that point I am falling down, wearing the lamp shade, obnoxiously drunk. I mean, "hold my beer and watch this" drunk .
Add to that the average two hour time it takes from arrest to blood draw (metabolizing about 0.02 per hour during the wait), 0.08 seems like an awfully high limit.
.05 going down .02, but let's get all the legalization of marijuana we want no big deal get stoned and drive around no big deal. Now I'm all for marijuana usage for medical reasons if it's a help have no problem with that as long as it's controlled like other medical drugs. But recreational use of it everybody wants to jump on somebody that drinks but by god let's go out and smoke all we want.
Equating a drunk (truly drunk) driver to someone that smokes a joint and drives is not even in the same ballpark. It’s an apples to potatoes comparison.
I disagree. We had a patient come in for an eye exam, and he was so stoned we couldn't conduct the exam. No way was he in any condition to be driving. (he had another guy with him who was his driver, and seemed to at least be coherent.) His coat reeked of reefer so bad, we had to fumigate the dr's office, it smelled so bad in there.
I have read the whole thread, and here are some of my thoughts.
People respond differently to ingestion of impairing compounds, be it alcohol, marijuana, narcotics, medications and even non chemical causes like sleep deprivation.
Back when I used to have more drinks, I do not think a 0.05 would be an issue for me. Now that I hardly drink anymore, I think 0.05 would cause some impairment. Maybe once a month I get together with some guys after work and I limit myself to 1 beer. One night I had two beers and did not like driving home. Anymore, one drink is ok, but two seems to have an effect. If I would start drinking more, the liver enzyme induction would kick again and I would probably be good to go. Tolerance is well proven for alcohol, marijuana and narcotics.
Some people are impaired and should not be driving after no ingestion. But that is another topic.
I found the studies that Dakota Deer posted very interesting. They documented impairment at very low levels, but does that low level of impairment have a statistical impact on accidents resulting in property damage and deaths? Is that not what we are trying to prevent? If DUI drivers never caused property damage or deaths, would anyone care besides the do gooders?
What would be the actual decrease in property damage and saved lives in reducing the level to 0.05 from 0.08?
A number of people have mentioned a revenue stream as being the other reason. I think there is a huge behind the scenes push by the insurance companies for this lowering, Piggybacking on the emotional (MADD) argument and the Do gooder (control) portion of society.
For insurance companies it is ALL about the money and marking those people in actuary tables that could possibly cost them money and hurt their bottom line. If you get a DUI and do not cause any property damage or fatalities, your insurance rates will still go up. Why? you did not cost them any money.
DUI's are a very grey area of law with a lot of interpretation by the individual officer no matter how well trained they are. I am not comfortable with one LEO having that much power to ruin one's life. Because just like any other profession, you have very competent ones, and not so competent.
I am not comfortable with DUI checkpoints, no probable cause, just a fishing expedition. Why should a person be subject to search and interrogation when no probable cause has been witnessed? I am not comfortable for being automatically guilty if you refuse a test? They need to prove impairment. Society has gone overboard trying to prevent, with a subsequent loss of civil liberties.
For me it seems the answer is to never get behind the wheel if you have had anything to drink, but I just enjoy a beer with pizza, wine with pasta, and bourbon with steak too much when eating out. If my wife or kids are driving I may have two.
Society has had substance abuse issues since the beginning of time. I do not know the answer, but self responsibility is the best answer.
I forgot to mention that I believe the level should be the same across the board for CDL's, pilots, and the general public. Why should a CDL or pilot be held to a higher standard when off work?
For people actually performing their jobs, it should be zero! No CDL or pilot should ever test positive for alcohol or any substance while on the job. I know that if I would test positive for alcohol, or any substance while on the job, I would not have to worry about showing up on time anymore. I would be placed on leave, license suspended with mandatory counseling. Pending completion, I may get my license reactivated.
I forgot to mention that I believe the level should be the same across the board for CDL's, pilots, and the general public. Why should a CDL or pilot be held to a higher standard when off work?
For people actually performing their jobs, it should be zero! No CDL or pilot should ever test positive for alcohol or any substance while on the job. I know that if I would test positive for alcohol, or any substance while on the job, I would not have to worry about showing up on time anymore. I would be placed on leave, license suspended with mandatory counseling. Pending completion, I may get my license reactivated.
CDL’s are held to the .04 limit when operating their personal vehicles because they only have one drivers license & it requires a .04 limit. Pilots are not because a drivers license is not a pilots license, the two aren’t tied together and you could be a professional pilot without even having a drivers license. I’m a pilot and if I get pulled over it’s none of the cops business, I’m not flying a plane. Pilot or not the BAC limit is the same as for any other driver.
Pilots licenses are federal, drivers licenses are state. I’m sure there’s some hard core control freaks at the FAA that would like to tie my pilots license to my drivers license but they probably can’t figure out a way to legally do it. The closest they’ve come so far is every six months when I have my physical I have to give them permission to check my drivers history for a DUI. They can pull your medical certificate and stop you flying that way.
When operating an airplane the rules are no more than .04 BAC, no drinking within 8 hours of show for flight duty and “free from the effects of alcohol” (not hungover). We show 1 hour prior to pushback so effectively we can’t drink within 9 hours of starting the airplane. Other nations don’t hold to this. If you fly on Air France there’s a good chance your pilots are drinking wine with their crew meals while flying the plane. When I was in the military I did a short TDY on an Italian Air Force base and their pilots would have wine with their lunch at the officers club then immediately go flying. Our American penchant for zero tolerance is rooted more in our puritanical desire to control others than anything to do with safety.
Note that even in the US the limit is not zero for anything. That would be unrealistic and impractical. A teetotaler can blow a .02, the test just isn’t that accurate and the body can manufacture its own alcohol.
For insurance companies it is ALL about the money and marking those people in actuary tables that could possibly cost them money and hurt their bottom line. If you get a DUI and do not cause any property damage or fatalities, your insurance rates will still go up. Why? you did not cost them any money.
I'm no fan of insurance companies but the answer to your question is fairly simple, and it's the same reason your rates go up if you get speeding tickets. Statistically, you're a higher risk so you really can't complain about paying more.
I forgot to mention that I believe the level should be the same across the board for CDL's, pilots, and the general public. Why should a CDL or pilot be held to a higher standard when off work?
For people actually performing their jobs, it should be zero! No CDL or pilot should ever test positive for alcohol or any substance while on the job. I know that if I would test positive for alcohol, or any substance while on the job, I would not have to worry about showing up on time anymore. I would be placed on leave, license suspended with mandatory counseling. Pending completion, I may get my license reactivated.
CDL’s are held to the .04 limit when operating their personal vehicles because they only have one drivers license & it requires a .04 limit. Pilots are not because a drivers license is not a pilots license, the two aren’t tied together and you could be a professional pilot without even having a drivers license. I’m a pilot and if I get pulled over it’s none of the cops business, I’m not flying a plane. Pilot or not the BAC limit is the same as for any other driver.
Pilots licenses are federal, drivers licenses are state. I’m sure there’s some hard core control freaks at the FAA that would like to tie my pilots license to my drivers license but they probably can’t figure out a way to legally do it. The closest they’ve come so far is every six months when I have my physical I have to give them permission to check my drivers history for a DUI. They can pull your medical certificate and stop you flying that way.
When operating an airplane the rules are no more than .04 BAC, no drinking within 8 hours of show for flight duty and “free from the effects of alcohol” (not hungover). We show 1 hour prior to pushback so effectively we can’t drink within 9 hours of starting the airplane. Other nations don’t hold to this. If you fly on Air France there’s a good chance your pilots are drinking wine with their crew meals while flying the plane. When I was in the military I did a short TDY on an Italian Air Force base and their pilots would have wine with their lunch at the officers club then immediately go flying. Our American penchant for zero tolerance is rooted more in our puritanical desire to control others than anything to do with safety.
Note that even in the US the limit is not zero for anything. That would be unrealistic and impractical. A teetotaler can blow a .02, the test just isn’t that accurate and the body can manufacture its own alcohol.
cdl holders are NOT held to the .o4 standard while operating povs
Last edited by gitem_12; 01/22/18.
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
cdl holders are NOT held to the .o4 standard while operating povs
I stand corrected and I’m glad to hear it. I thought they were and always thought it was BS.
If you look at it from a common sense stand point, how is a CDL holder anymore of a hazard at .07 in his or her personal car than a non CDL holder? Hold someone to a tougher standard on the speculation they might operate a commercial motor vehicle while intoxicated?
use to attend a large twelve step meeting in Seattle off of 85th and Fremont...
this place was open from 6 am to 2 am every day... 90 minute meetings continuously...
50 to over 100 people per meeting depending of time of day, or day of the week...
cops use to bring by court ordered people who had been locked up..
bring them in, in cuffs.. cuff them to a chair and go next door and have coffee and donuts for 90 min. and a fairly high volume of them....daily... wasn't unusual for the cops to come back in and find their 'prisoner', punched out and his chair laying on its side on the floor.. people walking around it...
average attendee was the longshoreman type and/or Bikers....rough crowd..
when MADD came out.. Mothers Against Drunk Driving...
these guys started a counter club.... DAMM... Drunks Against Mad Mothers...
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
When I worked up in Canada, they have check points all the time in BC, Alberta ,Ontario & Quebec... home office was in Ontario.. so I'd be back there at times....right on the border of Quebec... Ottawa across from Hull P.Q.
The Canucks were always good for office jokes.. and much better than the Average American company's office...
One I thought was pretty funny...
Archie and Reggie are a pair of Newfies...living in Rural Newfoundland...
There favorite bar was this place 20 miles outside of town....
One night after closing down the bar, they were driving home in Archie's little Rusty Datsun pickup of course being three sheets to the wind...
They top a hill on the way home and of course there is a check point at the Cross Roads at the bottom of the hill by the RCMP...
Reggie starts to freak out.... Archie pulls over, and tells him there is nothing to worry about.. " just follow my lead, and do exactly as I do and say what I say"...
So he gets out of the pickup and act like they are taking a whizz...
Archie picks up one of the 50 or so beer bottles rolling around in the back of his truck... peals the label off the bottle, takes his hat off, brushes his hair back... licks the label and sticks it on his forehead.. then puts his ball cap back on..
Reggie follows suit.. and they get back in the Rusty Datsun and head down to the check point...
as they pull up to the stop... a pair of Mounties, stop by each window... as Reggie and Archie roll down the window, they smell the alcohol on their breaths...
The Mountie on the Drivers side asks Archie... so where you boys coming from?
Oh the bar back at St Mary's Corner...10 miles back....
So do you mind getting out of the truck?
No sir officer, as they get out...
What's your name if you don't mind me asking...
Archie, officer and this here is my mate Reggie...
So Archie, have you and Reggie been drinking tonight...
Oh no Sir Officer...
Well it sure smells like Beer here Archie...How am I suppose to believe you and Reggie haven't been drinking??
Archie pulls off his hat, and points to the beer label on his forehead..
No sir Officer, Reggie and I haven't been drinking sir...
We're both on the patch!.. Show him Reggie....
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
For insurance companies it is ALL about the money and marking those people in actuary tables that could possibly cost them money and hurt their bottom line. If you get a DUI and do not cause any property damage or fatalities, your insurance rates will still go up. Why? you did not cost them any money.
I'm no fan of insurance companies but the answer to your question is fairly simple, and it's the same reason your rates go up if you get speeding tickets. Statistically, you're a higher risk so you really can't complain about paying more.
If you did not cause any property damage or personal injury?
The main question is: Will lowering the limit to 0.05 reduce property damage and personal injury. If so, how much. The are lot's of driving forces for these studies to show just that.
I think a dui with no property damage or personal injury should be a misdeamor, anything over $500 or personal injury a felony. Any dui with BAC under 0.08 the same, with over a felony.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/medium/45390.png)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
But safely sitting on the sofa watching Longmire.
