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

.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.

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.

Pulls a lot more into the pool of dangerous drivers when you add these legitimate health risks.

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."

You can believe what you want to.

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.

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.

There's a gradient to being high just like being drunk diabetic or stupid.

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.

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.

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.

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?

As this has gotten serious...

thought I'd lighten it up a little...

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...

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....