Drunkenness Limit Is Set By Clinton!

[Frenchie]

These states do not have to accept these funds.

Agreed. However, for a number of states, the highway funds that they have are so woefully insufficient that they just barely make it with the federal funds. For those states, it is tantamount to blackmail. Truckers voted on the top ten worst highways in America....three are in PA. I know bad roads. I also know that the right to determine the legal BAC level is solely within the power and discretion of the states. Period. There is a reason for this.

It's like telling somebody on welfare that they have to look for work if they want financial help.

Here i would disagree at the analogy. The state is not trying to require the individual to forfeit to the governemnt one of the individual's constitutionally provided rights in order to get the welfare. The federal government is requiring that the state governments turn over to the government a part of their police powers.

 

[Slap]

<< So if I make a mistake in judgement and rob a store I should just be fined if it's my first time? After all , everybody makes a mistake and I'd consider that an error/mistake in judgement. >>


THe difference is that it is illegal to rob a store. It is not illegal to drink. Once you legally start to drink you lose the thought process. My main point is that a first time offender (never been convicted of any past crimes) that drinks and drives and then ends up in a wreck killing someone shouldn't be charged with manslaughter. YOu can't punish someone for doing something legal which in return disabled his thought process and caused him to get behind the wheel of a car.


<< So, does this mean you think everyone shoudl be allowed to drink while drunk until they are first caught, then smarten up? Absolutely F**king ridiculous. >>


Never said that. However, after a first offense, the person should know not to even drink again, much less drive drunk.

Are you telling me that the govenment letting you drink alcohol knowing that it distorts your thought process and then sending an honored citizen who may have taken his first drink to jail for manslaughter after driving home and killing someone is right? Hell no it isn't right. Maybe alcohol should be banned again.....I don't have the answer and you don't either.

 

[Frenchie]

Personally I think this is much ado about nothing. The Government have been handing out Federal funds with strings attached ever since income tax has been collected.Funds for education is a perfect example.

Yes, but the federal purse strings are not usually used to control the making of state criminal laws. A good example is illicit drugs. In some states, you can legally posess certain drugs. It is still, however, illegal under federal law.

 

[Double Trouble]

<<Frenchie, Slap, you should get together with tegaj and organize to do something about this.>>

Yes!! We will form a powerful alliance and take over the world! ....errrrr.... or not I'm not against it per se (yet), and besides, it's too late anyway, it's been signed into law. It will be challenged in court and in the end the Supremes will decide if it's ok or not.

 

[Slap]

I know driving drunk is illegal, but drinking is not which causes you not to realize that you are driving drunk.

THis is just like the drug problem, there are no answers.

 

[Frenchie]

Red: I still need a few more years (I believe 4) before I can go before the US Supreme Court. Besides, Con. Law was never my favorite subject. I'm sure someone will be taking this up. I can think of several freedom and rights based groups that are probably stewing over this as we speak....er type.

and take over the world!

--Insert Pinky and the Brain or Animaniacs theme music here--

 

[StageLeft]

slap YOu can't punish someone for doing something legal which in return disabled his thought process and caused him to get behind the wheel of a car. Yes, you can. You have to, otherwise plenty more people would drive around drunk. You even achknowledged that a person should be punished after the first time - but why, if it is still legal for them to drink?

It is legal for me to drive. It is legal for me to watch Ronin, other car-racing movies, and play NFSV. Is it much of a stretch to think I'll drive faster that night? Its not because I do. Does that mean its legal for me to drive down the highway at 110 mph and kill someone? It is legal to own a car that does 200 mph, so do you think it should be legal for a person to drive that fast on public roads?

The fact of the matter is that _most_ people realize they have had too much to drink and stop driving. They aren't the problem, its the other people that can't.

I don't know how much experience you have with alcohol but it is not some magical potion which makes you lose your mind. It really isn't. Most people remember what they did, most people can (if willing) make reasonable decisions when drinking. These would include not driving or flying an airplane. You are far too easy on people, it is their responsibility to drink maturely. If not they should not drink.

 

[Frenchie]

Slap:

Alcohol is a drug. If you knowingly imbibe the drug, you are charged with the responsibility of any events stemming from taking the drug. Whether you would normally do those acts when not drunk/high is not a relevant consideration. If you unknowingly or were forced to take the drug, then you are not responsible for your actions while under the influence of that drug.

 

[Frenchie]

What people need to remember is that drugs are illegal/illicit/criminal. Alcohol is not legal, it is merely decriminalized. If it were legal, anyone could obtain it and use it. Alcohol, when possessed and used in the proscribed manner, is merely not illegal. There is a distinction between items that are legal, decriminalized, and illicit/criminal.

 

[Frenchie]

Red:
Guys, I see the point you are trying to make regarding a States Sovereignty. What some of you are saying is this isn't about the BAC limit, but the states right to make their own laws without interference from the Fed's. On that point I tend to lean towards your way of thinking.

This is why I respect you. You dont resort to thoughtless name calling (until the other person starts it), you can appreciate anothers point of view, and you can even be persuaded to see things differently on occassion (open-minded). Consequently, that is why I do not like debating with certain unnamed persons in regard to politics, as they lack all of those qualities (Daban, 403, et al.).

 

[Frenchie]

While I have no sympathy for those complaining that they would lose thier right to have a drink or two and drive I am behind you assertions that the States shouldn't be strong Armed into changing their own laws.

Exactly. In no way do I condone drinking and driving. Anyone that has had a friend or loved one injured or killed as a result (as I have) will surely understand this.

Did we we have a little spat over this about 140 years ago? I think it was called the Civil War

Exactly. People need to look back in history a little bit to the reasons that the federal government now exists and the purpose that it was to have....and the reason why the states were to have ALL powers except those expressly given to the federal government.

 

[Slap]

<< I don't know how much experience you have with alcohol but it is not some magical potion which makes you lose your mind. It really isn't. Most people remember what they did, most people can (if willing) make reasonable decisions when drinking. >>



I have plenty of experience and you are right about making decisions while drinking. Most people know they are about to get to that point where they need to find another way home, but for someone who has never experienced this effect, it is different. I have never said you shouldn't be punished. It is the manslaughter thing that gets me. I can just see someone having a kid and bringing them up perfectly and then one day that perfect kid decides to try alcohol not realizing the effect it will have. He then kills someone trying to drive home. This poor kid will now be charged with manslughter in most cases. Should he.....I think not and you think otherwise.

 

[DaBoneHead]

I support the tougher law, hell, everywhere I've lived it has been .08 anyways.

MrsSkywalker, you mentioned traffic stops, I believe the reason people are protesting them is the &quot;illegal search and siezure&quot; law in the bill of rights (I think it is the bill of rights). I support doing everything you can to get drunk drivers off the road, but even I am a little &quot;iffy&quot; on that measure, since it seems somewhat fascist. I don't know, something about it just doesn't sit right.

Oh well.

 

[StageLeft]

try alcohol not realizing the effect it will have The point is people DO realize the effect it has. Its like people who start smoking, everyone knows its bad for you these people just do not care. Everybody KNOWS that drinking and driving is bad. If somebody has had 5 beer and they are driving their car and you ask them if drinking and driving is bad they can tell you that it is. They will come up with an excuse like &quot;Oh i'm fine, blah blah&quot;, but the point is even people who have never drunk know that drinking and driving kills; its all over the media.

 

[rahvin]

<<The Federal Government did not drop the speed limit requirements for federal funding. In fact, the requirements were just changed a few years ago to allow implementation of a 65mph speed limit when a driver is x miles outside of areas with a population over x. (Forgot the exact numbers, hence the &quot;x&quot; values.)>>

You are wrong and right. Initially it was rasied to allow a requirement of 65 in non-rural areas, in '96 the federal speedlimit was eliminated completely. This is the reason states like montana have no speed limit.

<<First, any citizen or state has the right to challenge a law they consider unconstitutional>>

No they don't. The supreme court has ruled many times (and even recently in the case of the line item veto) that you must be directly affected by the law to sue, and to sue the federal government you MUST have their permission.

<<. If the Fed's don't want to give the money to them then they need to lower the taxes for the citizens of that state. There are also other laws that this law is breaking, which will be challenged in court.>>

Congress has the CONSTITUTIONALY assigned right to spend FEDERAL tax dollars however they see fit. If they WISH to disburse funds to the states they can assign ANY condition to that money that they see fit as long as the condition relates to the monies. ie assigning a condition on child healthcare to a highway spending bill would be sueable, but assigning LEGITIMATE transporation conditions to federal monies is PERFECTLY legal.

<<People pay taxes to have roads paved.>>

No you pay taxes to pay taxes. Congress decides to pave roads with that tax money. You don't get to choose what your tax dollars are spent on, deal with it.

<<So if the fed says all states now need to make the legal drinking age 35, otherwise you lose all federal funding -- that's ok?? Nope, that's simply a way around the constitutional limits on the authority of the federal gov.>>

No, that would be perfectly legal. The law isn't about being fair. Congress can assign any related condition to federal monies they want, the states don't have to take the money. Plain and simple, if you don't like what congress is doing, call your congressman. It's not like these aren't people YOU elected.

<<Maybe the taxes you(your state) pays wouldn't cover the cost of fixing these roads? Some of the poorer states get back more than their citizens pay out. I'm sure that the taxes paid per Capita by those living in CA. is much higher than those paid out in most other states. Should we get a preference over the other states because we paid out more? Of should some of our taxes go to help fix the roads in your state.>>

CA, NY and TX are the states that get less than their citizens pay in (off the top of my head). Every indivdual pays the same tax (.17cents a gallon). Small rural states often benefit the most (and those with senators on the transportation committee), for example, Utah draws about what they pay in, but Montana (senator is head of the transportation committee) draws ~150% of what they pay in, Wyoming also draws more. If you are really interested there is a website out there that lists the dollar amounts and percentage of what was paid (but I don't know the link offhand).

 

[Slap]

Red Dawn,

Then why are people not held accountable for driving while fatigued? They know they shouldn't be driving. THey kill more people than drinkers do. What is the difference? If you haven't had sleep for two days you shouldn't drive, but people do it all the time and fall asleep at then wheel, swerve over into oncoming traffic, and kill someone. Anyway, I have no problem with the law. Hopefully I will never know anyone that is killed by a drunk driver or that was convicted of manslaughter for killing someone while driving drunk.

 

[slipperyslope]

Wanna know what F*CK MADD. They are a BUNCH of dumbasses.

I go to Clemson University and we are LUCKY enough to have something called CAT(Clemson Area Transit). They also run a service called NightCat. One of the great services that NightCat offers is that a bus will come downtown(or pretty much anywhere) pick you up and take your drunk ass home FOR FREE. There is no telling how many lives this has saved. College kids can go downtown and drink without ever worrying about driving.

Guess what? The smart people with MADD think it is terrible. They say it promotes binge drinking. I thought the purpose of Mothers Against Drunk Driving was to get drunk drivers off the road. I lost total respect for MADD when they spoke out against it. Anyways....Budweiser actually just gave like $30,000 to help sponsor NightCat.

Oh yeah I had nothing to really say about the new law except that I think it should be left to the states and not the federal government.

Jim

 

[jjm]

As I recall, there are studies showing that by the time someone actually gets caught for a DUI, he/she has a long history of abusing alcohol. Therefore, some hefty penalties for a first-time offense seem to make sense.

 

[StageLeft]

Slap

Because fatigue, as I said earlier, is virtually impossible to prove. How many people are tired after an accident? None, so its impossible to prove that somebody fell asleep at the wheel.

jjm in most cases that may be true, but not in all...its certainly not statistically true that all people caught for it have done it more than just that time.

 

[jjm]

Then for those who do not regularly drink, the .08 limit might really serve as a deterrent because it frightens them. And for those who drink regardless of the level, it doesn't matter where the limit is set. They will keep drinking until they are caught enough times to get jailed. Hmm, that .08 sounds more and more like a good plan to me!

 

[AudioBitch]

.08 will allow a man weighing 170 pounds to drink 3 drinks on an empty stomach and still be under the limit

this shouldn't be too bad

 

[Slap]

Red Dawn,

Maybe my views are wrong. As far as you being held accountable for shooting your gun and accidently killing a neighbor, you should be charged with neglect maybe but not manslaughter. You had no intent, you just neglected to consider it might hit and kill someone.

 

[Double Trouble]

rahvin, <<The supreme court has ruled many times (and even recently in the case of the line item veto) that you must be directly affected by the law to sue, and to sue the federal government you MUST have their permission. >>

Nope, you do not need &quot;permission&quot;, you have to have legal standing. That's not the same thing. A state can always sue, but a federal judge would determine if the state had legal standing or not. The state could then appeal the ruling etc etc etc. I understand what you're saying though...

Further, Congress can spend funds as they see fit, but they do NOT have 'carte blanche'. An extreme example: If congress said they would withold federal funding from a project if women were hired for the project, they could NOT get away with it because that is prima facie illegal. If congress attaches certain strings to spending to force states to comply with it's wishes, the court could easily construe that as congress stepping over it's constitutional boundries and thus invalidate the mandate/law etc. I'm not saying that's gonna happen in this case, but it certainly is not as open-and-shut as you make it seem.

<<Within an hour? If that's correct than somebody with a .08 BAC can definitely be impaired enough where they shouldn't be driving>>

The BAC level and being impaired are not always the same thing. Each person handles alcohol differently, including how fast it's absorbed into the blood stream and how quickly the liver can break it down. A hard core alcoholic can probably down 10 beers in 2 hours and have a relatively low BAC level, whereas a 'lightweight' can have 1 or 2 drinks in an hour and be over the .08 limit. Even so, some people can be .13 and not have lost any motor skills, while others can be dangerous on the road with a .06 BAC level. The BAC level measure is an iffy approximation of driving impairedness at best.

 

[rahvin]

<<I'm not saying that's gonna happen in this case, but it certainly is not as open-and-shut as you make it seem.>>

In this case, yes it is cut and dry. This is a transportation related issue that is absolutely no different than a federal speedlimit. They can attach any transportation safety related issue to federal transportation dollars that they wish and the courts won't do a thing about it. Federal dollars built the interstate transportation system and continue to this day to pay for 20% of all construction costs in roadway and 80% in transit. The feds also continue to fund about 20-50% of state maintenance programs and define all minimum standards to be met where federal monies are used.