I guess with the mad rush by other states to lower their blood alcohol limits for DUI to 0.08 the mormons felt it was time to one up everyone and make sure we have the lowest legal limit in the country. Well according to the local press it's got a qualification, the limit only applies if you have a prior conviction for DUI and you have kids in the car. The consitutional validity of the measure is questionable, but can't you think of the children?
Utah lowers legal blood alcohol content to 0.05.
- Thread starter rahvin
- Start date
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,229
- 2,776
- 126
Many states consider you driving while impaired if your blood alcohol level is over .05. Been that way here in Colorado for a long time......
almost the same consequences as DUI.....
almost the same consequences as DUI.....
Wow, put a Listerine mouth thing in and your legally drunk, a Felon and going to Jail, the uNanny States keep rolling on.
The lowering of the legal limit will stop when the Goodly Christians realize they are over the legal limit following Communion.
Zephyr
Zephyr
That is a fairly ignorant comment. Since a large percentage of fatal accidents involve alcohol, these types of measures are motivated by the desire to save lives, not some religious ideology. If you want to be technical, most research points to .05 as the level at which impairment begins.....
Why would some one how has been convicted of a DUI more or less dangures then someone who hasn't been convicted driving with the same BAL?
I do not know where you find my comment to be ignorant. I was merely stating that us goodly Christians will push for safter roadways until the legal limit is just enough that we can drive home from Church following Communion.
Zephyr
They've established .08 as the threshold of impairment. How would the research change that much in less than a decade? I smell BS
You must have stepped in something then. Check your shoes....
link
"To maintain currency on the research in various areas of impaired driving problem, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) periodically conducts reviews of the research literature. This new review examined 112 studies conducted from 1981 to 1998 on driving related behaviors under low BACs focusing on two general questions:
1. What was the lowest BAC at which impairment reliably occurred?
2. What was the threshold of impairment for each of twelve separate behavioral areas?
The authors found that at BACs of .05, 34 percent of the studies reported impairment, and at BACs of .08, 94 percent of the studies reported impairment."
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Those breath strip things don't contain alcohol, but I think I see the point...
:beer:
Yes, they have a ZERO Tolerance here, that if they smell alcohol they take you in, impound your car and you have to submit to the test while in Jail or you are automatically stamped as guilty.
Thank You Sir May I Have Another
So, uhh, what happened to the concept of personal responsibility for the results of our actions, regardless of our state of mind- drunk, stoned, sober or whatever?
Let's create a hypothetical set of scenarios, call it Jane and Joan.
Jane stops at the local pub and drinks two margaritas in 90 minutes with her coworkers. She heads for home, screws up, turns left in front of an oncoming vehicle, creates an accident in which several people are seriously injured. Because her blood alcohol level is over the limit, she goes to jail, loses her license, maybe her job, depending, attends drunk classes, performs public service work, pays a lawyer and a hefty fine and her insurance rates go through the roof.
On the other side of the city, Joan is heading for a school function, trying to control the squabbling kids in the backseat, talk on the cellphone, listen to the weather report and apply eyeliner in the rearview mirror when she creates the same scenario, an accident with serious injuries. She pays a few hundred dollars in fines, if that, collects a few points on her license, and her insurance rates go up slightly.
Same results, different consequences. Why? because Jane had been drinking, Joan had not. Neither one is a victim, other than possibly Jane having been victimized by the system.
I'm not prepared to defend people who drive while seriously impaired, not at all. OTOH, it makes no sense to criminalize common activity to the degree done with drinking and driving. Scientists can measure levels of impairment so low as to be imperceptible to the drinker, which may or may not have any effect in normal driving scenarios. It's gone so far as to criminalize people who've merely started their cars to stay warm, or simply put the key in the ignition- it's considered intent...
But the whole system is designed to produce the desired illusions- people think they're safer because of the tougher laws, when they're not. People think they can still drink and drive, when the slightest buzz is actually illegal. Enforcement is utterly capricious and cynical- while one guy is getting busted on a dirt road north and east of Limon, Co., the Denver Police are flagging thousands of so-called drunks onto the road from the Broncos' parking lot....
When the law lacks respect for the people, then the people will lack respect for the law.
Not that my POV will change anything in the slightest, given that the American public is willing to embrace hypocrisy on an immense scale. And, uhh, I don't even want to get started on the rampant hypocrisy in the beliefs and folkways of our neighboring state to the west...
Let's create a hypothetical set of scenarios, call it Jane and Joan.
Jane stops at the local pub and drinks two margaritas in 90 minutes with her coworkers. She heads for home, screws up, turns left in front of an oncoming vehicle, creates an accident in which several people are seriously injured. Because her blood alcohol level is over the limit, she goes to jail, loses her license, maybe her job, depending, attends drunk classes, performs public service work, pays a lawyer and a hefty fine and her insurance rates go through the roof.
On the other side of the city, Joan is heading for a school function, trying to control the squabbling kids in the backseat, talk on the cellphone, listen to the weather report and apply eyeliner in the rearview mirror when she creates the same scenario, an accident with serious injuries. She pays a few hundred dollars in fines, if that, collects a few points on her license, and her insurance rates go up slightly.
Same results, different consequences. Why? because Jane had been drinking, Joan had not. Neither one is a victim, other than possibly Jane having been victimized by the system.
I'm not prepared to defend people who drive while seriously impaired, not at all. OTOH, it makes no sense to criminalize common activity to the degree done with drinking and driving. Scientists can measure levels of impairment so low as to be imperceptible to the drinker, which may or may not have any effect in normal driving scenarios. It's gone so far as to criminalize people who've merely started their cars to stay warm, or simply put the key in the ignition- it's considered intent...
But the whole system is designed to produce the desired illusions- people think they're safer because of the tougher laws, when they're not. People think they can still drink and drive, when the slightest buzz is actually illegal. Enforcement is utterly capricious and cynical- while one guy is getting busted on a dirt road north and east of Limon, Co., the Denver Police are flagging thousands of so-called drunks onto the road from the Broncos' parking lot....
When the law lacks respect for the people, then the people will lack respect for the law.
Not that my POV will change anything in the slightest, given that the American public is willing to embrace hypocrisy on an immense scale. And, uhh, I don't even want to get started on the rampant hypocrisy in the beliefs and folkways of our neighboring state to the west...
For the person asking what it would take to reach .05, it varies base on a persons weight and what they may havre ingested prior to drinking, but as a rule, 2 beers or 2 glasses of wine will get you there in an hour. If you are going to drink, please don't drive. Call a cab, or wait till you are sober enough t odrive. If you are going t omake an evening of drinking and having fun, wouldn't it be more fun not worrying about a drive home by arranging a designated driver or a cab?
I am for .04 nation wide. Responsible drinkers do not mind strict laws, only iresponsable wankers.
I am for .04 nation wide. Responsible drinkers do not mind strict laws, only iresponsable wankers.
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Are there any cases of police mistaking alcohol-free breath mints for beer, impounding somebody's car, and automatically "stamping" them as guilty?
Or is this more speculation........?
:beer:
Absolutely, all the time here in the Nanny State of Georgia. They use a Alcohol sensor mounted in the edge of flashlights that they stick into your face, when it beeps they take you in. They even advertise on TV and Radio that we are a ZERO tolerance State. I'm surprised the Bars & Restaurants are not complaining about this more, maybe because they don't want to look like they are Pro drink and drive or they are intimidated enough to not rock the boat.
MADD was hardly a christian organization. This reminds me of a story
One day i was driving down the road with my family. We were headed to the waterfront to take a walk, the kids love it down there.
Cruising along and this guy comes flying around me at like 70 and cuts me off. I almost go off an embankment, swerve back onto the raod .I yell and honk, he flips me off and all I see is him pulling away and a darwin fish on his trunk lid.
I come pulling up to the next light and he's right in front of me so I jump out and charge his car. He tries to roll up the window, I reached in and grabbed his shirt and punched him in the face like 3 times. So im walkin away and this guy is crying ( literally), trying to stop the blood coming out of his mouth and nose and the whole time saying 'oh god, oh god".
I look back on that and think, who knows, maybe I saved his soul
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
Why base it on an BAC when everyone varies. I know people that can drive like a pro when they have had way more than 2 beers...and people like my mom who get crazy drunk off a single glass of wine.
I knew someone who passed field sobriety tests given to him by 2 different officers and still had to submit to a breath test. He passed the field tests including reciting the alphabet backwards, various math questions and even walked the line. He failed the breath test and lost his license for a year. He had been out and about for a couple of hours but was driving because his buddy was too drunk to drive. Someone noticed the state of intoxication of his friend and did his civic duty and called the 5.0's. They followed him the entire 30 minute trip home, into his apartment complex and waited until he parked before they blue lighted him.
They alleged he crossed left of center (He had to because his apartment complex was on the lefthand side of the street.
Bottom line is he lost his license for a year, lost the respect of some of his friends and family, will forever be stigmatized and the victim of discrimination on places that use criminal background checks... all because someone did their civic duty and called the police because a drunk was in the passenger seat.
I knew someone who passed field sobriety tests given to him by 2 different officers and still had to submit to a breath test. He passed the field tests including reciting the alphabet backwards, various math questions and even walked the line. He failed the breath test and lost his license for a year. He had been out and about for a couple of hours but was driving because his buddy was too drunk to drive. Someone noticed the state of intoxication of his friend and did his civic duty and called the 5.0's. They followed him the entire 30 minute trip home, into his apartment complex and waited until he parked before they blue lighted him.
They alleged he crossed left of center (He had to because his apartment complex was on the lefthand side of the street.
Bottom line is he lost his license for a year, lost the respect of some of his friends and family, will forever be stigmatized and the victim of discrimination on places that use criminal background checks... all because someone did their civic duty and called the police because a drunk was in the passenger seat.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter