Post: #1

I knew that there'd be a push to lower state blood-alcohol levels, since it had already been reduced from .1 percent to .08. But I didn't expect how big of a drop it would be.

The federal National Transportation Safety Board has now recommended to the states that they reduce the legal limit down to *0.05* percent:

"WASHINGTON — Thousands of people are killed or injured every year by drivers who have not reached the legal standard for being drunk but who have a reduced ability to see, make decisions or operate a vehicle, the National Transportation Safety Board said on Tuesday, and it recommended that the states reduce the allowable blood-alcohol concentration by more than a third, to 0.05 percent from 0.08 percent.

The current standard was established a decade ago at the instigation of Congress, and progress has stalled, the board said, with about 10,000 fatalities a year.

“There are at least 10,000 reasons to tackle this issue,” said Deborah A.P. Hersman, the chairwoman of the board. Foreign countries with stricter standards have had substantially more success, according to the board."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/leg...rd.html?hp

Of course, this decision has no direct authority, but we can safely assume that states will eventually reduce the legal limit, possibly to this breathtaking standard.

If the legal limit is dropped to 0.05 you pretty much put your license and livelihood at risk every single time you have say three Yuengling's at your local sports bar or have a couple of Captain and coke's at your best friend's party.

I think the trajectory is clear. More and more people in America are going to need to move to urban areas where they can walk or take public transport to bars and restaurants.

The logic of the policy is incontestable. It will undoubtedly lower fatalities, which is a very good thing. But it will also devastate the restaurant industry in already weak economy. And it underlines how obsessively safety conscious America has become.

Post: #2

"The logic of the policy is incontestable. It will undoubtedly lower fatalities, which is a very good thing. "

Not really. 70% of fatalities occur at BAC over 1.0. Dropping to .08 didn't change much...so of course, dropping to .05 will change even less!

Of course, it will prevent SOME fatalities, by definition. But the cost/benefit analysis would not justify the change. Likewise, we could end ALL alcohol-related deaths by following Saudi Arabia and banning alcohol! Good idea? Not really.

Let's go a step further...there are something like 50,000 auto-related deaths a year...we could prevent every single one of them by banning cars. Horses are more personable, anyway.

Post: #3

Drunk driving laws are a great example of feminine thinking exerting a destructive influence on society. Arresting someone for driving under the influence is essentially arresting them for "pre-crime". You can be operating a motor vehicle with perfect coordination and safety, but be arrested because of an arbitrary measurement of your blood chemistry. There are already laws against reckless driving. If someone is drunk and driving erratically, they can be pulled over and charged for that. If someone is drunk and perfectly capable of driving, why should they be charged with a crime?

It is facile to make the argument that a person is more likely to cause an accident with a BAC over .08 and should therefore be proactively arrested for the public safety. That's like saying that we should proactively arrest all black men because they are disproportionately represented in crime statistics, or that we should revoke the driving privileges of all senior citizens because they are more likely to cause accidents, or that we should arrest gun owners because they are more likely to shoot someone. Simply having an increased likelihood of committing a crime does not make a person guilty of the crime.

Driving with an elevated BAC should not be a crime as long as you aren't reckless, anymore than walking around in public drunk isn't a crime unless you are visibly intoxicated and causing problems. And the fact of the matter is that millions of people drive while intoxicated every day, and the vast majority of them do not cause accidents. According to MADD's own statistics, the average person arrested for drunk driving drives under the influence 80 times before they get caught. And since "getting caught" usually means simply getting pulled over and not causing a deadly accident, in most cases its clear that people can drive safely while intoxicated. After all, if that wasn't the case, there's no way they could have done it successfully 80 times before.

The problem is that there is a minority of stupid people who are shitty, careless drivers. They are terrible drivers when sober, and they are terrible drivers when drunk. These are the idiots who weave in and out of traffic at high speed regardless of their level of intoxication. In the United Nanny States of America, the vast majority of responsible people will be made to suffer to "protect" the country against the minority of idiots. These drunken driving laws also are a great boon to law enforcement budgets and lawyers, and for the government in general in relaxing citizen attitudes toward government encroachment into their personal rights.

Post: #4

^^^ Couldn't agree more. You didn't mention roadblocks, but same principle applies. Essentially screening for "pre-crimes".

At a minimum, I would be OK with just more relaxed BAC standards. Even the current .08 is ridiculously low. Can't even enjoy a few glasses of wine at dinner or beers with a friend without being nervous. Lowering to .05 isn't really going to make a difference, all it's really doing is just expanding the scope of offenders for higher "DUI" revenues.

Post: #5

Looks like they need a better source of revenue. DUI fines are an easy low hanging fruit issue to help pad the pockets of police departments.

I wonder what would happen if a law came out the appropriated all fines and government seizures and stipulated that the money be applied towards schools and other places.

You'd see a lot less of this crap happening.

Post: #6

I'd rather not have people driving around drunk..

They could put breathalizers in car ignition systems.

It's a boon for cab services.

One of the great things about NYC is you can just get a cab or train when you are drunk.

Post: #7

Although I did not need another reason for why I left the US hearing about this is just further validation for my decision.

How can anyone say with a straight face the US is the "Land of the Free" with laws like this?

Post: #8

I'm reading this as I'm sitting in my flat in Barcelona, meeting a couple girls I met in 15 minutes at a wine bar. The other day, I got a beer at 6am. I couldn't sleep and I needed something to put me down. It's 24/7 here, there's technically no such thing as last call, at least I haven't seen it.

I also don't see anyone being carded. I see some very young looking kids out at night.

The cops seem pretty ineffective here. I see plenty of them but everytime I pass one they're basically texting and picking their nose. I'm aware of the extremely high level of petty theft here. I haven't seen any, nor has anyone made an attempt on me. Then again, I'm 6'3" and 200 lb, compared to most tourists getting jacked that waddle in here from one of the flyover states, or some fatties from the U.K. Shit, if I was a local I'd be jacking them too.

Anyway my point is, every society is different. In my few days in Barcelona, I can say this place is hardly ideal. But it's a hell of a lot more "free" than the U.S. I can say the same thing about Italy and Mexico too, and god knows those countries have their set of problems. You want a BMW and big apartment or house? Stay in the U.S. You want real freedom? The freedom to drink whenever you want, stay out as late as you want, scope topless chicks on beaches, drink on the beach, eat better quality food, live in a less toxic environment? Get out of the U.S. It's only going to get worse.

I'm at the point where I'd rather deal with the issues facing the E.U. or elsewhere in the world, but have more freedom, than live my cushy life, with my 1500 sq.ft. apartment and paid-off car in the U.S. It might take me 6 months or 6 years to make the move, but it's on the horizon.

Edit: I also see what I saw in Italy; there's alcohol EVERYWHERE. Not only are there tons of bars, but even cafes have hard liquor. We're talking local places where old folks go for their cafe con leche y pastel. Every single place has a shelf with a varied selection of brandies, vermouth, sherry, pastis, etc. You would never and will never ever see this in the U.S. I would argue that alcohol, on the median, is also cheaper here because it's everywhere. Endless supply but fixed demand. My cousin was telling me it's common for blue collar guys to take a shot of brandy in their coffee in the morning, and/or a beer. You can say what you want about productivity or the long term repercussions of having laborers that maintain a constant buzz, but hey, that's real freedom right there. At the same time, since drinking is such a normal part of their everyday life, I would also argue that there's less binge drinking. It would seem that only in puritanical and restrictive societies do you see people needing to "cut loose" and drink their weight in alcohol to kill the demons and fly off the deep end. But again, this is all conjecture on my part.

Post: #9

MADD is a neo-prohibitionist ideology. But since it's "for the children", it'll pass.

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

Post: #10

(05-14-2013 01:10 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  The current standard was established a decade ago at the instigation of Congress, and progress has stalled, the board said, with about 10,000 fatalities a year.

"Alcohol-related" fatalities include those where a sober driver hits a drunk pedestrian. It happens a lot more often than you'd think.

Post: #11

I find it very surprising that the big breweries don't have lobbyists to combat this. .05 is absurd if we have to have DUI laws.

Great post by scorpion. It really is absurd and who actually benefits from people getting ticketed for DUI's? Only the government budget.

Post: #12

i dont think it matters much. unless youre a 30 pound 5 year old, .08 should have almost no effect on your driving at all. .05 seems like it be hard to even screen for at random checkpoints..05 ans .00 is indistinguishable. pulled over at .05 shouldnt matter, you can pass a sobriety test easily. everyone i know who got duis were drunk as fuck, not .08 people at checkpoints

Post: #13

(05-14-2013 03:29 PM)soup Wrote:  I'd rather not have people driving around drunk..

They could put breathalizers in car ignition systems.

It's a boon for cab services.

One of the great things about NYC is you can just get a cab or train when you are drunk.

Most Americans don't live in a human beehive with thousand of cabs on the street 24 hours a day.

According to a chart I saw, a 125lb woman who has 2 drinks in 2 hours will get a DUI

Fucking ridiculous-more traffic stops, more checkpoints, more fines, more court costs more people in the criminal system, more people on probation-it's all about control

Post: #14

(05-14-2013 09:12 PM)Hyperion Wrote:  I find it very surprising that the big breweries don't have lobbyists to combat this. .05 is absurd if we have to have DUI laws.

Great post by scorpion. It really is absurd and who actually benefits from people getting ticketed for DUI's? Only the government budget.

I don't think Alcohol Distributors want to become the new "evil tobacco corporations" and stand against legislation that protects "the childre", oh and "innocent women". Otherwise they could risk a new era of prohibition, or "alcohol free" areas.

Post: #15

(05-14-2013 02:42 PM)frenchie Wrote:  Looks like they need a better source of revenue. DUI fines are an easy low hanging fruit issue to help pad the pockets of police departments.

I wonder what would happen if a law came out the appropriated all fines and government seizures and stipulated that the money be applied towards schools and other places.

You'd see a lot less of this crap happening.

Co-sign on this my friend. It's a hidden tax. In a broke state like California and ESPECIALLY in Southern California where everywhere worth going to has to be accessed by car this is going to be a cash cow for municipal governments.

Post: #16

This is just one of those laws where they parade it around as being "good for the children" or it will "save lives", but all it's really there for is to nab tickets from people who've had any more than 3 drinks. I heard from a lot of older guys that the bar scene is not nearly as good since the internet came about. Too many people just sit at home, watch TV, and wait to die.

All the more reason to move to a bigger city.

Post: #17

How does it cost if you get dui? (I passed field sobriety test a month ago)
couple grands for fine? couple grands for lawyer? (why do you need lawyer?)
increased insurance rate?

they say it's 10k on billboard sign. I am not sure how they came up with that number though...

Post: #18

3K for me. I am in South Texas though. They account for lost of wages, classes, counselings so I can see how a state like California can get to 10K.

Post: #19

(05-14-2013 10:47 PM)Sebastian Wrote:  How does it cost if you get dui? (I passed field sobriety test a month ago)
couple grands for fine? couple grands for lawyer? (why do you need lawyer?)
increased insurance rate?

they say it's 10k on billboard sign. I am not sure how they came up with that number though...

Cost me just about 10 grand, but then I got a high-priced (overpriced) lawyer. It was worth it in my case because I was 0.11 and anything over 0.1 in my state means a suspension of 7 months to a year instead of only 3 months.

Post: #20

I have a couple of friends and acquaintances who went through the DUI process here in South Florida (Broward County). It's a life-changing experience - and not in a good way - that can easily run into the thousands of dollars of actual cash for lawyers, fines, "counseling", all sorts of shit.

Drinking and driving is a ruinous proposition.

Post: #21

(05-14-2013 02:42 PM)frenchie Wrote:  Looks like they need a better source of revenue. DUI fines are an easy low hanging fruit issue to help pad the pockets of police departments.

Exactly. Low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking. And it's not like there's going to be some organization that fights on behalf of drunk drivers. Nobody will be defending them so it's open season. It's the same with smokers. They can keep raising taxes on cigarettes and fining them for smoking in the wrong places because it's not like there's the equivalent of an NRA for smoking. They have no political clout. It's so stigmatized that the government can reliably punish this group of people and use them as a cash cow. And I say this as someone who detests smoking.

Post: #22

(05-14-2013 02:28 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  ^^^ Couldn't agree more. You didn't mention roadblocks, but same principle applies. Essentially screening for "pre-crimes".

Minority Report was one of my first thoughts too.

Pre-crime.

Thoughtcrime.

Hate facts.

I'm somewhat averse to the tin foil hat mode of thinking, but it does seem like the distinction between fiction and the country we live in is becoming evermore blurrier.

Post: #23

Quote:HOUSTON (KTRK) -- No refusal is something you hear about during various holidays and three-day weekends. Well now, the policy to catch drunk drivers is in effect year round in Harris County. But the newly expanded program has raised some concerns even from those on the same side.

For almost 10 years, no-refusal weekends have been introduced at news conferences, fronted by victims or law enforcement ahead of a holiday.

Now even a random Wednesday night is a no-refusal night.

According to the Harris County District Attorney's Office, they are expanding their no-refusal program to year round. That means if a suspected drunk driver refuses a Breathalyzer test, the officer will get a search warrant from a judge for a blood draw.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?sectio...id=9176628

Post: #24

(05-14-2013 02:16 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Drunk driving laws are a great example of feminine thinking exerting a destructive influence on society. Arresting someone for driving under the influence is essentially arresting them for "pre-crime". You can be operating a motor vehicle with perfect coordination and safety, but be arrested because of an arbitrary measurement of your blood chemistry. There are already laws against reckless driving. If someone is drunk and driving erratically, they can be pulled over and charged for that. If someone is drunk and perfectly capable of driving, why should they be charged with a crime?

It is facile to make the argument that a person is more likely to cause an accident with a BAC over .08 and should therefore be proactively arrested for the public safety. That's like saying that we should proactively arrest all black men because they are disproportionately represented in crime statistics, or that we should revoke the driving privileges of all senior citizens because they are more likely to cause accidents, or that we should arrest gun owners because they are more likely to shoot someone. Simply having an increased likelihood of committing a crime does not make a person guilty of the crime.

Driving with an elevated BAC should not be a crime as long as you aren't reckless, anymore than walking around in public drunk isn't a crime unless you are visibly intoxicated and causing problems. And the fact of the matter is that millions of people drive while intoxicated every day, and the vast majority of them do not cause accidents. According to MADD's own statistics, the average person arrested for drunk driving drives under the influence 80 times before they get caught. And since "getting caught" usually means simply getting pulled over and not causing a deadly accident, in most cases its clear that people can drive safely while intoxicated. After all, if that wasn't the case, there's no way they could have done it successfully 80 times before.

The problem is that there is a minority of stupid people who are shitty, careless drivers. They are terrible drivers when sober, and they are terrible drivers when drunk. These are the idiots who weave in and out of traffic at high speed regardless of their level of intoxication. In the United Nanny States of America, the vast majority of responsible people will be made to suffer to "protect" the country against the minority of idiots. These drunken driving laws also are a great boon to law enforcement budgets and lawyers, and for the government in general in relaxing citizen attitudes toward government encroachment into their personal rights.

Would you concede that a commercial pilot flying an airplane under the influence is reckless due to elevated public safety considerations?

Edit: Didn't notice the thread date, but still think question is valid.

Post: #25

(07-21-2013 01:19 AM)houston Wrote:  

Quote:HOUSTON (KTRK) -- No refusal is something you hear about during various holidays and three-day weekends. Well now, the policy to catch drunk drivers is in effect year round in Harris County. But the newly expanded program has raised some concerns even from those on the same side.

For almost 10 years, no-refusal weekends have been introduced at news conferences, fronted by victims or law enforcement ahead of a holiday.

Now even a random Wednesday night is a no-refusal night.

According to the Harris County District Attorney's Office, they are expanding their no-refusal program to year round. That means if a suspected drunk driver refuses a Breathalyzer test, the officer will get a search warrant from a judge for a blood draw.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?sectio...id=9176628

That's some of the ironies about Texas, it's pro-freedom for businesses but for people...we're almost in New York. Can't opt out of the minute of "prayer", rights are infringed. The only good thing are 1 - jobs 2 - no property taxes. Soon everything will be a crime, "conspiracy to X"