Feds Want to Lower Legal Driving Limit to One Drink

[oldpink]

Speaking for myself only, I will state that I don't get behind the wheel after even one drink, but this latest bad idea of a proposal is the product of Carry Nation reincarnated and now in a position of power to impose her extremist beliefs.
Can Prohibition II be far behind?
I think not.

 

[JTScribe]

Finally a reason to hire rhino as my driver.

I'll make him wear the little cap too.

 

[BugI02]

Don't forget the gloves View attachment 44328

 

[hopper68]

Just make it 0 and let's stop playing games. If you've even stepped in some beer that got spilled on the floor or get a whiff of alcohol in the car, lock 'em up! (They're probably suffering from second hand intoxication any way).

After a few years at .05 it will be lowered again and the cycle will continue until we have ZERO TOLERENCE, its for the children after all.

But the real question is how will driving under the influence of marijuana be controlled/enforced with more states legalizing some use?

 

[Principal Skinr]

...and so when an officer asks a driver how much he or she had to drink, they will now say "1 beer," instead of "just a couple of beers..."

I'm no fan of people who drink and drive, but this is getting ridiculous.

 

[BugI02]

Worse yet, you have had dinner - either at home or at a restaurant - and have had a glass of wine or a beer. You have been asleep a short while when you are called in to work. If we're at .05 are you sure you can safely go? And if not can you explain it satisfactorily to your boss?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Here's a question: if we remove the BAC limit, how would you punish those who have alcohol-related accidents? IT's the same issue of a level being different for each. Use a standard dexterity test?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Here's a question: if we remove the BAC limit, how would you punish those who have alcohol-related accidents? IT's the same issue of a level being different for each. Use a standard dexterity test?

How about a standard 'damage done' test, as in punishing actual harm done. We don't test people for driving while stupid. We don't charge gun owners for manslaughter because they *could* kill someone. Why is there a need to deal with pre-crime in the first place?

 

[hoosierdoc]

How about a standard 'damage done' test, as in punishing actual harm done. We don't test people for driving while stupid. We don't charge gun owners for manslaughter because they *could* kill someone. Why is there a need to deal with pre-crime in the first place?

well, how do you prove it was alcohol involved?

 

[Principal Skinr]

How about a standard 'damage done' test, as in punishing actual harm done. We don't test people for driving while stupid. We don't charge gun owners for manslaughter because they *could* kill someone. Why is there a need to deal with pre-crime in the first place?

You kind of lost me there...I'd rather not wait until my wife and kids get T-boned and killed by someone clearly too intoxicated to be driving. I like the idea of a standard test. I don't want to see some guy swerving all over the road and have to wait until he kills someone before anyone can do anything about it. I just think the 1 drink proposal is stupid in many different ways.

 

[IndyDave1776]

well, how do you prove it was alcohol involved?

You kind of lost me there...I'd rather not wait until my wife and kids get T-boned and killed by someone clearly too intoxicated to be driving. I like the idea of a standard test. I don't want to see some guy swerving all over the road and have to wait until he kills someone before anyone can do anything about it. I just think the 1 drink proposal is stupid in many different ways.

Let me ask you both this: If something bad happens, is the problem that it happened or why it happened. I might also add that this brings in a problem with mandatory sentencing--the elimination of consideration of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

If a guy is swerving all over the road, he is driving recklessly regardless of WHY he is doing it. We already have a law against that.

It is important to remember that if there is going to be a law, it must be compatible with issues of principle which cannot be arbitrary. Once that door is opened, you will have a perpetual fight over how much is enough but not too much.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Well... diabetic comas, seizures, snake in your lap, wife assaulting you.... lots of reasons for the vehicle you are driving to swerve all over the place.

 

[Cygnus]

Have they also advocated banning eating and drinking (anything), smoking, putting on make up, listening to music, multi-tasking" , or whatever? Because ALL of those would save at least one life. Possibly even a child's. As would lowering the speed limit to a "reasonable" 60.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well... diabetic comas, seizures, snake in your lap, wife assaulting you.... lots of reasons for the vehicle you are driving to swerve all over the place.

Things which you do not control are generally not considered recklessness on your part.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Things which you do not control are generally not considered recklessness on your part.

so there IS a test on why you were driving reckless. That's the problem, once you start excusing certain causes of it you need to have some sort of defined rule. That's where the BAC comes in. If you have two beers and swerve and overcorrect when a rabbit runs out, is it the beer's fault or the rabbit? If it's the beer then you want to lock them up, if it's the rabbit then they're free.

 

[IndyDave1776]

so there IS a test on why you were driving reckless.

That's not a test, it is the definition of reckless as opposed to not reckless.

 

[BugI02]

Have they also advocated banning eating and drinking (anything), smoking, putting on make up, listening to music, multi-tasking" , or whatever? Because ALL of those would save at least one life. Possibly even a child's. As would lowering the speed limit to a "reasonable" 60.

Oh Please! I hope you're not going there! All other factors being equal, the energy that needs to be dissipated at impact is linear with mass (increases 1:1) and increases as the square of velocity. So if your vehicle weighs twice what mine does (typical full size pickup or mommytank) my speed would have to increase by more than 40% (SQRT of 2 is 1.414) to equal the potential for damage of your 'oversize' vehicle. I would have to be going 99mph to equal the potential for damage of your 'oversize' vehicle going 70mph. The argument could be made that we could 'save more children' by restricting the choices of vehicle available to you than by lowering the speed limit.

 

[hoosierdoc]

That's not a test, it is the definition of reckless as opposed to not reckless.

I would rather not be judged by something so arbitrary

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would rather not be judged by something so arbitrary

Nothing arbitrary about it. You are allotted so much room on the road. There are clear paint lines, at least when the state people have been doing their jobs. You don't have to second-guess a person's mental or physical state, good or bad intentions, violations of politically correct thoughts and deeds. Either you did nor did not stay within your allotted space. Either you did nor did not hit another person, place, or thing with your vehicle. There are already laws government both issues. So far as I am concerned, if you succeed at driving safely, regardless of your personal state, we do not have a problem. If you hit someone or something, I don't have a problem with it being considered an aggravating circumstance that you were drunk, stoned, or jerking on Johnson. That said, none of those things need their own special class of malum prohibitum since any negative consequence is already covered in the offense(s) of harming others which are malum in se.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I guess we'll agree to disagree on the specifics.