Feds Want to Lower Legal Driving Limit to One Drink

[IndyDave1776]

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

 

[z96Cobra]

I see a few folks mentioning "pre-crime" and not doing anything until an offense or crash happens. Where does that leave us?

Joe is driving down the road. Officer Bob is following Joe. Joe's car suddenly swerves and crosses the yellow line. Officer Bob pulls Joe over to see what's wrong with Bob. Bob says "a bee just flew in my window & hit me in the head". "It startled me and caused me to swerve". Officer Bob sees a red welt on Joe's head and decides he's telling the truth and sends Joe on his way. Joe probably won't be crossing the yellow line any more.

Dave is driving down the road. Officer Bob is following Dave. Dave's car suddenly swerves and crosses the yellow line. Officer Bob pulls Dave over to see what's wrong with Dave. Dave says "I'm just tired". Officer Bob notices that Dave's eyes are bloodshot and he can smell alcohol on Dave's breath.

If there's no "pre-crime" policing allowed, what should Officer Bob do about Dave? Is his most severe option a left-of-center ticket and then send him on his way until he commits another infraction?

I'm not a drinker, so I'd have no problem with a 0.0% BAC law for drivers, but I know many people wouldn't go for that at all. I feel the same away about mixing guns and alcohol, no alcohol when the guns are out. We'll never find a way to keep everyone happy.

 

[steveh_131]

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.

I think this is exactly right. Your actions and intent leading up to the harm that you caused can play a role in sentencing or in monetary judgments. I think these sorts of arbitrary judgments can and should be left to the juries to decide.

Dave is driving down the road. Officer Bob is following Dave. Dave's car suddenly swerves and crosses the yellow line. Officer Bob pulls Dave over to see what's wrong with Dave. Dave says "I'm just tired". Officer Bob notices that Dave's eyes are bloodshot and he can smell alcohol on Dave's breath.

If there's no "pre-crime" policing allowed, what should Officer Bob do about Dave? Is his most severe option a left-of-center ticket and then send him on his way until he commits another infraction?

I'm not a drinker, so I'd have no problem with a 0.0% BAC law for drivers, but I know many people wouldn't go for that at all. I feel the same away about mixing guns and alcohol, no alcohol when the guns are out. We'll never find a way to keep everyone happy.

This is exactly the ridiculous mentality that has eroded our liberties for decades. I don't participate in the activity so I think it should be banned.

Should we only protect the liberties of people who do and say the same things that I do and say? Is that what America is about?

 

[jkaetz]

I see a few folks mentioning "pre-crime" and not doing anything until an offense or crash happens. Where does that leave us?

"pre-crime" as has been discussed is just another form of nannying. "Don't do that you might hurt yourself." Though it is usually justified by "Don't do that you might hurt someone else." Combine the fear of someone getting hurt by someone else doing something deemed dangerous with the belief that a law forbidding the dangerous activity will somehow magically prevent the dangerous activity from happening and you get supporters for all sorts of bans that seem reasonable on the surface but ultimately don't have any impact on the people doing the dangerous activity.

Dave is driving down the road. Officer Bob is following Dave. Dave's car suddenly swerves and crosses the yellow line. Officer Bob pulls Dave over to see what's wrong with Dave. Dave says "I'm just tired". Officer Bob notices that Dave's eyes are bloodshot and he can smell alcohol on Dave's breath.

If there's no "pre-crime" policing allowed, what should Officer Bob do about Dave? Is his most severe option a left-of-center ticket and then send him on his way until he commits another infraction?

Bob would have to ask some more questions of Dave. Where is he going? How far is he from his destination? Is he close to an area where he can rest? Does Dave just need to run a couple laps around his car before continuing or does he need to find a place to get some rest. Since Dave has not crashed into anything there is no need to throw the book at him. He was and likely is still determined to get to his destination. Bob can then determine whether Dave needs to take a rest, call a friend, call a tow truck, or some other action that will get Dave to his destination safely and or the rest he needs.

I'm not a drinker, so I'd have no problem with a 0.0% BAC law for drivers, but I know many people wouldn't go for that at all. I feel the same away about mixing guns and alcohol, no alcohol when the guns are out. We'll never find a way to keep everyone happy.

And you would be correct about not agreeing. Your stance is rather selfish but used frequently and could be rephrased as such, "I don't do XXXX so I don't care if others are banned from doing XXXX.". I prefer not to have anyone's freedom's restricted until they have done harm to someone else. After that though I'm on board with an appropriate penalty. Even that will be an argument though as the penalty should fit the crime. Sadly I don't believe we can detour people from dangerous activities and prevent injuries from happening in advance even with the harshest of penalties. The only thing we can do is penalize those people after the fact. In the mean time we punish those who haven't actually injured anyone but have crossed an arbitrary limit on an activity that is highly subjective.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not a drinker, so I'd have no problem with a 0.0% BAC law for drivers, but I know many people wouldn't go for that at all. I feel the same away about mixing guns and alcohol, no alcohol when the guns are out. We'll never find a way to keep everyone happy.

Let's see...

1. I'm a Fudd, so ban all the 'assault weapons' you want to.

2. Better yet...I don't own guns, so ban them all!

3. I am not a criminal, so eliminate the need for search warrants.

4. I don't smoke, so tax the living sh*t out of tobacco, but don't even think about doing that to anything I use.

Just for the record, I do not drink, but I sure as hell don't want to live in the world you're trying to sell!

 

[IndyDave1776]

"pre-crime" as has been discussed is just another form of nannying. "Don't do that you might hurt yourself." Though it is usually justified by "Don't do that you might hurt someone else." Combine the fear of someone getting hurt by someone else doing something deemed dangerous with the belief that a law forbidding the dangerous activity will somehow magically prevent the dangerous activity from happening and you get supporters for all sorts of bans that seem reasonable on the surface but ultimately don't have any impact on the people doing the dangerous activity.
Bob would have to ask some more questions of Dave. Where is he going? How far is he from his destination? Is he close to an area where he can rest? Does Dave just need to run a couple laps around his car before continuing or does he need to find a place to get some rest. Since Dave has not crashed into anything there is no need to throw the book at him. He was and likely is still determined to get to his destination. Bob can then determine whether Dave needs to take a rest, call a friend, call a tow truck, or some other action that will get Dave to his destination safely and or the rest he needs.
And you would be correct about not agreeing. Your stance is rather selfish but used frequently and could be rephrased as such, "I don't do XXXX so I don't care if others are banned from doing XXXX.". I prefer not to have anyone's freedom's restricted until they have done harm to someone else. After that though I'm on board with an appropriate penalty. Even that will be an argument though as the penalty should fit the crime. Sadly I don't believe we can detour people from dangerous activities and prevent injuries from happening in advance even with the harshest of penalties. The only thing we can do is penalize those people after the fact. In the mean time we punish those who haven't actually injured anyone but have crossed an arbitrary limit on an activity that is highly subjective.

I have run crosswise of the rep nazi for the time being, but this definitely deserves rep!

 

[z96Cobra]

I think this is exactly right. Your actions and intent leading up to the harm that you caused can play a role in sentencing or in monetary judgments. I think these sorts of arbitrary judgments can and should be left to the juries to decide.



This is exactly the ridiculous mentality that has eroded our liberties for decades. I don't participate in the activity so I think it should be banned.

Should we only protect the liberties of people who do and say the same things that I do and say? Is that what America is about?

"pre-crime" as has been discussed is just another form of nannying. "Don't do that you might hurt yourself." Though it is usually justified by "Don't do that you might hurt someone else." Combine the fear of someone getting hurt by someone else doing something deemed dangerous with the belief that a law forbidding the dangerous activity will somehow magically prevent the dangerous activity from happening and you get supporters for all sorts of bans that seem reasonable on the surface but ultimately don't have any impact on the people doing the dangerous activity.
Bob would have to ask some more questions of Dave. Where is he going? How far is he from his destination? Is he close to an area where he can rest? Does Dave just need to run a couple laps around his car before continuing or does he need to find a place to get some rest. Since Dave has not crashed into anything there is no need to throw the book at him. He was and likely is still determined to get to his destination. Bob can then determine whether Dave needs to take a rest, call a friend, call a tow truck, or some other action that will get Dave to his destination safely and or the rest he needs.
And you would be correct about not agreeing. Your stance is rather selfish but used frequently and could be rephrased as such, "I don't do XXXX so I don't care if others are banned from doing XXXX.". I prefer not to have anyone's freedom's restricted until they have done harm to someone else. After that though I'm on board with an appropriate penalty. Even that will be an argument though as the penalty should fit the crime. Sadly I don't believe we can detour people from dangerous activities and prevent injuries from happening in advance even with the harshest of penalties. The only thing we can do is penalize those people after the fact. In the mean time we punish those who haven't actually injured anyone but have crossed an arbitrary limit on an activity that is highly subjective.

I knew my last comment would ruffle some feathers, which is why I posted it. It's the polar opposite of those that seem to be saying "as long as I don't crash into someone/something, I should be able to drink and drive as much as I want". How do you determine what is safe and what is impaired? Should it be OK for Mr. Drunk to drive, while trashed, as long as he makes it home without crashing?

 

[KLB]

I knew my last comment would ruffle some feathers, which is why I posted it. It's the polar opposite of those that seem to be saying "as long as I don't crash into someone/something, I should be able to drink and drive as much as I want". How do you determine what is safe and what is impaired? Should it be OK for Mr. Drunk to drive, while trashed, as long as he makes it home without crashing?

Yep. Just as if your drunk in your example was actually just tired.

There are a lot of accidents in this country caused by tired drivers. Do you think we need a law against that too?

 

[seedubs1]

And.....There's your problem with the current metric. As you've seen FIRST HAND, .08 BAC is not the same thing for everyone.

I've got friends that I'd feel 100% safe with them driving at double the limit (although it'd technically be illegal for them). They are not impaired at all.

I've also got a wife that is black out drunk, stumbling, and falling on the floor at .04 BAC (tested with breathalyzer).

The arbitrary standard is just there to **** people over and take their money when they are above the "limit." It's not about getting impaired drivers off of the road, it's about the .gov stealing money from people for victimless crimes. It's already illegal to break traffic laws and run people over. Enforce that, not pre-crime.

Here's how I see it... if I'm going to be driving home, I drink less but I don't want to be anywhere near the limit. My career is not worth an extra drink or two.

That being said I do own a nice breathalyzer and I am shocked at how affected I am by 0.06. Previously I thought 0.08 was too low based on what I have seen in the ER (functional alcoholics) but since buying a breathalyzer and seeing what a 0.04, 0.06 and 0.08 actually FEEL like, I support lowering the level.

 

[seedubs1]

This. We over-penalize people for pre-crime. There's no need to take $10,000 from someone, incarcerate them, potentially have them lose their job, and take away their drivers license for a year for a victimless "crime."

We'd be better off having the officer realize the person is drunk and not capable of properly operating their car, but has committed no crime, and calling them a cab. Should the person have not driven and been responsible in the first place? Sure. But if they didn't break any actual laws or hurt anyone, why throw the book at them? The answer - follow the money.

Bob would have to ask some more questions of Dave. Where is he going? How far is he from his destination? Is he close to an area where he can rest? Does Dave just need to run a couple laps around his car before continuing or does he need to find a place to get some rest. Since Dave has not crashed into anything there is no need to throw the book at him. He was and likely is still determined to get to his destination. Bob can then determine whether Dave needs to take a rest, call a friend, call a tow truck, or some other action that will get Dave to his destination safely and or the rest he needs.

 

[VUPDblue]

One "drink" (standardized drinks are one ounce of 80proof liquor, one 12oz beer, one 4oz glass of wine) will not get a person to .08, or even .05. The body metabolizes alcohol at a rate of basically .015% per hour (this varies between men and women and body weight). One drink in an hour, will be metabolized almost within that hour and the BAC will likely be .01 or lower. When drank with food, the rate of absorbtion is slower so the BAC will linger, but not be high. For those of you who think .08 is too low, well, you're entitled to that opinion, but I can assure you that there is a significant portion of the population that can barely stand up at .08.

 

[IndyDave1776]

One "drink" (standardized drinks are one ounce of 80proof liquor, one 12oz beer, one 4oz glass of wine) will not get a person to .08, or even .05. The body metabolizes alcohol at a rate of basically .015% per hour (this varies between men and women and body weight). One drink in an hour, will be metabolized almost within that hour and the BAC will likely be .01 or lower. When drank with food, the rate of absorbtion is slower so the BAC will linger, but not be high. For those of you who think .08 is too low, well, you're entitled to that opinion, but I can assure you that there is a significant portion of the population that can barely stand up at .08.

Exactly the problem. This degenerates into an 'I can't walk and chew gum at the same time, therefore it should be illegal for anyone to walk and chew gum at the same time' argument. Even as a non-drinker, I find much cause for concern with punishing a pre-crime as a malum prohibitum.

 

[seedubs1]

This. Just because one person can't handle something should not restrict person #2.

Exactly the problem. This degenerates into an 'I can't walk and chew gum at the same time, therefore it should be illegal for anyone to walk and chew gum at the same time' argument. Even as a non-drinker, I find much cause for concern with punishing a pre-crime as a malum prohibitum.

 

[chipbennett]

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?

Is an alcohol-related accident somehow worse than a non-alcohol-related accident?

You punish the negligence that resulted in a crash, and led to injury - alcohol-related or otherwise.

 

[chipbennett]

Dave is driving down the road. Officer Bob is following Dave. Dave's car suddenly swerves and crosses the yellow line. Officer Bob pulls Dave over to see what's wrong with Dave. Dave says "I'm just tired". Officer Bob notices that Dave's eyes are bloodshot and he can smell alcohol on Dave's breath.

If Dave is driving, while knowingly impaired - wither through tiredness or inebriation - and Dave drives recklessly as a result of that impairment, then deal with the reckless driving, and hold Dave accountable for any damage or injury he causes by driving recklessly while knowingly impaired.

As for "pre-crime": I'm curious (I'll have to look it up) to know whether DWI enforcement efforts have actually resulted in fewer incidents, or are simply for show (or revenue generation). In a free society, some people will choose to act criminally and/or stupidly, and those people will cause harm for other people. There is no way to eliminate such behaviors (or their adverse results) without restricting the liberties and rights of the responsible and law-abiding.

 

[blacknwhite]

man, this is getting deep. I can see both sides of the fence and a common ground is a slippery slope. Although I have seen impaired individuals blow a 0.04% on the datamaster.

 

[IndyDave1776]

man, this is getting deep. I can see both sides of the fence and a common ground is a slippery slope. Although I have seen impaired individuals blow a 0.04% on the datamaster.

It would be a lot simpler to set the standard at whether or not they are doing something actively dangerous regardless of alcohol consumption or the complete lack thereof.

 

[Expat]

An old buddy of mine would drive better after 3-4 drinks at lunch. His hands were shaking too bad before that to drive well.

Maybe we could try prohibition of all alcohol. I am sure there would be no bad consequences.

 

[UglyAmerican]

For those of you talking about how someone who could blow a 0.08 or a 0.05 or whatever should get their lives ruined, may I present, for your edification, auto-brewery syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome

It shouldn't matter the method by which your driving is impaired - or even whether your driving is impaired. If your driving is actually reckless, then and only then should you get pulled over - and the method of impairment shouldn't even matter then, either.