More big brother....Now one beer and its off to the pokey.
Really?
[Bang]
Printable View
More big brother....Now one beer and its off to the pokey.
Really?
[Bang]
so happy we are looking to AU for all of our lawsQuote:
When Australia dropped its BAC level from .08 to .05, provinces reported a 5-18 percent drop in traffic fatalities.
Some people produce close to this level on nothing more than eating rice... Rare, but happens
One beer is .2 to .3.
I have no problem at all with this. You are not responsible, go to jail. Drink 2 cases for all I care, just don't strap into a 2 ton car and go tooling about because you don't care about anything else.
Not even close to gun control or 99% of the other crap they push down our throats.
We already have that as our limit here in Colorado.
.05-.079 BrAC - Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI)
.08 - above BrAC - Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
For those under 21:
.02 - .049 "Baby DUI" - Class A traffic Infraction; second or subsequent violation is a Class 2 Misdemeanor
I think .08 is too low as it is, and like Cofi said, why do we need so much inspiration from AUS? How about instead of following or striving to be like everyone else, we be a little independent for a change?
People are sometimes effected by low BAC due to body weight, metabolic rate, genetics, or an empty stomach . . . but few people would be significantly impaired an hour after drinking a single beer or glass of wine. A single dose of a cough syrup like NyQuil could put you over the lowered limit, as could driving with a hangover. I think the NTSB should focus on texting drivers instead . . . they are a far worse problem . . . or how about stripping schizophrenics of driver licenses . . . perfectly legal for psychotics and even the mentally retarded to have a driver license once they manage to pass the written test on their 10th attempt and the driving test on their 5th try. And what about octogenarians who are now either legally blind or suffering from dementia? Those people are real hazards. Going after someone who had a beer with dinner or had some NyQuil under "zero tolerance" at random checkpoints is bullshit . . . if they were involved in an accident, that's a different story.
I have no problem with this I might be for it. As I see it driving is a privilege not a right like firearms. I know there was a supreme court case saying driving is a right under the bill of human rights. I dont agree with that ruling as there are plenty of other ways to travel with out driving especially when you had one too many...
It boils down to generating more revenue.
ok...bigger argument then..Quote:
Originally Posted by Aperta
is societies accepted form of transportation reasonably expected while you are in search of happiness? I think so... couple that with penalties that are clearly outrageous and over the top, and we have a problem. I dont think it's fair to punish people for something that might happen... DUI check points dont even make you swerve to catch the eye of a cop. they literally engage you for zero reason, and slam you for something that might happen. as in you might have a wreck later tonight, which might result in an injury.. it, like everything else, is just revenue generation.
one beer an hour will already put you over the limit. average cost of a dui is roughly $10k.. every single person that leaves a bar on any given night is over the limit. if they are concerned about safety, put a cop right there everyday. they arent. they post a car on heavy traffic nights or something once in awhile, and they basically get their pick of whoever is leaving that night...
I did a bit a of research and found a BAC calculator (http://dui.drivinglaws.org/calc.php) did and average man 180 pounds half an hour had 2 beers and the BAC was .0466 Under .05 BAC close but still under. so the arguement of having one beer and being over the limit is untrue i even did another calculation if you were 100 pounds and downed a beer in 6 mins your BAC would be .0433. Unless you have a source to prove that your argument is true. with your line of thinking to not punish a person because something might happen then we might as well legalize all drugs for recreational use because its unfair to punish a person for something that might happen. I might be a bit bias because of past experiences but that's my view on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad4000
Not really related but funny none the less:
Recently a routine police patrol parked outside a local bar. Late in the evening the officer noticed a man leaving the bar so intoxicated he could barely walk. The man stumbled around the parking lot for a few minutes with the officer quietly observing. After what seemed an eternity and trying his keys on five different vehicles, the man managed to find his own car and fell into it. He was there for a few minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off.
Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on (it was a dry night), flicked the hazard flasher on and off, tooted the horn and then switched on the lights. He moved the vehicle forward a few inches, reversed a little and then remained stationary for a few more minutes as more patrons left in their vehicles. At last he pulled out the parking lot and started to drive down the street, the police officer, having patiently waited all that time, now started up his patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulling the man over and carried his breathalyzer test with him ... To his amazement the breathalyzer indicated no evidence of the man having consumed alcohol at all! Dumfounded, the officer said, "I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the police station, this breathalyzer must be broken. "I doubt it," said the man, "Tonight I'm the Designated Decoy."
That calculator should not be used as a legal adviser. It doesn't take in different genetics, metabolic rate, diet for the day, if they have eaten recently... several factors. So go ahead and rely on that calculator, and when you get popped for being over the limit and lose your license for year, we'll be here to say "Told ya so." [Coffee]Quote:
Originally Posted by Aperta
Yep. Wrote a few people for DWAI because I could smell the odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage on their breath during a traffic stop and they failed SFST. Sometimes the initial contact wasn't even for something I would have related to having alcohol in the blood stream, just poor driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by DavieD55
We only dropped the limit from .1 to .08 to get federal transportation funding that was being threatened by M.A.D.D.
Dont need any note laws. We have enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
I don't drink. [Coffee]
ITYM Stealing People's Property Under the Color of law for Pre-Crime savez the children ! Its all good, its is exactly the same argument the gun grabbers make. ie) While you may have not harmed a soul or did any property damage, we shall restrict gun or magazine xyz, becasue hey its for the children. Somehow that is OK with pre-crime laws like DUI but not for guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavieD55
Uh-huh
Attachment 27825Quote:
Originally Posted by Aperta
Eh.. googled it and came up with that.. You can def see situations where one or two drinks would put people over. have a drink and leave in 30 minutes? yeah maybe..
um,, basically we have to draw a line somewhere. remember our rights should extend up until they infringe some one elses. now in extremes like hard drugs, we have to make judgement calls. is that the same as dropping the BAC requirement for harsh penalties down to the point where if you sniff alcohol you go to jail??? I dont believe so.. (and yes, you are sensing some exaggerations there). Everybody has past experiences on these subjects, and it's perfectly fine to weight your opinions with those.
Say you have 2 beers, and get stopped at a check point... lose your liscense for a year.. a year... insurance rates sky rocket (if it's even possible to get insured anymore), your job is at risk if not gone already, you pay thousands of dollars etc.
Say that happens again 3 years later,, automatic jail time.... (somebody correct me if need be)
a total of 4 beers could do this to you... I know how that sounds.. but it's correct
Put on more weight, it will help your BAC increase slower.
Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner here. All there seeing is more money they dont give a shit about people getting killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavieD55
These roadsides are BS and only serve to prop up the statements and reasoning of the officer. DUI reports read like the accused is falling down drunk and failing every single test, no matter their performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by CroiDhubh
PS. this lowering of the limit from .08 to .05 will supposedly lower the DUI death toll by 500/year or 5%. Given the inflation of guesstimates, we would be lucky to successfully prove causality of even 1/2 that amount in reality. But let's ignore the heavy abusing repeat offenders and put laws on the books to catch everyone and anyone. If the DUI limit is set to .05, will the DWAI be lowered to .02 ?
If you read the CNN version of the article the NTSB guys show their hand they are after a .01 BAC ..
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/nts...html?hpt=hp_t1Quote:
The NTSB said even very low levels of alcohol impair drivers.At 0.01 BAC, drivers in simulators demonstrate attention problems and lane deviations. At 0.02, they exhibit drowsiness, and at 0.04, vigilance problems.
I wonder where they are finding these people and giving them a .01 and causing them to drive poorly.
Well, the US needs to do something to protect its people. I propose that all alcohol over 40 proof (arbitrarily chosen) be banned from further sale. This would include all "hard alcohol" because as the name implies, it is scary and too much for the average person to handle. Furthermore, beer sales should be limited to no more than a 6-pack, as any more than that would clearly lead to binge drinking and in turn, death. All alcohol sales at bars and restaurants should be banned starting now, because as we are told by nanny, err gov. people cannot be trusted to any decisions. I propose this not as a restriction and punishment on those without issue, but as a protection for the good of the people. Then the gov should start the process to take away all cars.
Hence why I refuse to do a roadside (I can't do that shit sober, so no need to dig my own grave and put on my best Sunday suit), and I opt for a blood test rather than breathalyzer- exercising my rights, and I want plenty to go to court with in my corner- But then again, I don't drive drunk. [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnhack
Where does the NTSB get the authority to even exist?
I lost all my booze in a tragic boating accident...
I believe in Ireland you get hanged for that... [LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by Stvros
It's already .05
It's not even about money. It's about control. Command and control, conditioned response. Just like Pavlovs dogs or Skinners rats.
Cradle to grave, the govt will take care of you. All you have to do is give up your freedom and personal responsibility.
Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2
So this will be applied to bicycles as well I assume. I would much rather someone have a couple beers and pedal home rather than drive.
Where does the CMP get the authority to exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
Btw, saying "he'll, I can't do that sober" in response to a test implies/admits that you are currently drunk.
I think you could make a logical argument for the CMP with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. Although it would make more sense if you could have an M4 shipped to your door.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a national organization dedicated to training and educating U. S. citizens in responsible uses of firearms and airguns through gun safety training, marksmanship training and competitions. The CMP is a federally chartered 501 (c) (3) corporation that places its highest priority on serving youth through gun safety and marksmanship activities that encourage personal growth and build life skills. Links on this page will lead you to more detailed information about the CMP and its programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
STATUTORY MISSION: The federal law enacted in 1996 (Title 36 U. S. Code, 0701-40733) that created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, Inc. (CPRPFS, the formal legal name of the CMP) mandates these key “functions for the corporation:
What training do you have in DUI enforcement? How many DUI arrests have you made?Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnhack
So a law, just like the NTSB. The Air Commerce Act of 1926 created the predecessor to the NTSB, the Civil Aeronautics Board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Hey...you asked, I answered.
I think my answer was better. [Coffee]Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Unfortunately, the penalties of DUI's have become a business in themselves. All that garbage starts after, and is not related to, the arrest though.