Legal Drinking-Driving Limit LOWERED to 0.05.

reply to post by KewlDaddyFatty


I think I'm around $10k into this thing right now, and while I agree that's a lot for someone to spend to keep their license, I do believe the punishment should be severe. I wasn't even close to stumbly drunk (I really didn't even think about it, went to bed drunk felt sober when I got up to go get allergy meds) but I ended up overreacting and totaling my car (hit the pole juuuust right @30 mph poor girl had fewer than 3k miles). If that pole had been a kid, well I shudder to think.

People claim they are fine to drive after having a few beers, but in reality it does impair you and when you're behind the wheel split seconds count. I don't know the magic BAC number that should be the norm, but there has to be a cutoff at some point. .05 seems awfully low to me, and perhaps it is designed to be a moneymaker but driving is a privilege not a right. Follow the rules or get in deep poo. If you feel you have to drive, realize you certainly don't have to drink beforehand.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Lowing it to 0.000000 wouldnt stop a drunk from driving drunk.

It just casts a wider net so they can arrest more people for taking cough syrup and inflate the importance of the police.

Just like the pointless "texting" laws that were stacked on top of at least a dozen other distracted driving laws.

People need to stop using lines like "x many more lives saved" because the offense and accident rates always remain the same. What people whould start saying is "x number of people arrested" and "$x generated".

I used to volunteer for MADD as a call center agent for them (taking donations). I had one unfortunate caller that had lost her brother because of a drunk driver. I can't convey the level of despair I heard in her voice. As for texting while driving, well, I've almost been hit a number of times by people who would rather pay attention to their phones then the road. What would happen if someone you loved was killed or maimed by someone who was careless enough to drink and drive and/or text while driving?

reply to post by Domo1


I am not in disagreement with you at all. I lost a brother to intoxicated driving.

I was mainly commenting on how lowering the legal limit is just another means to generate revenue instead of "helping" the people.

The legal system is a game designed to be played. Play it. You may keep your license. It's not about justice...never has been.

Originally posted by RedShirt73]

I used to volunteer for MADD as a call center agent for them (taking donations). I had one unfortunate caller that had lost her brother because of a drunk driver. I can't convey the level of despair I heard in her voice. As for texting while driving, well, I've almost been hit a number of times by people who would rather pay attention to their phones then the road. What would happen if someone you loved was killed or maimed by someone who was careless enough to drink and drive and/or text while driving?

Well, I'd probably be pretty bummed.

If you take a step back you'd notice your emotionally charged rant in no way tackles the ineffectiveness of the laws in question.

Would I be bummed if some moron texting and driving killed a loved one? YES

Will a law banning texting and driving prevent some moron from texting and driving and killing a loved one? NO

Back away from the emotion and look at the reality of what's going on.

Cops have a million and one reasons they can use to pull over somebody driving poorly or recklessly if safety is your concern.

The absolute best case scenario for these laws is that after a loved one has been harmed the state can put an extra charge on the impaired or distracted driver. Does a few extra years in jail bring my loved one back? NO

reply to post by KewlDaddyFatty
You are quite correct in that public defenders are in cahoots with the prosecutors. Several years back the hubby got in a little trouble (not alcohol related) and asked for a public defender. He insisted my hubby accept 90 days jail time, a $1500 fine and a years probation. We fired that guy and I went to the DA's office on behalf of the hubby and negotiated down to a $500 fine, no jail time and no probation. Public defenders are a joke!

reply to post by KewlDaddyFatty


I'm really sorry to hear that. I'm still not 100% on my opinion of the new regulations. Part of me thinks good idea part of me thinks bad but I certainly agree it will be making money.

reply to post by littled16


The whole system is a joke!! It doesn't matter if it's a DUI, domestic abuse, stalking, harrassment or prostitution!!! It honestly just doesn't matter anymore. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTICE!

These DA's, ADA's & Public Defenders are put in place to generate revenue for your wonderful state or beautiful city by bullying YOU into THEIR game.

It's about preying on the weak and those who are in no position nor have the means to fight back. The whole F'N system is designed to keep you down and out!

That's why new laws get passed even when there are adequate laws in place to efficently enforce such crimes. TO MAKE F'N MONEY!!!!

Think about it. If I got a DUI or an Abuse charge and had to spend a day or two in jail I sure as hell would THINK twice about getting behind the wheel again while intoxicated or beating someone up again. Is this punishment enough??? For most normal and rational people it is but it's a cash cow, the lawmakes know this...and because of your moment of weakness or stupidity you get vicimized judically and financially for a petty crime which most normal people have already learned from through jail time.

It's pure crap.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Wish we had some statistics on blood alcohol levels of drivers at fault in fatal accidents. I would bet almost all are well above 0.10, and probably most are above 0.20.

I agree that such a limit would just add primarily to the pockets of the judicial system.

My 2 cents worth after working in ERs for many years.

You can thank special interests groups for things like this..........

This does nothing but add revenue to the areas which they implement such horrid penalties for DUI....

And in many cases you are treated as guilty until proven innocent.....

I recently wen through the same thing here in Texas.......I was arrested for DUI (I was not drinking) ....passed the field sobriety test, THEN instead of letting me blow, he didnt offer me the option, and instead took me into forcibly take my blood.......

In order just to BOND OUT of jail that evening, I had to submit that I would provide urine analasis tests every other week and once my license was reinstated, put a breathing machine in my car.........THIS IS JUST FOR BOND, not even a CONVICTION.......

All of this came out ofmy own pocket weekly and monthly......

It took them over a YEAR to get to my case........a YEAR I had to put up with this on my car and every other week testing......

Only to have them throw out the case.....


There needs to be some SERIOUS revamping of the system, this DUI thing has turned inot nothing more then special interest pandering and revenue stream........

I can understand it for people who are clearly all over the road, or have had an accident and have been drinking....

but this random targeting of people, and the treatment is unlawful IMHO......

Most people with DUI get worse sentences in many cases then people who are selling drugs, or commit acts of theft on a regular basis......

Its a sham.....

reply to post by Domo1


I'm so jaded nowadays. I don't see any good coming out of new laws when laws are already in place to enforce such crimes.

Here in Oklahoma, we have a distracted driving law. Well, it just so happened that they weren't able to make enough money off that lil particular law so our lawmakers decided to try and pass a no texting while driving law. It's more specific and easier to prove in court...therefore easier to generate revenue.

Luckily, Oklahoma is the reddest state in the Union and Republicans don't usually want to pass new laws UNLESS it's beneficial to them in some form. So our new no texting while driving law hasn't passed yet. It makes total sense to me because we already have a distracted driving law and I see it as another good thing because it may actually make the DA's and ADA's work just a little bit harder to actually think about prosecuting in the name of Justice instead of the name of the Economy.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

Here's a link to a list of BAC's by province.

I'm surprised that Manitoba's isn't 0.20 -- when I used to live up there, I was amazed by how much those guys drank. I mean, the prairies are depressing in the winter, but they drank like they didn't want to live.

And they drive bad enough when sober, lol. Manitoba Driver

Eventually every traffic stop by the police is going to result in an arrest. From lower blood alcohol limits to unknown warrants for things you didn't ever realize would land you in the slammer.

Look, I am in no way for drunk driving. I used to drink. Alot. I am now a reformed alcoholic, if you will. I never drove anywhere while I was DRUNK. If I had a few beers, and knew I was ok, I would drive. Never got a DUI or suspended license. Lowering the limit is gonna target nice couples out to celebrate an anniversary. They have a glass or two of wine, now the drivers gonna go to jail if they get pulled over.

I personally think the solution is a case by case evaluation by the officer who pulls over a suspected drunk. There are quite a few ways of determining if some one is drunk when the cops pull them over. I am a very small dude. Like borderline little person small. I could drink alot, because I was an alcoholic and had a high tolerance. I'm sure a few beers would exceed the limit for me even though a few beers would have been nothing to me, not even buzzing yet.

Again, I am as anti drunk driving as they come. The thought of losing someone to drunk driving sickens me. Therre are alot of irresponsible drunks out there, and lowering the legal limit isn't gonna stop them from driving. Not one bit.

There is a fine line between too drunk to operate a motor vehicle and being legally too drunk to operate a motor vehicle, and I think the police should be smart enough to make that judgement call.

Originally posted by KewlDaddyFatty
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
BUT the real kicker here...in most states, you cannot even talk to the judge yourself. You have to have representation. It's purely a money maker.

edit on 14-5-2013 by KewlDaddyFatty because: (no reason given)

Why would you say such a thing. There is no state in the country in which you cannot represent yourself. In 1975, the Supreme Court, in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), held that the Sixth Amendment to the constitution guaranteed the right of self representation. The only exception is if the person is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Have you contemplated suing the pants off of this department? That sounds so outrageous, I cant even fathom.

Originally posted by wondermost
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Have you contemplated suing the pants off of this department? That sounds so outrageous, I cant even fathom.

It is outrageous, and i have thought about it.........

I did find out from the people there who were actually caught drinking and driving , that this particular county doesnt even have Taxi cabs, they have had 4 companies come in and try to establish one, every time the city has turned them down for their license.......

Corrupt is corrupt.........and they were NONE to happy when I decided to get a lawyer that was not from the area....

People shouldn't drink and drive, duh.

But there has to come a time when people admit to themselves that no amount of law is ever going to prevent crimes. Laws are designed to punish violators *after* they commit the crime.

That's all laws do. They punish and hopefully make people think twice.

However, when "Law" enforcement starts stopping innocent people to catch violators of the law, we begin down a slippery slope. When people, innocent people accept and submit to the "Law" enforcers "inspections" at random, then the "Law" has stepped outside its scope of punishment and crossed over into enslavement to the Law.

reply to post by CALGARIAN

The National Transportation Safety Board today recommended that all 50 states lower the benchmark for determining when a driver is legally drunk from 0.08 blood-alcohol content to 0.05.

This sounds like a way the states can make a little more money. The prices (fines) have been steadily rising, now they’re moving the bar. What a racket!

You're going to have to be a millionaire to afford a DWI soon. It's funny to me that they go after DWI's but they don't want to touch illegal immigration or all the illegals who drive uninsured and put our lives at risk.

Funny thing, say you are driving over the limit, and someone hits YOU, meaning you are NOT at fault at ALL. You still get a DUI, the crash you were involved with goes into the stat books as a crash resulting from a DUI.

There are many other things like this, basically the point is, the figures they show for how many people drunk driving kills is BULL. The true figure SHOULD be, how many people died BECAUSE this person had a few drinks. Not how many people died WHILE this person had a few drinks. There is a very big difference there.

DUI laws are totally ridiculous, we already have laws for reckless driving. If someone is obviously driving crazy, pull them over, and get them for reckless driving. If you can't tell they have had a few drinks by their driving, then here's a thought, maybe they can drive just fine and you should leave them the hell alone?

A bunch of fatties stuffing their faces with Mcdonalds food while driving around acting superior to someone who would have a few drinks and then drive.

The whole drunk driving crusade is complete and utter BS just like every other crusade the government and busybodies have been involved in.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


No kidding brother! What general area in Texas are you in, because I myself reside in Texas and would like to stay as far away from that place as I can!

The next step is to just post an officer inside the liquor store and make everyone trying to buy booze take a breathalyzer right there at the checkout. You could just load em up on the patty wagon by the dozens and make a killing!

Its pretty sick and twisted that we are slowly being turned to fear the police. You should never fear the police. They are supposed to be here to help us, not hurt us. Unless of course you are a criminal. Then again, we are all criminals nowadays in some form or another.......

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Here's some advice:
Drink tonight - drive tomorrow.

Bad advice (no offence meant)...you are just as likely to be over the limit the next day, especially in the morning.

I have known people to fail the breathalyser test the next day, even after having only maybe say 5-6 pints the night before. Not sure if sleeping slows down your bodies ability to break down the alcohol, but it is still there with a vengeance.

Originally posted by woogleuk
I have known people to fail the breathalyser test the next day, even after having only maybe say 5-6 pints the night before. Not sure if sleeping slows down your bodies ability to break down the alcohol, but it is still there with a vengeance.

I was assuming adults. Not teens or alcoholics.