Feds Want To Lower Legal Blood Alcohol Limit for Drivers

[kcchiefs6465]

The point of my anecdotal evidence is that what, 15% of drivers admitted to driving drunk once in the last month? Trust me, if they admitted it, they drove a lot more often than just the once, drunk. Ten thousand some odd deaths a year? There are literally millions of people driving drunk daily. There are probably millions of people who drive drunk almost daily. It is absurd to have checkpoints and task forces and campaigns against it. The best drivers I've known are drunks. They drink daily. And sure enough they have averted accidents that would have been caused by drivers who probably weren't drunk, just couldn't drive for shit. If they had not been so lucky and actually crashed into the person who randomly pulled out, they would have caught the blame.

How many of the 10,000 DUI related deaths yearly are like this? Not the driver who was drinking's fault? They couldn't begin to tell me. The law is absurd. It is meant as a means to stop whoever they want. And somehow, the worthless Supreme Court has set precedents allowing for rights to be stripped in 'the interest of public safety.' You wouldn't even want to think how slippery that really is.

 

[Working Poor]

They just want to make sure their prisons stay full

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not as radically anti-drunk driving laws as some of you. Even though I don't believe the government has any right to own the roads, I still think that while they are usurping control from the people they do have a right to set certain restrictions on the use of same property rather than crushing the victims even more by making no regulations and therefore making the roads unusable. Much like Stephan Kinsella does. I also do not think banning driving while drunk is necessarily an unreasonable limitation, I think certain methods of enforcement (Random stops) are an unreasonable limitation, but just driving drunk? Yeah, I can understand a law against that for the safety of other drivers. Again, I'd rather the free market control the roads and set the rules, but if government is already usurping control, I don't think setting safety rules is any MORE unlibertarian than the fact that the government already, you know, controls the roads.

I also don't know scientifically what limitations would be reasonable and what would not, although obviously any attempt to get alcohol impaired deaths to ZERO is a mindlessly idealistic goal.

All that said, this is still completely, 100% a STATE issue. That the Feds think they have any right to do anything beyond asking nicely (I guess they could do that under the 1st amendment) is ridiculous.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

They just want to make sure their prisons stay full

I know of towns whose sole revenue stems from traffic stops and DUIs. The courts, lawyers, correctional officers, cops, insurance companies etc. make good money.

Phil posted a story of the female cop who won Highway Patrolman of the Year. What did she have Phil, 300 DUIs?

 

[tod evans]

They just want to make sure their prisons stay full

DWI's don't fill "prisons", but they sure as hell fill jails, lawyers/judges and cops coffers...Let alone all of the axillary industries surrounding punishment/treatment...

 

[thoughtomator]

@FreedomFanatic - A .05 BAC threshold is basically two glasses of wine; for a smaller person, one glass would do it. This is effectively making ANY alcohol consumption before driving illegal.

 

[Lucille]

DWI's don't fill "prisons", but they sure as hell fill jails, lawyers/judges and cops coffers...Let alone all of the axillary industries surrounding punishment/treatment...

So it's win-win-win for the regimists then. The neo-Puritans and neo-prohibitionists gain more control, desperate states get more cash, and it benefits the special interests also.

There is no way this won't be made "law."

 

[Christian Liberty]

@FreedomFanatic - A .05 BAC threshold is basically two glasses of wine; for a smaller person, one glass would do it. This is effectively making ANY alcohol consumption before driving illegal.

How long before?

I seriously doubt that someone who has one drink is going to be dangerous, but I know I've also always assumed that you should never drink anything right before driving.

My gut tells me that .08 is reasonable, but the Federal intervention to ensure that that happened everywhere is not. I don't have enough information on it though. Short of privatizing the roads there is really no perfect solution. Just flat out eliminating the drunk driving law would just punish everyone who does NOT drive drunk more with an unnecessarily less safe road system...

 

[supermario21]

Yeah, I know scientifically and the way your BAC calculated isn't much different when you look at 1 or 2 drinks and .05 and .08, it's just that that .08 threshold would be a little bit of a safety barrier when assuming that one beer is somewhere between .04 and .05. My bet is you'll have people sitting in restaurants longer and slowing down economic activity as a result of this! Especially on DUI checkpoint nights, which, in my area, are pretty much on all the main restaurant corridors. That being said, drinking and driving is very dangerous and should preferably be handled by the states.

 

[thoughtomator]

My gut tells me that .08 is reasonable

It is never reasonable to judge someone based on the contents of their bloodstream.

Reasonable is to judge by their behavior. If they are driving recklessly, charge them with reckless driving. Otherwise leave people the hell alone.


(By the way, I almost never drink so I don't have a personal stake in this fight, other than the general opposition to increasing police state tyranny. As a person who strongly prefers cannabis for recreational intoxication, I strongly sympathize with all the people whose lives have been ruined not because of poor behavior on their part but because of some arbitrary and merciless imposition of unjust law.)

 

[kcchiefs6465]

How long before?

I seriously doubt that someone who has one drink is going to be dangerous, but I know I've also always assumed that you should never drink anything right before driving.

My gut tells me that .08 is reasonable, but the Federal intervention to ensure that that happened everywhere is not. I don't have enough information on it though. Short of privatizing the roads there is really no perfect solution. Just flat out eliminating the drunk driving law would just punish everyone who does NOT drive drunk more with an unnecessarily less safe road system...

Generally speaking, one 12oz beer, one five oz. cup of wine, and one one oz. shot of 80 proof liqour increases your BAC .03 for the average sized male. (160-180 pounds or so) Each hour you lose around .03. .08 is ridiculous. Two to four beers depending. (which is really not that much)

ETA: Alcohol affects people differently depending on how frequently you drink. By no means scientific so even if you go by what I just posted, you can still be over the limit. Uncalibrated breathalyzers are a big problem as well. A HWP in Nevada (IIRC) broke a story that his department's breathalyzers had never been calibrated.

 

[phill4paul]

I'm not as radically anti-drunk driving laws as some of you. Even though I don't believe the government has any right to own the roads, I still think that while they are usurping control from the people they do have a right to set certain restrictions on the use of same property rather than crushing the victims even more by making no regulations and therefore making the roads unusable. Much like Stephan Kinsella does. I also do not think banning driving while drunk is necessarily an unreasonable limitation, I think certain methods of enforcement (Random stops) are an unreasonable limitation, but just driving drunk? Yeah, I can understand a law against that for the safety of other drivers. Again, I'd rather the free market control the roads and set the rules, but if government is already usurping control, I don't think setting safety rules is any MORE unlibertarian than the fact that the government already, you know, controls the roads.

Congratulations. You're another one that has led us on the slippery slope towards zero tolerance.

 

[tod evans]

My gut tells me that .08 is reasonable,

This is programming speaking...........Fight it!

 

[Christian Liberty]

I more would need to know what kind of effects how much of a BAC has on your system and how much more dangerous your driving is.

Banning anything that would just be the equivalent of "Fatigued" I would agree is ridiculous because you can't enforce that equally in other circumstances. Anti-reckless driving legislation is sufficient to deal with that (Again, assuming the public road system.)

 

[tod evans]

I more would need to know what kind of effects how much of a BAC has on your system and how much more dangerous your driving is.

Educate yourself, with firsthand knowledge..

Use a friend or family member and some series of mutually agreed on tests..

But for Gods sake do not take the word of those with an agenda!

 

[phill4paul]

I know of towns whose sole revenue stems from traffic stops and DUIs. The courts, lawyers, correctional officers, cops, insurance companies etc. make good money.

Phil posted a story of the female cop who won Highway Patrolman of the Year. What did she have Phil, 300 DUIs?

Yeah over 300. Two within minutes of each other multiple times even though one takes 45 minutes to process. That thread is down the memory hole now but google Peter Lance.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I more would need to know what kind of effects how much of a BAC has on your system and how much more dangerous your driving is.

Banning anything that would just be the equivalent of "Fatigued" I would agree is ridiculous because you can't enforce that equally in other circumstances. Anti-reckless driving legislation is sufficient to deal with that (Again, assuming the public road system.)

Fifteen percent of adult drivers admitted to driving drunk once in the last month. Ten thousand people die annually. There are people that drive drunk regularly. (a few times a week, if not daily) That should tell you how dangerous it is. I am not saying drink a bottle and go out driving, but on that same coin you aren't going to die if you have a few drinks and drive home. After the first few times of 'driving under the influence' you'll get the hang of it. Cruise control was my best friend considering I already have a lead foot and when I'm drinking I start to speed. Nothing ridiculous, but I would get pulled over for the 7-10 over I was doing and arrested.

Ridiculous law is ridiculous. The entire city drinks and drives. When it's as gray and wet as it is, the bars do quite well. People just don't want to think about it.

 

[phill4paul]

So it's win-win-win for the regimists then. The neo-Puritans and neo-prohibitionists gain more control, desperate states get more cash, and it benefits the special interests also.

There is no way this won't be made "law."

None. It was a done deal from the first .15%. Thank those that believe in "reasonable" sentencing.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Phil posted a story of the female cop who won Highway Patrolman of the Year. What did she have Phil, 300 DUIs?

Since my Search-Fu came up limp when you asked me about another cop story, here's to redemption:

Fired Trooper Accused of Faked DUIs

By JOHN SCHRIFFEN | Good Morning America – Thu, Jan 3, 2013

http://news.yahoo.com/former-cop-accused-faking-duis-021947523--abc-news-topstories.html

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against a former Utah Highway Patrol trooper and her superiors alleging that she filed false DUI charges during her career.

The department fired Lisa Steed in November for alleged misconduct related to her duties.

Attorney Michael Studebaker, who is one of the lawyers leading the class-action lawsuit, says he has been contacted by at least 40 people claiming Steed wrongfully arrested them on DUI or drug charges.

"Culture of corruption. The stories are just rampant," said Studebaker, who filed the lawsuit Dec. 14 in District Court in Salt Lake County.

Lawyers have yet to determine exactly how much the plaintiffs will seek in monetary damages.

One of the alleged victims was Michael Choate, who says Steed pulled him over for speeding with his wife in the car.

"She said she clocked me at 73. I was going about 50, 52 at most," Choate said.

Choate was arrested and charged with DUI, but the charge was reduced to having an open container of alcohol in the car after a blood test showed he was not drunk. Choate says he was forced to pay $3,000 in fines to get his car back.

Choate was also upset that his wife was forced to find her own way home after his arrest.

"They dropped her off at a Burger King," he said. "She didn't have any money, she didn't have her cellphone with her. She had to borrow a quarter from a lady to make a phone call."

Steed and her attorney have not responded to requests for comment. Utah Highway Patrol says it cannot comment on pending litigation.

She is under investigation by the FBI.

Studebaker also cites a dashcam video from a 2011 traffic stop that he says shows Steed's pulling over a woman driver. The video shows the driver performing a series of sobriety tests. Studebaker says the unidentified woman passed all the tests with flying colors but was still arrested for DUI.

Charges were later dropped after a blood test found no alcohol in her system, Studebaker says. The driver has since joined the lawsuit against Steed.

Steed was named Utah Highway Patrol's "Trooper of the Year" in 2007 for making more than 200 DUI arrests, a reward that Studebaker says should be taken away from her.

Steed herself has admitted in the past that she did not follow proper protocol while administering a DUI check. At a court hearing in May 2012, Steed admitted that, while she was administering a blood-alcohol test on Theron Alexander March 2010, she removed her microphone in order to perform an unauthorized action.

An attorney representing Alexander told ABC News last year that Steed's actions could call all her cases into question.

"The cumulative facts may well have a significant ripple effect across every case she's touched," Salt Lake City attorney Joseph Jardine said in March. "This could become the basis for overturning multiple convictions in the past."

Steed's attorney, Greg Skordas, has said he does not believe that the incident is any reflection of his client's credibility.

"It doesn't affect her credibility. It affects the way she does things, her ability to follow instructions," Skordas told ABCNews.com in March. "It doesn't mean she's dishonest."

In 2009, dashcam video showed Steed stun-gunning Ryan Jones, a motorist who was later determined to be sober.

The case was settled in November 2011 when the state paid Jones $40,000 without admitting wrongdoing.

When asked about that case, Skordas said, "She took her lumps, she was reprimanded and we move on."



Stopped for alleged DUI, man placed in solitary confinement for 2 years without trial

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-for-2-years-gets-155-million-settlement?lite

By Elizabeth Chuck, Staff Writer, NBC News

A man who spent 22 long months in solitary confinement in a New Mexico jail, neglected to the point where he was forced to pull out his own tooth because he said he wasn't allowed to see a dentist, will receive $15.5 million for the ordeal.

The settlement with Dona Ana County, N.M., falls short of the $22 million that Stephen Slevin, 59, and his attorney had asked for, but is still one of the largest prisoner civil rights payouts in U.S. history.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So it's win-win-win for the regimists then. The neo-Puritans and neo-prohibitionists gain more control, desperate states get more cash, and it benefits the special interests also.

Yes.

There is no way this won't be made "law."

Count on it.

Bet the kid's college fund on it.

If InTrade or Vegas takes wagers on this, put the deed to your home on the line.

A sure thing.