Feds Want To Lower Legal Blood Alcohol Limit for Drivers

phill4paul said:
Thanks again. May you lose the ability to even enjoy a glass of wine while eating out. At this point I'm for mandatory .001 ignition locks on ALL vehicles. Why take half measures?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. You can still have a beer or two or a glass of wine with a .08 legal limit. It's not that low. It just prevents buzzed driving or drunk driving.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
I don't think so. You can still have a beer or two or a glass of wine with a .08 legal limit. It's not that low. It just prevents buzzed driving or drunk driving.
Click to expand...


Why take half measures? Zero tolerance. One beer might lead to another you know? One beer might free up some inhibitions... best to just ban alcohol altogether. If you are only having a glass or two then it's best for all of society if we ban it. After all your only giving up a glass or two or three or four....... BY ALL MEANS drink as much as you want. Just don't get behind the wheel of a car. With even one! Mandatory ignition switches all around.
 
People who say that there should be no drunk driving laws or no laws against driving under the influence of drugs need to consider this: If you try to convince someone that drugs should be legalized and then tell them that there should be no penalty for driving under the influence of drugs, that will hurt your argument immensely, and that person will just tune you out. Advocating no laws against driving under the influence of drugs would be a huge setback to the cause of ending the war on drugs. The reason why many people are opposed to legalizing marijuana is because they're afraid that there will be a bunch of stoned people out on the road who will be causing all kinds of accidents. Advocating that people be allowed to drive under the influence of drugs will absolutely damage the cause of ending the war on drugs. Virtually no one is going to support legalizing drugs if people are actually going to be allowed to drive under the influence of drugs with no legal penalty. Whenever I argue against the drug war, I always say something like, "I'm not saying that there should be no laws or limits at all. I'm just saying that the police shouldn't come into people's homes and arrest them for putting certain substances into their own body. But there should still be strong laws against driving under the influence of drugs to protect the lives and liberties of people out on the road. I'm not advocating lawlessness, I'm just saying that our current laws should be changed." This argument works fairly well with people that are skeptical. But arguing that people should be allowed to use drugs and then get behind the wheel of a car and drive would absolutely terrify people, and no one would support ending the war on drugs.
 
phill4paul said:
Why take half measures? Zero tolerance. One beer might lead to another you know? One beer might free up some inhibitions... best to just ban alcohol altogether. If you are only having a glass or two then it's best for all of society if we ban it. After all your only giving up a glass or two or three or four....... BY ALL MEANS drink as much as you want. Just don't get behind the wheel of a car. With even one! Mandatory ignition switches all around.
Click to expand...

Because one extreme or the other isn't good. A .08 limit is reasonable. If you plan on going to a party and getting drunk or going to a bar and getting drunk, get a designated driver.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
Because one extreme or the other isn't good. A .08 limit is reasonable. If you plan on going to a party and getting drunk or going to a bar and getting drunk, get a designated driver.
Click to expand...

Reasonable by what measure? Never mind. YOUR measure. Got it.

Zero tolerance. That fact that alcohol might even touch another's lips should be appalling to everyone else as it is to the special interests.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
People who say that there should be no drunk driving laws or no laws against driving under the influence of drugs need to consider this: If you try to convince someone that drugs should be legalized and then tell them that there should be no penalty for driving under the influence of drugs, that will hurt your argument immensely, and that person will just tune you out. Advocating no laws against driving under the influence of drugs would be a huge setback to the cause of ending the war on drugs. The reason why many people are opposed to legalizing marijuana is because they're afraid that there will be a bunch of stoned people out on the road who will be causing all kinds of accidents. Advocating that people be allowed to drive under the influence of drugs will absolutely damage the cause of ending the war on drugs. Virtually no one is going to support legalizing drugs if people are actually going to be allowed to drive under the influence of drugs with no legal penalty. Whenever I argue against the drug war, I always say something like, "I'm not saying that there should be no laws or limits at all. I'm just saying that the police shouldn't come into people's homes and arrest them for putting certain substances into their own body. But there should still be strong laws against driving under the influence of drugs to protect the lives and liberties of people out on the road. I'm not advocating lawlessness, I'm just saying that our current laws should be changed." This argument works fairly well with people that are skeptical. But arguing that people should be allowed to use drugs and then get behind the wheel of a car and drive would absolutely terrify people, and no one would support ending the war on drugs.
Click to expand...

Its fine to say that because people are scared, but from a libertarian perspective... the state is illegitimately controlling the roads, but they still control them.

So what do the absolutists want to do? Should it be legal to drive on the left side of the road? Drive 150 MPH in the middle of New York City? Plant land mines on the road?

The bottom line is, the roads should not be owned by the state, and they are being controlled and run with stolen (pc is "taxpayer") revenue. But to simply have no driving laws because of this would be to punish the victimized taxpayers even further. Being able to actually use the roads is some level of compensation, and some laws are necessary to be able to actually use the road.

My ultimate goal (Even though it isn't going to happen) is to privatize the roads. But short of that, if the state is going to own the roads, it does have to run them. Privately owned roads would be run by the owners. So state roads must also be run by the "Owners" even though they are thieves, until they relinquish control of their illegitimately owned property.



Michigan11 said:
Yes it does I have talked to those that have those bac state readers in their vehicles and they even have to use non alcoholic shampoo
Click to expand...

The limit should definitely be high enough to avoid that. IMO it should also be high enough so that the effects are more severe than just "Fatigued." I don't know where that number is.
 
Last edited:
tod evans said:
Your programming is showing again TC..........Keep working on it.
Click to expand...

Good grief, I've advocated legalizing all drugs, which would seem extremely radical to the average American. I just don't believe in having no laws and having anarchy.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
Good grief, I've advocated legalizing all drugs, which would seem extremely radical to the average American. I just don't believe in having no laws and having anarchy.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about?

Anarchy isn't going to ensue without drunk/drug driving laws, that's utterly ridiculous.
 
Smart3 said:
I'm strictly anti-alcohol, so I'm ok with strict punishments for drunk driving, but the blood alcohol limit concept is ridiculous.

If the person is OBVIOUSLY drunk, escort them back to their house and fine the shit out of them.
Click to expand...
Lmao.
 
Last edited:
Traditional Conservative said:
No, just a bunch of dead people on the road.
Click to expand...

Good logical programmed argument.....

Sad thing is you're being told point blank that you're being manipulated and you in your infinite wisdom would rather argue your position than do some first hand research and come to your own conclusions.

Until you have some actual experience I'm done with you.
 
tod evans said:
Good logical programmed argument.....

Sad thing is you're being told point blank that you're being manipulated and you in your infinite wisdom would rather argue your position than do some first hand research and come to your own conclusions.

Until you have some actual experience I'm done with you.
Click to expand...

Same. Getting real bored with the cognitive dissonance around here.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
No, just a bunch of dead people on the road.
Click to expand...
double-facepalm1.jpg

Absence of drunk driving laws is not the same as relieving drivers of liability-which your response here assumes. The incentive to drive safely is still there.
 
my parents grew up in the age of 18+ alcohol and also you could drink and drive - ohh how far we've come.... how did they even make it?!
 
How about instead we focus our public driving laws on those dependent upon psychotropic medications?

But when you really think about it, drunk driving accounts for only around 1/3 of total vehicular related fatalities each year, so shouldn’t the question be what is the cause of the remaining (and far greater) 2/3 sum? Shouldn’t the latter sum be of far greater concern, regardless of the determinable causes?

Really though, driving is an activity that virtually everybody does on a daily basis (consuming many hours per week per individual), so for a population larger than 300-million, is 10,000 or even 30,000 vehicle related deaths per annum really at that exceptional?


“Nonetheless, the researchers argue that their results indicate that taking antidepressants, benzodiazepines, or Z-drugs significantly increases the risk of getting in car accidents and that patients taking these medications should be made aware of this risk and receive appropriate counseling from their health care providers.”
http://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/Psychotropic-Drugs-Linked-to-Increased-Car-Accident-Risk


“Psychotropic medications often used to treat anxiety, depression and insomnia are mind-altering drugs.

That is, they impact your brain function and your psychomotor abilities – like your ability to drive a car.

You wouldn't drive after consuming other mind-altering substances, like too much alcohol, yet presumably millions of people are driving everyday after taking varying dosages of psychotropic drugs.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a.../01/antipsychotic-drugs-on-car-accidents.aspx


“A new study reveals that prescription psychotropic drugs used to treat anxiety, depression and insomnia impair driving ability and increase the risk of car accidents. The findings published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology provides new evidence that driving under the influence of drugs like Ambien, Sonata, Lunesta and Imovane (collectively referred to as “Z-drugs”) contributes to an increased risk of causing a car accident. The authors of the study recommend that drivers consider staying off the road when taking these medications.”
http://www.montlick.com/montlick-bl...eveals-psychotropic-drugs-cause-car-accidents
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
HHS Secretary Kennedy Declares War on Deadly mRNA Vaccines, Fires FDA "Architect" of "Operation Warp Speed" Dr. Peter Marks. Deep State Strikes RFK
Replies
9
Views
129
acptulsa
acptulsa
J
Hitler Just Pardoned Josef Mengele, Fauci Gets Away With Mass Murder
Replies
3
Views
632
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
G
CaptUSA
SCOTUS: White House Can Influence Social Media Firms
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Voting Is An Act of Violence
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
Some Democrats are calling for Sotomayor to retire from SCOTUS
Replies
5
Views
677
susano
susano
Back
Top