Feds Want To Lower Legal Blood Alcohol Limit for Drivers

As thought I needed a reason beyond my own well being to quit. Fuck you FED, I will see you on the fourth. Bitch.
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
Don't forget that sidewalks must be covered with weather proof tatami mats.
Click to expand...

Is that the stuff that replaced the thin layer of tanbark over hard pack on playgrounds?

Anti Federalist said:
All people over 65 will wear all of the above, and in addition, will not climb any stair or enter any tub or shower enclosure without wearing an approved and properly secured fall restraint harness.
Click to expand...

Pure genius! No more spotting grandma on the walk to the bathroom! Can we motorize and automate those things? "Time for bed, Grandma. If I programmed that thing right, you'll be over your bed in no time."
 
Gee, I wonder how much the private prison corporations donated to the study?....
 
I really hope that normal peoples 401k plans are not being used to further fund the exploitation of soverign Citizens...
 
The people might want to sacrifice redheads to the god of plenty... What difference does it make what the people want? The people, me being one, want peace on earth... like the tyrants give a shit what we want.

They will care, one day, when we get what we want. That is to say witnessing the swift drop and sudden stop of Chenobambush. Guess what, the murder of innocents DEMANDS justice. More so than your paltry war on drugs.

Yeah, holder, I stand by that one. Stop fucking killing people, you tyrannical pricks, and maybe you will meet with less resistance.

Long live humanity. I'll see you plants and your masters in hell.
 
Last edited:
For those who believe that the effects of BAC are the same for everyone, allow me to enlighten you. Drugs and alcohol affect people differently. This is why we were allowed to arrest for .05 BAC even though the law says 'shall arrest' for .08 because that person who blew .05 may have demonstrated the same maneuvers as someone who blew .10. Likewise, someone who blew .08 at a check point may have reacted the same as someone who blew .03.

So no, lowering the BAC to .05 WILL NOT cut down on intoxicated drivers. It will only drive bars out of business and cause more people to panic on the roadways. In my opinion as a former officer, there was nothing wrong with the .10 law. We were still able to arrest for under .10 if the subject exhibited signs of obvious intoxication (pre-exit and exit tests). Like I said... it's just another stupid law.

There shouldn't even be a BAC law... it should be done by recorded FSTs.
 
Last edited:
Well I see people are finally getting it on here now. I have said all along it is about money nothing else. Avg. alcohol percentage during serious and fatal accidents is .28
It is not about saving lives - they could give a shit.

In a continuing education legal class the attorney got up and was commenting that people who get caught are "CUSTOMERS." Get it now ?

This whole "industry" employs social science people, psychologists, rehab people, cops, etc.... It is all a total fucking sham. And on top of it they lie about the stats.

So pull up to the bar "CUSTOMER." Would you like another drink ?
 
AFPVet said:
For those who believe that the effects of BAC are the same for everyone, allow me to enlighten you. Drugs and alcohol affect people differently. This is why we were allowed to arrest for .05 BAC even though the law says 'shall arrest' for .08 because that person who blew .05 may have demonstrated the same maneuvers as someone who blew .10. Likewise, someone who blew .08 at a check point may have reacted the same as someone who blew .03.

So no, lowering the BAC to .05 WILL NOT cut down on intoxicated drivers. It will only drive bars out of business and cause more people to panic on the roadways. In my opinion as a former officer, there was nothing wrong with the .10 law. We were still able to arrest for under .10 if the subject exhibited signs of obvious intoxication (pre-exit and exit tests). Like I said... it's just another stupid law.

There shouldn't even be a BAC law... it should be done by recorded FSTs.
Click to expand...
Well I am against officers having the sole authority to determine a person's intoxication. I also think the penalties are too harsh. That's neither here nor there.

Let me ask a hypothetical that is not too uncommon. Say a person is pulled over for not wearing their seatbelt. Or for a tail light being out. The officer smells alcohol. Do you believe that the tail light or minor infraction accompanied by the smell of alcohol is enough probable cause to ask the driver to perform a sobriety test? Or even to engage in a similar line of questioning? (i.e. how much have you had to drink tonight)

If you asked someone to perform a breathalyzer and they were .09 but they had not exhibited any dangerous driving, what are your options as a LEO? Are you able to not arrest them for a DUI? Are you able to wait with them for a few minutes and try to give them the benefit of taking the breathalyzer again? I'm curious about discretion. Seems to me that you are reasonable but your hands would be tied in the situation. The hypothetical I proposed is fairly common. (people being pulled over for petty things and charged with a DUI) Have you ever noticed a pattern of not so much of blatant corruption, but something that made you question what the purpose of the legal limit may be? Seems like quite a lot of money is made. Programs funded, salaries paid. I'm curious if you ever saw anything that made you question the overall integrity of the force?
 
kcchiefs6465 said:
Well I am against officers having the sole authority to determine a person's intoxication. I also think the penalties are too harsh. That's neither here nor there.

Let me ask a hypothetical that is not too uncommon. Say a person is pulled over for not wearing their seatbelt. Or for a tail light being out. The officer smells alcohol. Do you believe that the tail light or minor infraction accompanied by the smell of alcohol is enough probable cause to ask the driver to perform a sobriety test? Or even to engage in a similar line of questioning? (i.e. how much have you had to drink tonight)

If you asked someone to perform a breathalyzer and they were .09 but they had not exhibited any dangerous driving, what are your options as a LEO? Are you able to not arrest them for a DUI? Are you able to wait with them for a few minutes and try to give them the benefit of taking the breathalyzer again? I'm curious about discretion. Seems to me that you are reasonable but your hands would be tied in the situation. The hypothetical I proposed is fairly common. (people being pulled over for petty things and charged with a DUI) Have you ever noticed a pattern of not so much of blatant corruption, but something that made you question what the purpose of the legal limit may be? Seems like quite a lot of money is made. Programs funded, salaries paid. I'm curious if you ever saw anything that made you question the overall integrity of the force?
Click to expand...

Well, now that I am a civilian, I don't believe in pre-crime... any of it. Also, in my state, we don't pull you over for a seatbelt violation... we issue a citation for that while we have you pulled over for something else—like a taillight. Now lets say that I did pull someone over for a taillight and smelled alcohol... If he/she wasn't making moving errors (left of center, abrupt speeding/slowing down...) I would observe his/her actions—if he/she was fumbling around too much and passed his/her license numerous times while searching for it... if it was fairly obvious that this person was intoxicated and somehow evaded the common vehicle maneuvers associated with intoxicated drivers, I would then administer a pre-exit test and associated questioning.

Well, at .09, it wouldn't matter what I thought as an LEO... the state says 'shall arrest' at .08 and above (used to be .10 and I would have discretion). Let's say that we were still .10... if he/she wasn't exhibiting any obvious signs of intoxication, why would I have him/her blow? You only PBT them after they have failed the FSTs (pre-exit and exit). As far as corruption goes, there's a lot of it... more or less with department to department. It has become worse over the years. You're absolutely right... states and counties get money for tickets and criminal offenses... that shouldn't be news though. I rode with a partner once who even stated that "he made a lot of money for the county". So absolutely... there's a money issue.
 
Last edited:
Brian4Liberty said:
Is that the stuff that replaced the thin layer of tanbark over hard pack on playgrounds?
Click to expand...
No, tatami are the mats used in judo and japanese jiu-jitsu to break fighters' falls and prevent injury. They're generally 2-4 inches thick and full of stiff foam. Epic fall protection. :cool:
ETA: The mats on the ground in this vid are tatami:
 
Last edited:
Shredmonster said:
Well I see people are finally getting it on here now. I have said all along it is about money nothing else. Avg. alcohol percentage during serious and fatal accidents is .28
It is not about saving lives - they could give a shit.

In a continuing education legal class the attorney got up and was commenting that people who get caught are "CUSTOMERS." Get it now ?

This whole "industry" employs social science people, psychologists, rehab people, cops, etc.... It is all a total fucking sham. And on top of it they lie about the stats.

So pull up to the bar "CUSTOMER." Would you like another drink ?
Click to expand...

do you have a source for that stat, that would be a great one to quote
 
dillo said:
do you have a source for that stat, that would be a great one to quote
Click to expand...

Personal friend of mine who is an attorney testified before the State when they were changing the law from .1 to .08. I will have to ask him but it is a fact as it was used during sworn testimony before the state legislature.

The state had a woman whose daughter was unfortunately killed by a drunk driver. My friend asked her what the alcohol percentage was of the person that caused the accident. It was in the neighborhood of .28 or higher I recall.

He asked her "mam how would changing the law from .1 to .08 have saved your daughter ?" She nor anyone else could respond to that question with anything logical.
 
Last edited:
Changing the law will save 300 more people every year and cause 300,000 more to be incarcerated. Yeah, who's benefitting from this?
 
This is airing right now on C-SPAN:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/DrivingP

Drunk Driving Prevention
May 14, 2013

National Transportation Safety Board

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) presented a report on drunk driving prevention, which included an assessment of the problem, a summary of current and previous efforts to reduce crashes, and recommendations for the future.
Click to expand...

I just heard that dumb broad say the "our goal is to get to zero deaths" fantasy.
 
They were talking about it on NPR this morning when I drove to work. I turned it off. Been doing that a lot lately.
 
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
115
acptulsa
acptulsa
J
Hitler Just Pardoned Josef Mengele, Fauci Gets Away With Mass Murder
Replies
3
Views
609
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
674
susano
susano
Back
Top