drunk driving and the legal limit

[Smallpotatoes]

Last week I was listening to Jerry Doyle. He seems to be big on his shows having some sort of theme and on this particular night it was what he called "creeping incrementalism," in other words how our personal freedoms are being taken away little by little.
He brought up the age-old argument about smoking in public places and how dangerous secondhand smoke might be or might not be, but he also talked about how the blood alcohol measurement that determined whether or not one was legally too drunk to drive was decreased from .10 or .08 and he expressed concern that eventually it might drop even lower.
He said that the drop in the legal limit didn't have much or anything to do with at which point is somebody too intoxicated to drive safely. He seemed to claim that the decrease was because of political pressure from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and a desire for do-gooders and the "nanny state" to tell other people how to live their lives.
Does he have a point about this? How is decreasing the legal limit encroaching on our freedoms? And how important is our freedom to drive drunk.
If the jury truly is still out on the dangers of secondhand smoke, I can understand if some people feel it's wrong to restrict when and where they can smoke, but the danger a drunk driver poses to others is pretty well documented. I don't think anybody has a right to drive drunk and as I understand it, nobody really has a "right" to drive. It's a privilege.

 

[amraeder]

Last week I was listening to Jerry Doyle. He seems to be big on his shows having some sort of theme and on this particular night it was what he called "creeping incrementalism," in other words how our personal freedoms are being taken away little by little.
He brought up the age-old argument about smoking in public places and how dangerous secondhand smoke might be or might not be, but he also talked about how the blood alcohol measurement that determined whether or not one was legally too drunk to drive was decreased from .10 or .08 and he expressed concern that eventually it might drop even lower.
He said that the drop in the legal limit didn't have much or anything to do with at which point is somebody too intoxicated to drive safely. He seemed to claim that the decrease was because of political pressure from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and a desire for do-gooders and the "nanny state" to tell other people how to live their lives.
Does he have a point about this? How is decreasing the legal limit encroaching on our freedoms? And how important is our freedom to drive drunk.
If the jury truly is still out on the dangers of secondhand smoke, I can understand if some people feel it's wrong to restrict when and where they can smoke, but the danger a drunk driver poses to others is pretty well documented. I don't think anybody has a right to drive drunk and as I understand it, nobody really has a "right" to drive. It's a privilege.

The arguemnt seems to be it keeps creeping lower and lower until it's 0. Then you're not really able to drink even one drink with dinner, becuase you can't get home.
It might not be the best example, but it's a valid point. Rarely do laws go off the books, so rarely do we get more freedom, we just keep losing it.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

Last week I was listening to Jerry Doyle. He seems to be big on his shows having some sort of theme and on this particular night it was what he called "creeping incrementalism," in other words how our personal freedoms are being taken away little by little.
He brought up the age-old argument about smoking in public places and how dangerous secondhand smoke might be or might not be, but he also talked about how the blood alcohol measurement that determined whether or not one was legally too drunk to drive was decreased from .10 or .08 and he expressed concern that eventually it might drop even lower.
He said that the drop in the legal limit didn't have much or anything to do with at which point is somebody too intoxicated to drive safely. He seemed to claim that the decrease was because of political pressure from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and a desire for do-gooders and the "nanny state" to tell other people how to live their lives.
Does he have a point about this? How is decreasing the legal limit encroaching on our freedoms? And how important is our freedom to drive drunk.
If the jury truly is still out on the dangers of secondhand smoke, I can understand if some people feel it's wrong to restrict when and where they can smoke, but the danger a drunk driver poses to others is pretty well documented. I don't think anybody has a right to drive drunk and as I understand it, nobody really has a "right" to drive. It's a privilege.

The arguemnt seems to be it keeps creeping lower and lower until it's 0. Then you're not really able to drink even one drink with dinner, becuase you can't get home.
It might not be the best example, but it's a valid point. Rarely do laws go off the books, so rarely do we get more freedom, we just keep losing it.

I don't know how common roadblocks still are, but in most cases if you're stopped for DUI, it's usually because you were driving in a way that led a police officer to suspect you were intoxicated, right?

 

[Buck]

Driving is not a right. However, one could argue that it's not listed explicitly as a right because the founding fathers couldn't have conceived of it. If they had, it would probably explicitly listed as a right.
Dropping the BAC limit from .10 to .08 is still within the bounds of reason. Pusing it lower might push the boundaries of reason.
Laws against smoking outdoors, in most instances, are beyond the boundaries of reason.

 

[amraeder]

Last week I was listening to Jerry Doyle. He seems to be big on his shows having some sort of theme and on this particular night it was what he called "creeping incrementalism," in other words how our personal freedoms are being taken away little by little.
He brought up the age-old argument about smoking in public places and how dangerous secondhand smoke might be or might not be, but he also talked about how the blood alcohol measurement that determined whether or not one was legally too drunk to drive was decreased from .10 or .08 and he expressed concern that eventually it might drop even lower.
He said that the drop in the legal limit didn't have much or anything to do with at which point is somebody too intoxicated to drive safely. He seemed to claim that the decrease was because of political pressure from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and a desire for do-gooders and the "nanny state" to tell other people how to live their lives.
Does he have a point about this? How is decreasing the legal limit encroaching on our freedoms? And how important is our freedom to drive drunk.
If the jury truly is still out on the dangers of secondhand smoke, I can understand if some people feel it's wrong to restrict when and where they can smoke, but the danger a drunk driver poses to others is pretty well documented. I don't think anybody has a right to drive drunk and as I understand it, nobody really has a "right" to drive. It's a privilege.

The arguemnt seems to be it keeps creeping lower and lower until it's 0. Then you're not really able to drink even one drink with dinner, becuase you can't get home.
It might not be the best example, but it's a valid point. Rarely do laws go off the books, so rarely do we get more freedom, we just keep losing it.

I don't know how common roadblocks still are, but in most cases if you're stopped for DUI, it's usually because you were driving in a way that led a police officer to suspect you were intoxicated, right?

True, I almost never see road blocks. But isn't this kind of an "it's only illegal if you get caught" argument?

 

[BYH]

I've got no problem with a 0.1 being the standard for driving while impaired. None at all.

 

[Tom Petty]

the change in BAC is more than you think. it used to be .15 in at least one state in the PNW several years ago.

 

[txsportsscribe]

I've got no problem with a 0.1 being the standard for driving while impaired. None at all.

i second that.

 

[Platyrhynchos]

I don't know how common roadblocks still are, but in most cases if you're stopped for DUI, it's usually because you were driving in a way that led a police officer to suspect you were intoxicated, right?

LEOs are trained to key on certain driving peculiarities that are bona finde, proven indicators of DUI. Among these are driving slowly and driving with headlights off. There are, of course others.

 

[Tom Petty]

I don't know how common roadblocks still are, but in most cases if you're stopped for DUI, it's usually because you were driving in a way that led a police officer to suspect you were intoxicated, right?

LEOs are trained to key on certain driving peculiarities that are bona finde, proven indicators of DUI. Among these are driving slowly and driving with headlights off. There are, of course others.

or windows rolled all the way down on a night that's less than warm ... big heads up for cops.

 

[Chi City 81]

Hell, I think Tennessee still has no open-container laws, as long as it's not the driver with an open beer.

 

[Platyrhynchos]

Hellllloooooooooooo, Rocky Top. Here I come.

 

[hondo]

The problem with drunk driving laws is that they're very good for nailing the poor sap who has two beers after work, or the woman who has two glasses of wine after work, and they blow .08. Lock 'em up.

But the laws don't do anything to prevent that dumbass alky with a revoked license from still drinking a case and getting in his car. He may or may not get caught before he may or may not kill someone.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not what we have now.

PS: Although I favor anti-smoking laws for the workplace and restaurants, I'm never going to tell some poor sap he can't smoke outdoors, or in a bar that doesn't serve food.

 

[leo1]

The problem with drunk driving laws is that they're very good for nailing the poor sap who has two beers after work, or the woman who has two glasses of wine after work, and they blow .08. Lock 'em up.

But the laws don't do anything to prevent that dumbass alky with a revoked license from still drinking a case and getting in his car. He may or may not get caught before he may or may not kill someone.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not what we have now.

PS: Although I favor anti-smoking laws for the workplace and restaurants, I'm never going to tell some poor sap he can't smoke outdoors, or in a bar that doesn't serve food.

damn. i agree 100 percent with hondo. i guess there's a first time for everything.

unfortunately, the solution is something that will never become a reality: viable public transportation, like they have in major european cities. i'm talking new york city style public subway, rail and bus service.

 

[Football_Bat]

You won't see sobriety checkpoints in Texas anytime soon. They are illegal and will remain so for the next 2 years till the Legislature meets again.

But you can't reduce the alcohol limit to zero. A freaking Dr Pepper will make a breath machine record a .04; I learned that in Boy Scouts.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

I have always held that sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional, but they are allowed to stand because of the moral popularity.


They are illegal in Texas? Did not know that. Interesting.

 

[Big Buckin' agate_monkey]

Dr. Pepper has alcohol? So that was the 23rd flavor.

 

[Claws for Concern]

Hmm, a Dr. Pepper sounds good right now. A 12-pack that is!

 

[Chi City 81]

THERE IS NO PERIOD IN DR PEPPER!!!!!!!!

 

[zeke12]

As others have alluded to, the dropping of BAC levels to .08 has nothing to do with getting seriously impaired drivers off the road and everything to do with raising money by handing out DUI's.

Now, if we want, as a society, to make the law explicit, to say that it is illegal to drive after drinking any alcohol at all, I don't have a huge problem with that. Unfortunately, it would require some kind of improvements in infrastructure and public transportation in the vast majority of the geographic country. That's just common sense.

We, as a society, however, are less interested in getting problem drunk drivers off the streets and more interested in collecting funds through three-beer DUI fines rather than taxes. If you don't believe this, go sit in at your local traffic court and see how many DUI's get handed out to people in the .08 to .12 BAC range.