Drunk Driving Enforcement Is A Racket

[Bro. Curtis]

I found this statement startling....along with some other good points.

..... In fact, after there was a national push by Mothers Against Drunk Driving to lower the legal BAC limits nationally from 0.10% to 0.08%, backed up by federal pressure on states, alcohol-related traffic fatalities went up in 2000, after 20 straight years of going down. That increase shouldn’t have been surprising. The push for a de facto national limit of 0.08% came after a 1995 NHTSA study already showed that some states that lowered the BAC limits were less safe than before. Those lower limits may have meant a windfall of revenue to jurisdictions and individual police officers, but they didn’t necessarily make us any safer. They may have led to more booze related driving injuries and deaths.'''

http://www.rokemneedlearts.com/carsindepth/wordpressblog/?p=5498

 

[preachinjesus]

The first, and more important point, is that no one consuming alcohol should ever get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. It is irresponsible and dangerous. I'm all for lowered limits.

Second, this is a deeply emotional issue.

Third, finally, I completely agree that half of moving violation tickets are a racket for the local authorities to fleece the general public and fund the public departments. One stretch of road near the church where I serve is zoned such that you can be, reasonably, pulled over and cited by one of four different agencies for a moving violation. The city police, county sheriff, state highway patrol, and constables office.

 

[preacher4truth]

I guarantee no one who has had someone killed in a drunken driving accident asked what their legal limit was, and what their BAC content was and then thought to themselves "What lames that the police gave them a ticket for DUI, they were only 0.08."

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Back in my wilder days, I once drove into a roadblock after consuming 5 pints of a strong beer, and a tequila shooter, and blew a .048.....he told me to drive safe home.

Most people I know would not be able to walk after that much, but I passed a checkpoint. I think metabolisms may be different, and there is no way to tell if a person is drunk, other than to observe them performing physical tests, but then again, I know athletes that can do backflips hammered.

 

[annsni]

So we shouldn't lower the legal driving limit because it creates more accidents? Just how do the two fit together?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I think 2.3 arrests per roadblack is a pretty inefficient use of police time. I agree with the article, the current methods don't take dangerous drivers off the road, and the article explains it's stance quite nicely.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I think that sobriety checkpoints are a racket, not to mention a civil liberties issue. A couple of months ago, I saw a checkpoint while I was driving home from choir rehearsal so I turned down a side street and took an alternate route home because I didn't want to get stopped without suspicion. Sobriety checkpoints are counter-productive because it takes police officers off the streets and they are less likely to catch drivers who actually pose a substantive risk.

In regards to the BAL to define legal intoxication, I think .08 is a decent level and I don't support increasing or decreasing it.

 

[freeatlast]

Clearly the person writing the article is all wet and has an agenda to promote. I think they should lower it to zero as there is never any reason to drink and drive.

 

[targus]

Clearly the person writing the article is all wet and has an agenda to promote. I think they should lower it to zero as there is never any reason to drink and drive.

Advocating for increased government control over our lives?

If .00000001 alcohol level does not impair one's ability to drive why would you make it illegal?

 

[freeatlast]

Advocating for increased government control over our lives?

If .00000001 alcohol level does not impair one's ability to drive why would you make it illegal?

Right now many people drink and drive guessing (hoping) that they have not went over the limit. Zero takes that guessing out of it as all would know driving after they have had anything to drink could send them to jail.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Wrong forum.

 

[mandym]

He will be another tax & spend liberal.

I have not seen anything to indicate this. What have you seen?

 

[HankD]

Clearly the person writing the article is all wet and has an agenda to promote. I think they should lower it to zero as there is never any reason to drink and drive.

Won't happen FAL.

Alcohol means big $$$$ for every level of government here in America (sad but true).

Alcohol is too big for the government to cause it to fail.

IOWS, the alcohol manufacturers are in a lucrative and unholy matrimony (corn whiskey subsidies) with the government.

Tax alone can be 50-75% of the cost of a bottle of booze.

To quote a cliche, they wont kill the goose who lays the golden eggs.

HankD

 

[freeatlast]

Won't happen FAL.

Alcohol means big $$$$ for every level of government here in America (sad but true).

Alcohol is too big for the government to cause it to fail.

IOWS, the alcohol manufacturers are in a lucrative and unholy matrimony (corn whiskey subsidies) with the government.

Tax alone can be 50-75% of the cost of a bottle of booze.

To quote a cliche, they wont kill the goose who lays the golden eggs.

HankD

I understand it is not going to happen. I ws just saying what I felt should be done.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Right now many people drink and drive guessing (hoping) that they have not went over the limit. Zero takes that guessing out of it as all would know driving after they have had anything to drink could send them to jail.

So we should spend police resources hunting down people driving home after having a glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant? Shouldn't the cops focus on actual drunk drivers?

Should they get the death penalty? :laugh:

 

[targus]

So we should spend police resources hunting down people driving home after having a glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant? Shouldn't the cops focus on actual drunk drivers?

Should they get the death penalty? :laugh:

Snipers could pick them off as they come out of the restaurant. :laugh:

 

[targus]

Right now many people drink and drive guessing (hoping) that they have not went over the limit. Zero takes that guessing out of it as all would know driving after they have had anything to drink could send them to jail.

Doesn't answer my question.

Isn't advocating zero alcohol level an increase in government control in our lives.

Aren't you against more government control?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Snipers could pick them off as they come out of the restaurant. :laugh:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Salty]

Advocating for increased government control over our lives?

If .00000001 alcohol level does not impair one's ability to drive why would you make it illegal?

You can actually get a minute BAC from cough syrup, throat spay, ect. In fact some people can actually get a BAC from cereal fermenting in their stomach (though this is extremely very rare). So a person who has a tiny bit of wine for communion would have a BAC above the 0.0 limit.

Salty

 

[FR7 Baptist]

You can actually get a minute BAC from cough syrup, throat spay, ect. In fact some people can actually get a BAC from cereal fermenting in their stomach (though this is extremely very rare). So a person who has a tiny bit of wine for communion would have a BAC above the 0.0 limit.

Salty

Actually, it is impossible to have a blood alcohol level of zero. The digestive tract continually produces small amounts of ethanol. In FAL's world, everyone who drives a car would have to be executed.