Utah may lower the legal alcohol limit to .05% -- a first in the nation

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-alcohol-limit-20161231-story.html


If a tough new proposal in Utah becomes law, just a few drinks — or even a few swigs — could put you over the limit for drunk driving.

An effort is underway in the state to lower the legal blood-alcohol concentration for driving to .05 — a first in the nation. Currently, all 50 states have a .08 cap, eschewing suggestions from the National Transportation Safety Board to redefine what constitutes drunk driving.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Nobody wants RECKLESS drivers around them.

The thing is though, blood concentration of substances may or may not say a lot about the condition someone is in. There are those concentrations at which everybody is intoxicated... There are however also people who couldn't drive a car safely at .05 and probably also those who can drive a car safely above .08, that's the problem.

That's why reckless driving should be the issue.

[fisharmor]

That's why reckless driving should be the issue.
It's not.
The issue isn't reckless driving - it's not even driving. It's not drinking, either.
The issue is prevention. It's the notion that with enough rules and enough pushing people around and ruining their lives for minor infractions, we can achieve utopia.

If the issue was resolving disputes between an aggressor and a victim, then there wouldn't be any such thing as drunk driving being an infraction. Drunk drivers who damage property or harm people would be held responsible for their transgression irrespective of their blood alcohol level.

Being drunk has been a legal defense that allows people to get out of being charged to the full extent of the law. It's a side effect of the fact that there is no actual victim in our legal system - the only offended party is the state, really. Since the state is the only victim, in that its statutes are broken, people have gotten away with their drunkenness reducing the severity of what they've done. So we piled on a whole lot more statutes about drunk driving, to try to patch this giant hole in the system.

The correct answer isn't to prosecute more or prosecute less. The proper answer is to prosecute properly. Remove the state from the equation, focus on whether an actual person was actually harmed, and prosecute accordingly, without considering whether that person was drunk at the time.

The problem is, there's not really a way to do that without completely scrapping the current legal system.

[phill4paul]

"muh roads?" No, Theyer roads. Now shut the fuck up. You're lucky to even be allowed to use them.

[69360]

Utah? I'm sure the mormons would make it 0.0% if they could.

[dannno]

No, Theyer roads.

I can hear towelie now..


"YOU'RE a road!!"

[luctor-et-emergo]

It's not.
The issue isn't reckless driving - it's not even driving. It's not drinking, either.
The issue is prevention. It's the notion that with enough rules and enough pushing people around and ruining their lives for minor infractions, we can achieve utopia.

If the issue was resolving disputes between an aggressor and a victim, then there wouldn't be any such thing as drunk driving being an infraction. Drunk drivers who damage property or harm people would be held responsible for their transgression irrespective of their blood alcohol level.

Being drunk has been a legal defense that allows people to get out of being charged to the full extent of the law. It's a side effect of the fact that there is no actual victim in our legal system - the only offended party is the state, really. Since the state is the only victim, in that its statutes are broken, people have gotten away with their drunkenness reducing the severity of what they've done. So we piled on a whole lot more statutes about drunk driving, to try to patch this giant hole in the system.

The correct answer isn't to prosecute more or prosecute less. The proper answer is to prosecute properly. Remove the state from the equation, focus on whether an actual person was actually harmed, and prosecute accordingly, without considering whether that person was drunk at the time.

The problem is, there's not really a way to do that without completely scrapping the current legal system.
That's basically what I'm saying except maybe that some people may impose a danger before they've hurt someone. There are definitely people who are about to cause an accident. But apart from that, I agree.

[oyarde]

.05 , What is that , what you get if you stir a drink with yer dick ?

[Slave Mentality]

It's not.
The issue isn't reckless driving - it's not even driving. It's not drinking, either.
The issue is prevention. It's the notion that with enough rules and enough pushing people around and ruining their lives for minor infractions, we can achieve utopia.

If the issue was resolving disputes between an aggressor and a victim, then there wouldn't be any such thing as drunk driving being an infraction. Drunk drivers who damage property or harm people would be held responsible for their transgression irrespective of their blood alcohol level.

Being drunk has been a legal defense that allows people to get out of being charged to the full extent of the law. It's a side effect of the fact that there is no actual victim in our legal system - the only offended party is the state, really. Since the state is the only victim, in that its statutes are broken, people have gotten away with their drunkenness reducing the severity of what they've done. So we piled on a whole lot more statutes about drunk driving, to try to patch this giant hole in the system.

The correct answer isn't to prosecute more or prosecute less. The proper answer is to prosecute properly. Remove the state from the equation, focus on whether an actual person was actually harmed, and prosecute accordingly, without considering whether that person was drunk at the time.

The problem is, there's not really a way to do that without completely scrapping the current legal system.

This right here is the truth of the matter.

[Zippyjuan]

.05 , What is that , what you get if you stir a drink with yer dick ?

For most people, that is one or two.

http://www.u-driver.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BACCharts_Page_2.jpg

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5192b50cecad044c2c000016-620-/screen%20shot%202013-05-14%20at%206.01.42%20pm.png

[donnay]

That's basically what I'm saying except maybe that some people may impose a danger before they've hurt someone. There are definitely people who are about to cause an accident. But apart from that, I agree.

I wonder how many people who have Candida or Auto-Brewery Syndrome have been charged when they weren't actually drunk, nor reckless?

Woman claims her body brews alcohol, has DUI charge dismissed
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/health/auto-brewery-syndrome-dui-womans-body-brews-own-alcohol/

This isn't about safety, it's about revenue and control.

[Dr.3D]

I wonder how many people who have Candida or Auto-Brewery Syndrome have been charged when they weren't actually drunk, nor reckless?

Woman claims her body brews alcohol, has DUI charge dismissed
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/health/auto-brewery-syndrome-dui-womans-body-brews-own-alcohol/

This isn't about safety, it's about revenue and control.
Exactly, I think it's mostly about revenue.

[newbitech]

why make people wonder if they are legally intoxicated or have to do some weird back of the napkin calculus to figure out if it's safe to drive?

I think setting arbitrary limits is what is deadly.

Either make it 0 tolerance or don't enforce any limits at all.

IOW, it's either OK to drive with chemicals in your body (any amount) or it's not (0 amount).

[dannno]

IOW, it's either OK to drive with chemicals in your body (any amount) or it's not (0 amount).

A lot of people drive recklessly on caffeine, so a lot of people would have to go without their morning coffee. Good luck with that.

But ya, I'm not a big fan of limits. I might be ok with reckless driving, and if the person fails a field sobriety test they could get an enhancement maybe. That is if we have to have government roads....

[newbitech]

A lot of people drive recklessly on caffeine, so a lot of people would have to go without their morning coffee.

i'm sure we could make a list of chemicals.

[phill4paul]

This isn't about safety, it's about revenue and control.


Exactly, I think it's mostly about revenue.

If it weren't then they would only issue citations on the first offense and a misdemeanor ticket for the second with the ability to clear the ticket if one takes a safe driving course. Not the raping you receive like they do now.

[donnay]

A lot of people drive recklessly on caffeine, so a lot of people would have to go without their morning coffee. Good luck with that.

But ya, I'm not a big fan of limits. I might be ok with reckless driving, and if the person fails a field sobriety test they could get an enhancement maybe. That is if we have to have government roads....

That's why they are pushing for the self-driving cars--problem solved. <s>

[dannno]

i'm sure we could make a list of chemicals.

The only two chemicals I know that can cause severe impairment for driving that people typically drive on are alcohol and xanax.. but there is also some sleep aids and some other prescription drugs that cause issues,, and hallucinogens aren't good either but only while you are tripping.. after the trip the chemical is still in your blood but you're probably ok to drive. I drove during a mushroom trip one time a long time ago, but it was on empty desert roads that had a 25 mph speed limit.. If I went off the road, I would have just been on the sand... so there was no real danger to speak of. The only problem was I couldn't read a map, everything on the map kept moving around so I couldn't find where I was supposed to go until I had to be there.. Then suddenly I just happened to find it right when I was supposed to. Amazing how that happens.

[asurfaholic]

If you are drunk and cause an accident resulting in death, should the punishment be the same as any typical car crash that results in a death? More? Less?

My step dad was drunk on his bachelor night and flipped his truck at the beach, decapitating his best friend. Messed him up for life. Probably not relevant but I have a soft spot for tougher stances on drunk driving.

I get the whole "no victim, no crime" thing. I'm a big proponent of it actually. But at some point where do you draw the line on individuals who needlessly take chances with every other driver on the road? Don't I have the right to travel safely down the highway without worrying about somebody completely boozed out coming and demolishing my family? My close friend and coworker lost his pregnant fiancée to a drunk driver. These are preventable deaths. Needless deaths. Ruined lives. Personally I don't care if a drunk driver gets saddled with thousands in legal bills and lost driving rights, even if there is not a victim. Maybe he's lucky he hasn't killed anyone yet.

Surely there's a line somewhere.

[phill4paul]

If you are drunk and cause an accident resulting in death, should the punishment be the same as any typical car crash that results in a death? More? Less?

My step dad was drunk on his bachelor night and flipped his truck at the beach, decapitating his best friend. Messed him up for life. Probably not relevant but I have a soft spot for tougher stances on drunk driving.

I get the whole "no victim, no crime" thing. I'm a big proponent of it actually. But at some point where do you draw the line on individuals who needlessly take chances with every other driver on the road? Don't I have the right to travel safely down the highway without worrying about somebody completely boozed out coming and demolishing my family? My close friend and coworker lost his pregnant fiancée to a drunk driver. These are preventable deaths. Needless deaths. Ruined lives. Personally I don't care if a drunk driver gets saddled with thousands in legal bills and lost driving rights, even if there is not a victim. Maybe he's lucky he hasn't killed anyone yet.

Surely there's a line somewhere.

That's the type of argument that will lead to self-driving cars. Humans are fallible therefore they cannot be trusted to drive. Cell phones, annoying kids, stereo too loud? Caffeine in system? This was an actual charge believe it or not.

Within the law there are "mitigating" and "aggravating" factors WRT sentencing. DUI as an aggravating factor in a vehicular homicide? I'm OK with that. DUI as a stand alone. Nope.

[Brian4Liberty]

Meanwhile, in California:
Hands off your phone! Everything to know about CA's new distracted driver law (http://www.kcra.com/article/hands-off-your-phone-everything-to-know-about-cas-new-distracted-driver-law/8537737)

[Anti Federalist]

A lot of people drive recklessly on caffeine, so a lot of people would have to go without their morning coffee. Good luck with that.

But ya, I'm not a big fan of limits. I might be ok with reckless driving, and if the person fails a field sobriety test they could get an enhancement maybe. That is if we have to have government roads....

You do know that California was prosecuting a fellow for "driving under the influence" of caffeine?

[Anti Federalist]

I get the whole "no victim, no crime" thing. I'm a big proponent of it actually. But at some point where do you draw the line on individuals who needlessly take chances with every other driver on the road? Don't I have the right to travel safely down the highway without worrying about somebody completely boozed out coming and demolishing my family? My close friend and coworker lost his pregnant fiancée to a drunk driver. These are preventable deaths. Needless deaths. Ruined lives. Personally I don't care if a drunk driver gets saddled with thousands in legal bills and lost driving rights, even if there is not a victim. Maybe he's lucky he hasn't killed anyone yet.

No, you really don't.

Because if you claim the "right" to be free from drunk drivers doing harm to you, then you have established the precedent for all manner of other "positive" rights.

The right to live in a nice home.

The right to health care.

The right not worry about somebody with a gun.

The right to education.

Besides, after all the crackdowns and cops and forced blood draws and roadblocks and people's lives being ruined by the system, traffic fatalities are climbing.

Laws won't stop poor driving choices anymore than they will stop other poor life choices.

All more laws and enforcement will do is make life a living police state hell for all of us.

Everything in life is a risk, and the only thing you really have a right to is to make the decisions that best suit you to mitigate and manage that risk, with a minimal amount of government interference and regulation.

[asurfaholic]

so what happens if you remove the DUI laws? Do people wise up and stop driving after they know they are past their limit?

AF, I respectfully disagree with the notion that acknowledging my own right to life is akin to asking for a big house or free college. That argument doesn't cut it.

[phill4paul]

so what happens if you remove the DUI laws? Do people wise up and stop driving after they know they are past their limit?

AF, I respectfully disagree with the notion that acknowledging my own right to life is akin to asking for a big house or free college. That argument doesn't cut it.

Do people wise up and stop driving after they know they are past their limit with DUI laws? Obviously not. I could go into NHTSA data and how skewed it is WRT drinking and driving. But, I've done it so many times on these forums I'm tired of it.

[donnay]

so what happens if you remove the DUI laws? Do people wise up and stop driving after they know they are past their limit?

AF, I respectfully disagree with the notion that acknowledging my own right to life is akin to asking for a big house or free college. That argument doesn't cut it.


How about different people can handle alcohol differently. The one size fits all is ridiculous. Again this is not about safety it is about raking-in revenue.

"Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned." ~ Thomas jefferson

[Brian4Liberty]

so what happens if you remove the DUI laws? Do people wise up and stop driving after they know they are past their limit?

AF, I respectfully disagree with the notion that acknowledging my own right to life is akin to asking for a big house or free college. That argument doesn't cut it.

As is often the case, the law needs to go back to when it was common sense and before it was used for a variety of agendas.

If someone is driving erratically, that is probable cause to pull them over and find out why. Preferably in this modern age, Police will have video evidence of the erratic driving to substantiate the accusation of erratic driving.

[Brian4Liberty]

How about different people can handle alcohol differently. The one size fits all is ridiculous. Again this is not about safety it is about raking-in revenue.

"Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned." ~ Thomas jefferson

Revenue, and other agendas. For example, the desire to set-up (justify) check points, the very vocal agenda of neoprohibitionists and some families of victims.

One size fits all is the siren song to collectivists, centralists and globalists. Minimum wage and flat amount taxes are another example. "The world would be perfect if everyone was forced to earn $15/hr and pay a tax of $7,500 a year." *

*All with the caveat that these rules do not apply to them. Some animals are more equal.

[Anti Federalist]

so what happens if you remove the DUI laws? Do people wise up and stop driving after they know they are past their limit?

They don't now, with all the laws in place.

Even after turning every highway in the nation into a time machine back to 1974 East Germany, there are still drunks, there are still wrecks and auto fatality rates are increasing.

How much more of a police state do we need to become?


AF, I respectfully disagree with the notion that acknowledging my own right to life is akin to asking for a big house or free college. That argument doesn't cut it.

Oh, I will agree that there is difference between the two, but the principle in what you are claiming to be a "right" is exactly the same, a "right" to a positive outcome while driving.

But there is no "right" to ensure positive outcomes in anything in life.

There is no right to ensure that, because of the risk involved. Now, individuals, businesses, property owners...all manner of people can make any number of rules to mitigate or eliminate risk, and people should be free to accept or decline as they see fit. Risk, and how much to accept, is a highly subjective and personal decision, each person's aversion to risk or what triggers a risk response is wildly different from the next.

When gunvernment gets into the risk mitigation business, you inevitably, you must, get a police state in return.

So, that leaves us with no other conclusion but this: if we want to remain free, we have to accept that there is risk, always, in all things and that government has only one job, to protect rights that keep us free from government, and establish means to not only punish, but make whole again, people who have had real and demonstrable damage done to them or their property.