Results 1 to 29 of 29

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

  1. #1

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

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...231-story.html

    Quote Originally Posted by The Los Angeles Times
    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.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    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.
    "I am a bird"

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    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.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  5. #4
    "muh roads?" No, Theyer roads. Now shut the $#@! up. You're lucky to even be allowed to use them.
    Last edited by phill4paul; 01-03-2017 at 03:53 PM.

  6. #5
    Utah? I'm sure the mormons would make it 0.0% if they could.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    No, Theyer roads.
    I can hear towelie now..


    "YOU'RE a road!!"
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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.
    "I am a bird"

  9. #8
    .05 , What is that , what you get if you stir a drink with yer dick ?
    Do something Danke



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    .05 , What is that , what you get if you stir a drink with yer dick ?
    For most people, that is one or two.




  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    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...s-own-alcohol/

    This isn't about safety, it's about revenue and control.
    Last edited by donnay; 01-03-2017 at 05:31 PM.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    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...s-own-alcohol/

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

  15. #13
    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).

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post

    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....
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    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.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post

    This isn't about safety, it's about revenue and control.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    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.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    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>
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    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.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  22. #19
    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.
    No - No - No - No
    2016

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    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.
    Last edited by phill4paul; 01-03-2017 at 06:25 PM.

  24. #21
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    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?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    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.

  27. #24
    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.
    No - No - No - No
    2016



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    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.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    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
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    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.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    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.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    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.



Similar Threads

  1. New Study Shows Cannabis Does Not Lower IQ, But Drinking Alcohol Does
    By Suzanimal in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-20-2014, 10:46 AM
  2. Utah House approves 80 mph speed limit bill
    By aGameOfThrones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-12-2014, 10:18 PM
  3. Feds Want To Lower Legal Blood Alcohol Limit for Drivers
    By Lucille in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 05-18-2013, 12:29 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-07-2011, 12:08 PM
  5. UTAH Alcohol law Question?
    By Bluesky0081 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-30-2009, 01:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •