I wonst blew a .08%.

18 hrs in jail that nite.

My work beater with my tools inside was impounded. $250

$2,500 lawyer costs.

$1,600 court costs.

Result:

Probation for 3 years at $60 monthly maintenance fee.

360 hours of 'Community Service' within probation term.

And that was 19 years ago.

Just don't drink and drive.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country
Compared to most of the rest of the world, we are one of the most tolerant countries. I have no problem whatsoever with lowering the threshold. I absolutely do not drink if I'm going to be driving, period. If you feel that you have to drink in order to be sociable, you have a problem, whether you see it or admit it or not. I enjoy it as much as anyone, but I'm responsible enough to arrange for alternate transportation if I'm going to drink. Here in town, that's what I have a 16 year old grandson for. He's the designated driver for the whole family.

Now all we have to do is find a way to keep the pot smokers off the road.

 

Not sure we should be modeling our laws after countries like Pakistan, etc... We like to pride ourselves on being a free society.

Interestingly enough Wiki has a similar page for minimum driving age by country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_minimum_driving_age
Guess what? It's 18 years old in much of the world. Your grandson would be presumed too young (dangerous?) to drive in other societies.

If it's all about saving lives without regard to freedom, I guess we should raise our minimum driving age to 18 or even 21, and place a maximum age of 70. After all, if JUST ONE life is saved, it's worth it, right?

Also, people drink in social situations not because they HAVE to, but because they want to. It's part of that freedom thing.

Oh, and besides drinking and pot smoking, here are some of the other things that could distract a driver and cause an accident:

Drinking a hot coffee
Drinking a cold soda
Changing the radio station
Eating fast food
Engaging in an emotional conversation

If another country bans those, should we follow along?

 

Absolute care should be taken when consuming any alcohol and driving. The penalty's are just to much now days. If you get a DUI your life for the next 3-5 years is pretty much over unless your rich. Then once you've had one it shows when ever they stop you for anything they will fully check you out. The cops can see you have priors. My advice to all my pals who still drink if you drink just dont drive. Its not worth the risk. Been there-done that.

 

I have no problem whatsoever with responsible drinking. However, getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle after drinking *ANY* amount of alcohol is irresponsible. That's my opinion and I'm sticking by it!

I could care less if they even wanted to lower the threshold to 0.02. The only reason I would not support 0.00 is a swig of cough syrup would trigger it.

 

glc - Be careful what we wish for.

A government powerful enough to arbitrarily punish your fellow Americans is powerful enough to find fault with you, too.

As I said before, this should 1) be up to each state; and 2) I in no way condone impaired driving (as testified to by others, it is already illegal).

 

Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

Exactly! Zero Tolerance. Me and wife won't drive at all after even 1 drink. I know I can safely drive after 3 or 4, but the risk are NOT worth it.

 

Europe has been like that for years

 

Do you want to be more like Europe? I sure as hell don't, we've got too much in common with them already. And to everyone, letting to gov't knock down the BAC is just letting them further intrude into our lives and accelerate the disintegration of our personal liberties. If you let them have this, they'll go after something else right afterwards. It's all about power. And to zero tolerance advocates, if you don't want to drive after having a drink, good on you. But do NOT tell anyone else that that is what they MUST do. Our country is about making choices and having as much freedom as responsibly possible. The issue lies in the word "responsibly," as it is left up to interpretation. Is saving "JUST ONE life" worth ruining countless thousands of others? I have to say no. Running .08, or even a .1 is not worth destroying someone's life. It is not a dangerous amount of alcohol. The limit was set there for quite some time and there is no reason to lower it other than to allow the gov't a larger role in dictating the lives of its citizens and funding more ways for them to waste OUR money

 

KMAC, I tl;dr'ed your post. Your first sentence already proves to me your ignorance (no offense).

Europe is miles ahead of us in technology and laws. Cars over there are SAFER and more FUEL EFFICIENT. With exception to those nasty speed cameras (hello Big Brother), anything we do is nothing in comparison with them. We need over 300ci of displacement to barely squeak out 3-400hp. They have tiny I4 and V6 engines getting 4-600hp and 20-30mpg to boot! I believe the most fuel efficient car over there is a 3cyl diesel getting 75mpg CITY. I know America is different and we love our trucks, etc, but personally, I'd love a 75mpg car for my 23 mile daily commute to work. Sadly, that car isn't allowed over here simply because of laws. And how about that Autobahn?

Back to the drinking and driving argument- Have you ever lost a friend to a drunk driver? I have. Do you work alongside the Fire Department, EMS, or Police and see drunk driving accidents daily? I do. I am 100% with lowering the DUI limit. People already know one drink is already too many. Like GLC said, driving is a privileged and not a right, nor is it a "personal liberty". If you want to act retarded and risk your license/life by doing stupid crap, that's fine. But when you risk mine, I have a problem with it. An early calculation places about 20% of all impaired drivers between a .05 and .08 range. So in the end, they are right when they said it would prevent loss of life. When you've had to pull a booster line to spray the brain matter of a 17 year old girl off the interstate, you would understand.

 

I never said anything either way, I was merely stating a FACT...

 

Sorry, it was a sarcastic/rhetorical question that wasn't assuming you said either way. I didn't even think you were in favor of lowering it. But the comment about Europe was referring to socialism, extremely high insurance rates, speed cameras and traps every 10 feet, and gas that's $3 per LITER, not gallon. I absolutely love diesel cars, like the VW that gets 70 mpg.

And I absolutely hate drunk driving, I personally never drive when I have consumed any alcohol. But I don't think that whether I do or not, should be decided for me, I want to make the choice on my own. See where I'm coming from? And an ex girlfriend's brother (who was a fire fighter) get killed by a drunk driver at 6am on his way to work. On top of that, I had a cousin's husband get killed after he blowed his car into a tree while drunk. They have 3 small children. And I have witnessed first hand what kind of torment it will cast onto a family.

I do apologize for how my initial question sounded.

 

Also, at no point did I say that we should abolish BAC tests. So I'm not being "retarded" or advocating anyone else being "retarded." I did not say nor imply that I partook in driving while legitimately drunk. I personally do not see much of a difference or much of a reason to lower it to .05 from .08 other than to punish law-abiding citizens and/or take away liberties (yes, I believe it to be a liberty to consume low amounts of alcohol and drive home). I understand your concern with drunk driving, I really do. I have completely zero tolerance for it. However, punishing people that are able to drive unimpaired after a drink or two, is not the way to go about trying to save lives. I'm not sure what kind of information and data is used to determine your 20% figure, as a large majority or people are completely unhindered with a BAC of .08. A good chunk of that 20% could very well have been the result of accidents that would have occurred regardless of the level of sobriety of the driver. If the BAC max was being lowered from let's day .2 to .05, that would be a whole different story. I see very little difference in driving capabilities between a person with a BAC of .08 and another with .05. That is my sole argument, not advocating "risking my license/life" but driving around after 10+ drinks

 

I'm as conservative/libertarian as anyone, but this is one issue where I have no problem with government involvement. I see where some of you are coming from, but when it comes to drinking then driving, there are too many citizens (and non-citizens) here who have proven they do not deserve to have a choice in this matter. *ANY* alcohol in the blood results in some degree of impairment.