Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

>>>John David Galt Jan 10, 5:06 pm
I agree. Granted that this requires judgment on the part of the police
officer, most cop cars these days have video cameras, & I've seen them
show a jury just how badly the guy was driving before the officer made
the decision to pull him over. That's how it should be done.


So you think DUI should be allowed unless the cop can prove the driver
is impaired. Do you also think heroin and cocaine possesion should be
allowed unless the cops can prove the user is a threat to society?

Why do you ask about heroin and cocaine? You worried about getting
busted?

Why do you ask about heroin and cocaine? You worried about getting
busted?

What does it matter how the answer comes back? You can't tell the
difference between 6 & 60 or 25 & 41. And you're not adult enough to
answer in an intelligent manner.

Is that mommy calling you?

What does it matter how the answer comes back? You can't tell the
difference between 6 & 60 or 25 & 41. And you're not adult enough to
answer in an intelligent manner.

Is that mommy calling you?

> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and
> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected
> from .03%.

MADD wants you to believe that, because their real purpose is to reinstate
alcohol prohibition.

> They may still be able to steer the car properly but they take
> risks they would otherwise not take, situational awareness decreases
> sharply and the risk of causing an accident drastically increases.

And I take more risks after my first cup of coffee in the morning than
before. Ya wanna ban that, too?

It's all a matter of degree. And adults are entitled to make their own
choices about risk, individually.

> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and
> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected
> from .03%.

MADD wants you to believe that, because their real purpose is to reinstate
alcohol prohibition.

> They may still be able to steer the car properly but they take
> risks they would otherwise not take, situational awareness decreases
> sharply and the risk of causing an accident drastically increases.

And I take more risks after my first cup of coffee in the morning than
before. Ya wanna ban that, too?

It's all a matter of degree. And adults are entitled to make their own
choices about risk, individually.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:29:24 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and
>>> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected
>>> from .03%. They may still be able to steer the car properly but they take
>>> risks they would otherwise not take, situational awareness decreases
>>> sharply and the risk of causing an accident drastically increases.
>>
>> How about a cite not MADD or similiar?
>
> Several of the studies I am referring to have been conducted in Europe and
> thus have nothing to do with MADD. The Germans have determined that the
> risk of causing a fatal accident driving drunk (above the legal limit of
> 0.05%) is at least 6 times as high than are driving sober.

Then let's see a real cite then. Because the ones presented here before
go back to the neo-prohibitionists.

>> MADD and other orgs achieved their goals and are now pushing for a new
>> prohibition to continue their existance IMO.

> I like a beer or a glass of wine now and then, I just don't drive
> afterwards until the effect of the alcohol has completely worn off (both
> impairment and BAC wise). If someone is unable to make sure they don't
> drink if you have to drive afterwards, they are an alcoholic.

However MADD and other orgs are still pushing a neo-prohibitionist
agenda. The USA is simply filled with control freaks. Instead of being
open, the method of recent decades has been incrementalism.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:29:24 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and
>>> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected
>>> from .03%. They may still be able to steer the car properly but they take
>>> risks they would otherwise not take, situational awareness decreases
>>> sharply and the risk of causing an accident drastically increases.
>>
>> How about a cite not MADD or similiar?
>
> Several of the studies I am referring to have been conducted in Europe and
> thus have nothing to do with MADD. The Germans have determined that the
> risk of causing a fatal accident driving drunk (above the legal limit of
> 0.05%) is at least 6 times as high than are driving sober.

Then let's see a real cite then. Because the ones presented here before
go back to the neo-prohibitionists.

>> MADD and other orgs achieved their goals and are now pushing for a new
>> prohibition to continue their existance IMO.

> I like a beer or a glass of wine now and then, I just don't drive
> afterwards until the effect of the alcohol has completely worn off (both
> impairment and BAC wise). If someone is unable to make sure they don't
> drink if you have to drive afterwards, they are an alcoholic.

However MADD and other orgs are still pushing a neo-prohibitionist
agenda. The USA is simply filled with control freaks. Instead of being
open, the method of recent decades has been incrementalism.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>Nonsense. Read the papers. Most of the drunk drivers who get checked after
>a crash are somewhere between .05% and 0.1% Most non-alcoholics are not
>even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.

Obviously, we haven't been reading the same papers.