SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Lower the BAC?, for DUI< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
wycanislatrans Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2760
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 14 2013, 9:00 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news....ng?lite

Do you support this idea?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
TravisNWood Search for posts by this member.
W Y O M I N G
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16681
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 14 2013, 9:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How many beers would that be in two hours for, let's say, a 180-pound male?

I don't know. It would seem a good idea. But lately my attention has been drawn to companies that are willing to employ drowsy drivers and to even create work conditions that create drowsy drivers. But the same companies would fire a driver on the spot if he went to work with alcohol on his breath.

Yet studies have shown drowsy drivers to be as dangerous as drunk drivers — depending upon at what point a driver is considered "drunk." Then there are distracted drivers on the phone, or eating lunch on the road, etc. I'd like to see a balanced approach.

Drowsy driving is difficult to prosecute — especially when "drowsy" is defined as 24 hours without sleep. If we are going to lower the BAC, we need to also seriously lower those hours without sleep.

We need safer drivers, but we also need a balanced approach that looks at all causes of reckless driving — including industries and employers who create unnatural shift work conditions that inevitably put risky drivers on the road.


--------------
Location — Wyoming
Webpages — Cloud Peak Wilderness MapsRocky Mountain Wildlife
Photos — Bighorn Mountains — Wyoming Steppes
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 3
hikerjer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10972
Joined: Apr. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 14 2013, 10:45 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TravisNWood @ May 14 2013, 9:33 pm)
QUOTE
How many beers would that be in two hours for, let's say, a 180-pound male?

I don't know.

According to a CBS report tonight, on an average, a 180 lb. male in good physical condition would be at .05 after four beers in an hour.  That seems like a lot to me.  Years ago when I was younger and weighed about 170 lbs., I took part in  a sobriety test to measure how much alcohol I could drink before being impaired. Two beers in a hour put me just below .08, the legal limit.  Three drinks in an hour put me well over the legal limit.

At any rate, I'm in favor of the change.

I agree with Travis that sleep impaired drivers are a real hazard as is cell phone use while driving. No one seems to be doing much about it though in spite of some laws that have been encacted.  They seem pretty ignored in my neck of the woods.


--------------
"Too often I have met men who boast only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen."  -  Louis L'Amour
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
TravisNWood Search for posts by this member.
W Y O M I N G
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16681
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 14 2013, 10:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hikerjer @ May 14 2013, 8:45 pm)
QUOTE
According to a CBS report tonight, on an average, a 180 lb. male in good physical condition would be at .05 after four beers in an hour.  That seems like a lot to me.  Years ago when I was younger and weighed about 170 lbs., I took part in  a sobriety test to measure how much alcohol I could drink before being impaired. Two beers in a hour put me just below .08, the legal limit.  Three drinks in an hour put me well over the legal limit. . . .

Thanks, Jer.

--------------
Location — Wyoming
Webpages — Cloud Peak Wilderness MapsRocky Mountain Wildlife
Photos — Bighorn Mountains — Wyoming Steppes
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 5
Cloudwalker Search for posts by this member.
?
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7120
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 14 2013, 11:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Me personally?  I won't get behind the wheel even after 1 beer.  I know that sounds extreme, but if I get a DWI, I can lose my job so I WILL NOT take that chance.  I can usually drink 4 beers and not feel the effect of being "buzzed" or "drunk" but after 5 or 6 I know I'm intoxicated.

I don't drink often so a six pack usually gets me to the point of more than relaxed. :;):

I say anything that can make the highways safer, I'm all for it.


--------------
My website

Find me on facebook and shoot me a friends request
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
pass-thru Search for posts by this member.





Group: Members
Posts: 1524
Joined: Jul. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 14 2013, 11:26 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I don't think it takes 4 beers to get a 180# guy to .08. More like 2-3 in an hour.  1 beer is enough for many smaller women.

A lot of people are legitmately  suprised that when they blow .08, because it is a fairly low threshhold vis a vis under the influence.  IMO, .05 is not under the influence unless mixed with drugs.  That said, I also think it is foolish and stupid to drive if you have had anything to drink.

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers.  Most states have aggrevators in the DUI law, for instance speeding a certain amount, twice the legal limit, a child in the car, refusal, etc. etc.  Most of states require mandatory jail time if you have an aggrevator with your 1st DUI....for instance in KY it's 4 days.  Then the courts turn around and let offenders do home confinement, or serve sentence over weekends, etc.

If they really want to crack down on DUI....make them serve the jail time in jail, all at once.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
hikerjer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10972
Joined: Apr. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 12:13 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(pass-thru @ May 14 2013, 11:26 pm)
QUOTE
I don't think it takes 4 beers to get a 180# guy to .08. More like 2-3 in an hour.  1 beer is enough for many smaller women.

Ya, that's more in line of what I'm thinking.

And I agree with the rest of what you said.  I won't drive if I've had more than one drink.  But I do like to drink beer. Fortunately, my favorite bars are in easy walking distance of my house.  So when friends and I go out to have more than one or two, I always walk as do many of them.  The others usually make arrangements for rides.


--------------
"Too often I have met men who boast only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen."  -  Louis L'Amour
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7306
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 1:04 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Pretty easy solve.  Just save your money and go out drinking/eating in cities with good public transport or cheap taxi ... Vegas, San Francisco , New York City, some others.  No one wants drunks on the road but if no beer at a restaurant or bar, I'll just save my money for a city that makes it convenient.

--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
ol-zeke Search for posts by this member.
Clear Creek
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 13026
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 5:55 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

There are many Blood alcohol calculators on the web.  I researched 2 of them, and found it takes a male, weighing 180, consuming 3 beers in a single hour to reach .05.  

here

It takes the same person 4 beers in an hour to reach .71   Even after consuming 4 beers in an hour, if the male waited 90 minutes after that hour of drinking, their BAC would drop below .05.

For a 120 lb female, 2 beers in an hour puts her over .05, but either protracting the drinking, or waiting for 40 minutes after the second beer, reduces the BAC to under .05

here

Being married to an alcohol therapist for 27 yrs gives a person some idea of just how few ounces of alcohol it takes.  A typical American beer is the equivalent of a 6 oz glass of wine or a single shot of liquor.  Higher alcohol content beers would produce different results.  


--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.

"I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth."  Steve McQueen
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19468
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 7:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

They're not lowering the "drunk driving" limit.  They're making "driving after drinking" illegal.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7196
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 7:35 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I used to believe the BAC should be 0 and while I still don't support driving after drinking anything, a book I read on driving said that studies show a driver at .02%-.03%, about 1 drink, is actually safer than a totally sober one. The reason seems to be that the driver has had just enough for it to show up in a test but is still fully aware that his/her driving may be slightly impaired and is far more careful to do everything right. Kind of surprising.

The same book also cites studies that cell phone use, particularly texting, by a driver can actually be worse than a fully inebriated driver due to while the DWI is at least trying to watch the road, a cell call has the driver's attention miles away and a texter is quite often not even looking at the road.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
3-gun. Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 292
Joined: Feb. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 7:51 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It's not about safety, it's all about money.

--------------
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
OverUnder Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 260
Joined: Jan. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 9:55 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Just remember that the beers per hour are typically calculated on the mass produced beer alcohol content, I belive around 4% by weight, 12 oz serving.  If you are drinking pints of micros you are typically dealing with 6% or more and more volume.  
As for lowering the limit I would be against.  In CO, and other states there is already a lower level, 0.03%BAC, where you will get tagged by a DWAI which holds pretty much the same penalty as DUI.  If they want to do anything to curb the issue it should be strengthening and enforcing stiffer penalties for repeat offenders.  I hear of too many repeat offenders that are just redoing the punishment of a first timer.
As for me I got my DUI about five years ago.  I did get lucky with the outcome but the punishment still sucked.  My choices now are drinking at home, walking to the tavern and stumbling home, have a driver or just not drinking.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
buddero Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1191
Joined: Jan. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 10:42 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(pass-thru @ May 14 2013, 11:26 pm)
QUOTE
... unless mixed with drugs.

Hello - ALCOHOL is A DRUG.

It is addictive to some, associated with amazing levels of sexual assaults and other violence, results in many 1000s of deaths every year, stupid-inducing to anyone who "has enough" - in general, a dangerous drug, ranking right on up there with heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine.

Yes to .05.


--------------
Reach out your hand, if your cup be empty
If your cup is full, may it be again

Journal and links to refugees, backpacking, travel in Asia, photos, honky-tonk angels, other beautiful things...
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 15
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2899
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 10:45 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(OverUnder @ May 15 2013, 8:55 am)
QUOTE
As for me I got my DUI about five years ago.  I did get lucky with the outcome but the punishment still sucked.  My choices now are drinking at home, walking to the tavern and stumbling home, have a driver or just not drinking.

Exactly. Those are the range of choices everyone should consider (i.e. not even consider drinking and driving), IMHO.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
OverUnder Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 260
Joined: Jan. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 11:33 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think it would be more effective for levels to be tiered upward.  Instead of lowering the limit, I think a lot of states already have limits that have similar consequences to DUI, increase the punishment for higher levels of intoxication.  0.08 is DUI, 0.14 is DUI plus, 0.20 is Now yer screwed and you’re spending time in jail.  When I was in my heyday for drunk driving there were nights I was fine to drive but would have been over the limit and there were nights I should have been pulled out of my vehicle and beaten on the side of the road.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6378
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 11:43 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
The NTSB reports that at .05 BAC, some drivers begin having difficulties with depth perception and other visual functions.  At .07, cognitive abilities become impaired.
At .05 BAC, the risk of having an accident increases by 39 percent. At .08 BAC, the risk of having an accident increases by more than 100 percent.


If that is true, then there really is no rationale argument against lowering the standard, other than "I can't drive unless I drink first".

If it is not true, then there is no need to lower the standard.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Marmotstew Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9381
Joined: May 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 11:56 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I don't even feel buzzed till my 9th beer. They should raise it to 0.18.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
OverUnder Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 260
Joined: Jan. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 11:58 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ May 15 2013, 11:43 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The NTSB reports that at .05 BAC, some drivers begin having difficulties with depth perception and other visual functions.  At .07, cognitive abilities become impaired.
At .05 BAC, the risk of having an accident increases by 39 percent. At .08 BAC, the risk of having an accident increases by more than 100 percent.


If that is true, then there really is no rationale argument against lowering the standard, other than "I can't drive unless I drink first".

If it is not true, then there is no need to lower the standard.

If the risk of having an accident increase by more than 100% would that mean anytime anyone drives with a BAC of 0.08 they are going to have an accident?  Those numbers sound a little fishy to me.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2899
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 12:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

No. An increase of 100% just means the likelihood has doubled. An increase of more than 100% means the likelihood has more than doubled.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6378
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 12:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(OverUnder @ May 15 2013, 11:58 am)
QUOTE

(nogods @ May 15 2013, 11:43 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The NTSB reports that at .05 BAC, some drivers begin having difficulties with depth perception and other visual functions.  At .07, cognitive abilities become impaired.
At .05 BAC, the risk of having an accident increases by 39 percent. At .08 BAC, the risk of having an accident increases by more than 100 percent.


If that is true, then there really is no rationale argument against lowering the standard, other than "I can't drive unless I drink first".

If it is not true, then there is no need to lower the standard.

If the risk of having an accident increase by more than 100% would that mean anytime anyone drives with a BAC of 0.08 they are going to have an accident?  Those numbers sound a little fishy to me.

I think they are referring to the increase in the risk - as in - if your chance of an accident is 1 in 10 at .5, and your chance of an accident is 2 in 20 at .8, then that is a 100% increase (10% + 10% = 20%)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Marmotstew Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9381
Joined: May 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 12:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It doubles for lightweights who don't drink much. I won the gold glove in my drunk softball Leauge playing the hot corner.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
bbobb169 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 890
Joined: May 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 12:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Why not ZERO..........you have a drink, you don't drive.  All the other numbers are giving the OK to drink then drive.   Its a drug that impairs ALL people.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
OverUnder Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 260
Joined: Jan. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 12:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ May 15 2013, 12:07 pm)
QUOTE

(OverUnder @ May 15 2013, 11:58 am)
QUOTE

(nogods @ May 15 2013, 11:43 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The NTSB reports that at .05 BAC, some drivers begin having difficulties with depth perception and other visual functions.  At .07, cognitive abilities become impaired.
At .05 BAC, the risk of having an accident increases by 39 percent. At .08 BAC, the risk of having an accident increases by more than 100 percent.


If that is true, then there really is no rationale argument against lowering the standard, other than "I can't drive unless I drink first".

If it is not true, then there is no need to lower the standard.

If the risk of having an accident increase by more than 100% would that mean anytime anyone drives with a BAC of 0.08 they are going to have an accident?  Those numbers sound a little fishy to me.

I think they are referring to the increase in the risk - as in - if your chance of an accident is 1 in 10 at .5, and your chance of an accident is 2 in 20 at .8, then that is a 100% increase (10% + 10% = 20%)

So what is the chance of having an accident cold stone sober??  If its 0.000003% then the chance of having an accident at 0.08 BAC would be 0.000006%.  Not much more of a realistic chance.  They could be using scare tactics with the way the numbers are stated, couldn't they?

QUOTE
bbobb169 · Posted on May 15 2013, 12:15 pm
Why not ZERO..........you have a drink, you don't drive.  All the other numbers are giving the OK to drink then drive.   Its a drug that impairs ALL people.


Because we live in the real world.  One or two drinks does not make you a raving drunkin lunatic on the road.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7196
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 3:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(bbobb169 @ May 15 2013, 10:15 am)
QUOTE
Why not ZERO..........you have a drink, you don't drive.  All the other numbers are giving the OK to drink then drive.   Its a drug that impairs ALL people.

Read my comment further up citing studies.

--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6378
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 4:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(bbobb169 @ May 15 2013, 12:15 pm)
QUOTE
Why not ZERO..........you have a drink, you don't drive.  All the other numbers are giving the OK to drink then drive.   Its a drug that impairs ALL people.

I agree.  I have a beer or burbon and a splash every now and then.  But I don't drive if I have ingested alcohol within the lat 8 hours. I've taught my children the same, and from what I have observed, they all seem to be following the same rule.

Many years ago I realized that much of my ingestion of alcohol was just social habit rather than for pleasure. Now I enjoy alcohol more when I do drink, and I drink alcohol a lot less often.  

Because of medication I've been taking the last 3 months I haven't been able to ingest any alcohol.  Life hasn't been any less enjoyable the last 3 months.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6378
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 4:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 15 2013, 7:35 am)
QUOTE
I used to believe the BAC should be 0 and while I still don't support driving after drinking anything, a book I read on driving said that studies show a driver at .02%-.03%, about 1 drink, is actually safer than a totally sober one. The reason seems to be that the driver has had just enough for it to show up in a test but is still fully aware that his/her driving may be slightly impaired and is far more careful to do everything right. Kind of surprising.

The same book also cites studies that cell phone use, particularly texting, by a driver can actually be worse than a fully inebriated driver due to while the DWI is at least trying to watch the road, a cell call has the driver's attention miles away and a texter is quite often not even looking at the road.

Would you fly in a commercial airlines that followed the logic "if our pilots and the air traffic controllers have a beer or two before work, they'll be much more careful...."

How about school bus drivers?  

Surgeons?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6378
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 5:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Maybe that's the best solution - don't drive a car in any condition you would not want your child's school bus driver to be in.  If a person thinks it is OK for his or her child's school bus driver to have a BAC of .06 while driving his or her kids to or from school then I can understand why he or she might believe that lowering the DWI to .05 isn't necessary.

But I'll bet most parents who think nothing of driving after a few glasses of wine or a few beers would be screaming for Obama to be impeached if they learned that their kids' school bus driver had eggs and beer for breakfast.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
wycanislatrans Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2760
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 7:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I'm actually a little suprised by the support for lowering the BAC here. I'm actually a little "meh" either way and more in favor of better punishments for repeat offenders.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6378
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 15 2013, 8:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

drinking and driving is like smoking cigarettes - Intelligent people who know better do it anyway.

The proposal will at least get some people who have to self-medicate to socialize to consider whether it is their lack of sober social skills or the unbearable people in their social circles, or both, that drives them to drink in order to socialize.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
35 replies since May 14 2013, 9:00 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Lower the BAC?
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions