Is there a need for alcohol consumption that puts you over the legal limit to drive? (1 Viewer)

[KCitons]

It's been pointed out to you several times that the way you phrased the question it doesn't require you actually drive drunk. If you couldn't drink enough to feel the effects of the alcohol, yes it would be pointless. By your logic all cell phones should be banned too so you couldn't possibly text and drive. 

Possessing an assault rifle doesn't require you to be a mass murderer. 

Youre making a comparison between drunk driving (alcohol) and texting. You need to have stats to quote if you're going to make your case. How many people die from texting and driving each year? Are there other ways to regulate or punish in order to eliminate the problem? Or do we just ban cell phones? What would the economic impact be?

You might need to start a new thread to discuss. While I'm ok with the crossover comparison, others may not like it.

 

[KCitons]

I am 6-1 210....Had 6 pints of Miller Lite...but that probably would not put me over the limit.  Not even buzzed.

So, in your mind, you think you're ok to drive after that six pack? 

 

[Da Guru]

So, in your mind, you think you're ok to drive after that six pack? 

In my mind yes, in the State Police minds probably not.

 

[DallasDMac]

I am 6-1 210....Had 6 pints of Miller Lite...but that probably would not put me over the limit.  Not even buzzed.

So you had six pints of water basically. (Yes, working on a beer snob transition post here....)

 

[brun]

To answer the question. No, I don't think there's need to drink enough to put you over the legal limit. However, if your not doing something that puts others in danger, like driving, I don't care how much you drink.

If it were up to me.

I would raise the limit for driving while impaired. .08 seems way too low. However, the BAC by itself wouldn't be enough to be charged. You would also have to demonstrate some level of impairment (I'm not smart enough to know what that would be, though the field sobriety test seems a pretty good start).

If you did fail for BAC and impairment. I would make the penalties stiffer. Also, here's where my logic really differs from most, I wouldn't make such a big distinction between 2 people equally drunk but one was luckier/unluckier than the other in that they did/didn't have anything get in their way.

At least for 1st time offenders, I would have a provision that allows them to drive to and from work (I think some states may have something like this).

 

[Da Guru]

So you had six pints of water basically. (Yes, working on a beer snob transition post here....)

Yes...that is what I was saying. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I am 6-1 210....Had 6 pints of Miller Lite...but that probably would not put me over the limit.  Not even buzzed.

You shouldn't be on the road after this. 

Likely would be .09. At .04 almost all drivers have impairment. Becomes much greater as you get higher and higher, contrary to what every drunk driver ever swears by. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

To answer the question. No, I don't think there's need to drink enough to put you over the legal limit. However, if your not doing something that puts others in danger, like driving, I don't care how much you drink.

If it were up to me.

I would raise the limit for driving while impaired. .08 seems way too low. However, the BAC by itself wouldn't be enough to be charged. You would also have to demonstrate some level of impairment (I'm not smart enough to know what that would be, though the field sobriety test seems a pretty good start).

If you did fail for BAC and impairment. I would make the penalties stiffer. Also, here's where my logic really differs from most, I wouldn't make such a big distinction between 2 people equally drunk but one was luckier/unluckier than the other in that they did/didn't have anything get in their way.

At least for 1st time offenders, I would have a provision that allows them to drive to and from work (I think some states may have something like this).

This is an excellent point. Our society often only punishes bad behavior that people got caught for. I bet most of the people that are so judgmental about Cam Newton have told a sexist joke before or said something derogatory about a large or unattractive woman. 

I used to work with a guy that had two DUI's. Got the second one after a work happy hour. I wasn't there. I was at one about a month later where people were saying stupid stuff about him and consuming even more alcohol than he had and later driving home. So dumb. One of those guys was a CDL driver. Get a DUI in your personal vehicle and your job is toast. 

 

[Da Guru]

You shouldn't be on the road after this. 

Likely would be .09. At .04 almost all drivers have impairment. Becomes much greater as you get higher and higher, contrary to what every drunk driver ever swears by. 

I was not on the road but even at .09 I do think I am quite a bit safer than distracted drivers texting and Facebooking though.

 

[Otis]

So nobody uses assault rifles for enjoyment? There must be millions of attacks every day. 

I wasn’t talking about how they’re used. Stupid people misuse things all the time. I’m talking about their intended purpose. 

 

[KCitons]

I wasn’t talking about how they’re used. Stupid people misuse things all the time. I’m talking about their intended purpose. 

You mean like using cold medicine to make meth?

So if 10 million people own an assault rifle for enjoyment purposes and 10 other (not 10 million, just 10) use them for mass shootings, wouldn't the intended purpose be changed? 

The only reason your argument holds any water is because assault rifles were designed for the military. But so was a lot of things that make it into consumer hands. How many Humvees drove down American streets. (And not the H3). And there are a lot of custom guns that are not made for military use. So now youre back to rate of fire and magazine capacity.