Post: #1

Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R-UT) has signed a bill lowering Utah's DUI level from .08 to .05, making it the lowest in the nation.

http://fox13now.com/2017/03/23/utahs-gov...he-nation/

DJT is sober as a board. Other politicians are also sober as a board. I don't drink and drive as I live in DC. There is not much need for a car here. But I know other places like Utah may require the use of a car to travel locally. What do you think of this restrictive policy to drop the legal BAC drinking level from 0.8 percent to 0.5 percent in Utah while operating a motor vehicle?

Post: #2

Edit- Delete

Post: #3

I don't drink and drive at ALL, like I won't drive if I've had a beer any time in the last 3 hours.

This is overly paranoid, probably. But DUIs scare the shit out of me.

Is there a big difference between driving at .08 and .05?

Post: #4

(03-24-2017 01:01 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Is there a big difference between driving at .08 and .05?

It'll be a big difference in tax revenue from everyone that has a glass of wine at a restaurant and then drives through a roadblock.

I wish I could find the article I was reading on this bill a couple of weeks back. It said the overwhelming majority of DUI accidents are caused by drivers with a BAC of over .15. The DUI accident below .08 are few.

This is just a new revenue scam.

Post: #5

2 drinks is maybe 0.08. It's definitely 0.05

DUI laws are unnecessary. We are already have "wet reckless" laws to put dangerous drinking drivers in jail. The arbitrary nature of BAC laws punishes good drivers who are safer at 0.10 than are certain others at 0.00. And, as stated above, it's convenient politically.

Post: #6

We had some insane politicians in Croatia reduce this to 0.00% (yes, ZERO) but after a massive outcry it was returned to 0.05% - everyone is used to that. I don't think you can get to 0.05% without drinking quite a bit?

We Croatians are happy to get enslaved by globalists, but hands off our alcohol.

Post: #7

It's been 0.05 here for at least 20 years. I remember because I got done for being .077 soon after I got my license and I thought I was sober as a judge.

They reckon you can drink 2 "standard drinks" in 1 hour, then 1 per hour after that to be at 0.05%, but a "standard drink" is fuck all - just a middy of midstrength beer or a single shot of spirits - so even a pint of fullstrength or a decently mixed bourbon and coke can put you over the limit.

Post: #8

Party pooper alert...

I am fully in favor of lowering it to 0.05%, which is the limit here in Australia.

The US records twice as many per capita vehicle fatalities as here in Australia and Australia should really have more, as our cities are so spread out compared to yours and people tend to do more long-haul driving on country roads or highways with lack of sleep.

I have seen some truly terrible drink driving crashes in my lifetime, a few of them fatal. In three of the four fatal cases I have witnessed, either at the time of the crash or having seen the aftermath, the drivers were in the 0.05 to 0.10 range after testing.

I'm sorry, guys, but the stats bear out the efficacy of lowering to 0.05%: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4448946/

Huge numbers of people can't handle their alcohol even after one or two drinks.

Post: #9

I'm in favor of a .05 limit. Two beers puts the average male at a .04 and that's if you pound them at once. You average drink raises your BAC by .02, and your body expels .015 a hour. Impairment related to reaction times starts between a .04-.05. I have a high amount of information in this area and it is not possible to have two drinks and be over a .08. Unless your definition of 2 is different. This isn't some globalist plot, it's a public safety issue.

Post: #10

Someone really needs to invent a pill that purges you of alcohol. Really. I would pay good money for this.

Nothing would be more pleasant than going for a big craft beer drinking session, and when you feel done, you just take the pill, wait 30minutes, then drive or ride home. That would be friggin awesome.

Post: #11

(03-24-2017 06:45 AM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  Party pooper alert...

I am fully in favor of lowering it to 0.05%, which is the limit here in Australia.

The US records twice as many per capita vehicle fatalities as here in Australia and Australia should really have more, as our cities are so spread out compared to yours and people tend to do more long-haul driving on country roads or highways with lack of sleep.

I have seen some truly terrible drink driving crashes in my lifetime, a few of them fatal. In three of the four fatal cases I have witnessed, either at the time of the crash or having seen the aftermath, the drivers were in the 0.05 to 0.10 range after testing.

I'm sorry, guys, but the stats bear out the efficacy of lowering to 0.05%: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4448946/

Huge numbers of people can't handle their alcohol even after one or two drinks.

C'mon that's one freaking beer.

Post: #12

David Garrett,

Australia's population is far more densely concentrated to a few cities compared to the US.

The United States have over 300 million people, with 10 cities of over a million people. AUS has 20 million, with 5 cities of 1 million plus. You can't get a DUI in NYC

Post: #13

I bought a high-end breathalyzer, not wanting to drive "drunk". At a party a couple of years ago, having not had a drink for a while and feeling fully good to go, I blew a 0.15! Needless to say, I stuck around until I was within the limit, but I was a very boring and bored guest.

Some of us really can handle our liquor. I saw an athletic young police officer drink 3/4 of a bottle of rum over 3 hours, then still pass a field sobriety test.

Again, the limits are arbitrary and another surrender of freedom to government "for our own good". You're either for more government or for less.

Post: #14

(03-24-2017 09:40 AM)Hoser Wrote:  I bought a high-end breathalyzer, not wanting to drive "drunk". At a party a couple of years ago, having not had a drink for a while and feeling fully good to go, I blew a 0.15! Needless to say, I stuck around until I was within the limit, but I was a very boring and bored guest.

Some of us really can handle our liquor. I saw an athletic young police officer drink 3/4 of a bottle of rum over 3 hours, then still pass a field sobriety test.

Again, the limits are arbitrary and another surrender of freedom to government "for our own good". You're either for more government or for less.

1. You probably blew a .15 because of residual mouth alcohol. Legally in most cases you need to wait at least 20 minutes before taking any breath based test. The reason is alcohol stays in your mouth in your saliva. A shortcut would be to rinse your mouth out with water a couple times. I also have a PBT and can make it show a .4, while sober, if a rinse my mouth with alcohol before providing a breath sample. I don't want to offend but the only people I have seen that were functioning at a .15 and above are alcoholics. Even so their reaction times are significantly impaired.

2. Field tests are not pass/fail. The walk and turn/one leg stand are divided attention tests used to determine if someone is appreciably impaired. The HGN test is the "eye test" performed during field sobriety tests. Most people think if they can follow the stimulus they "pass" the test. However the test is designed to look for the involuntary jerking of eye muscles. Certain levels of alcohol cause varying level of nystagmus within the eye. It is not possible to fool the eyes. I can tell if someone is drunk by having them follow my finger for ten seconds(the actual test is longer and looks for different levels of nystagmus).

3. In my experience the "government is out to get me" is a coping technique to justify their drunk driving habit or prior convictions. Over half of fatal crashes involve impaired drivers. I was almost killed by some drunk bitch and I don't like to think her right to drive drunk should have been protected until the moment she harmed me.

Post: #15

Bummer: great points and insight.

1. No offense taken! I have Viking blood and a strong constitution, and have had a high tolerance for ALL drugs from my youth. For example, I have NEVER noticed any alleviation of a headache from ASA ("Apirin") or acetaminophen. I seriously used to have to take Codeine to manage any amount of pain (didn't care for the constipating effects, though). When I first started going to the bars with my military buds, I used to get pissed off that my friends would be hooting it up after 3-5 drinks, and I would be barely buzzed after 6-8. That shit costs a lot when you're paying full retail + tip!

2. Agreed re: nystagmus. I've used it to convince friends who felt "fine" that they weren't, and needed a drive home. Also agreed that the FST isn't pass/fail; in fact, it can be used to estimate BAC. But the PD that trained me in performing the FST had a threshold of 3 anomalies (touching a raised foot to the ground counted as one, for example) before bringing someone in for blood testing. The fellow I was talking about "passed" in this sense, even though you could smell the booze on him.

3. Government is a slippery slope. I'll leave this point at that, as it's too off topic for this thread.

Post: #16

(03-24-2017 10:07 AM)Number one bummer Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:40 AM)Hoser Wrote:  I bought a high-end breathalyzer, not wanting to drive "drunk". At a party a couple of years ago, having not had a drink for a while and feeling fully good to go, I blew a 0.15! Needless to say, I stuck around until I was within the limit, but I was a very boring and bored guest.

Some of us really can handle our liquor. I saw an athletic young police officer drink 3/4 of a bottle of rum over 3 hours, then still pass a field sobriety test.

Again, the limits are arbitrary and another surrender of freedom to government "for our own good". You're either for more government or for less.

1. You probably blew a .15 because of residual mouth alcohol. Legally in most cases you need to wait at least 20 minutes before taking any breath based test. The reason is alcohol stays in your mouth in your saliva. A shortcut would be to rinse your mouth out with water a couple times. I also have a PBT and can make it show a .4, while sober, if a rinse my mouth with alcohol before providing a breath sample. I don't want to offend but the only people I have seen that were functioning at a .15 and above are alcoholics. Even so their reaction times are significantly impaired.

2. Field tests are not pass/fail. The walk and turn/one leg stand are divided attention tests used to determine if someone is appreciably impaired. The HGN test is the "eye test" performed during field sobriety tests. Most people think if they can follow the stimulus they "pass" the test. However the test is designed to look for the involuntary jerking of eye muscles. Certain levels of alcohol cause varying level of nystagmus within the eye. It is not possible to fool the eyes. I can tell if someone is drunk by having them follow my finger for ten seconds(the actual test is longer and looks for different levels of nystagmus).

3. In my experience the "government is out to get me" is a coping technique to justify their drunk driving habit or prior convictions. Over half of fatal crashes involve impaired drivers. I was almost killed by some drunk bitch and I don't like to think her right to drive drunk should have been protected until the moment she harmed me.

This guy knows his stuff. Definitely not a keyboard jockey and his post shows definite real world experience. Rare.

Where I am, it is possible, but not likely, to prove impairment by alcohol with only a .05 or even less than that, depending on the totality of all clues of impairment. I can't recall anyone with lower than a .08 going down for any alcohol related offense ever, but I know it does happen. I had a .07 second offense (I didn't handle the first), where after a lot of negotiating for weeks, they agreed to reduce it to reckless driving.

Post: #17

As a church going, dry individual, this is ridiculous. Another case of political pandering to a certain crowd, instead of letting common sense rule.

I live here in UT. Recently, they INCREASED the speed limit to 80 mph on rural freeways as an experiment. What happened? The fatality rate went DOWN. The reason is people found a 70 mph speed limit too restrictive to follow, and decided to take the risk at 95 or more. Now, with it at 80, most everybody will obey the law.

I would bet you the same thing will happen here. At 0.08, a guy will drink 2 or 3, then finish off the night with a coke, and just hang out before he drives home. With it being too restrictive, that same guy will just say "to hell with this", drink up, and take the risk.

Post: #18

Last time I drank and drive I went through a DUI check point.

Managed to go through without a problem. I never did it again.

This is utter bullshit and is nothing more than a sad attempt at making the state and criminal system money.

Post: #19

(03-24-2017 07:26 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Someone really needs to invent a pill that purges you of alcohol. Really. I would pay good money for this.

Nothing would be more pleasant than going for a big craft beer drinking session, and when you feel done, you just take the pill, wait 30minutes, then drive or ride home. That would be friggin awesome.

Check out n acetyl cysteine. Probably won't not solve it but might help.

Post: #20

(03-24-2017 07:26 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Someone really needs to invent a pill that purges you of alcohol. Really. I would pay good money for this.

Nothing would be more pleasant than going for a big craft beer drinking session, and when you feel done, you just take the pill, wait 30minutes, then drive or ride home. That would be friggin awesome.

   

Seriously, I'd love to be able to instantly sober up at the end of the evening. Enjoy a binge drinking session, then take the pill, feel good right away, and drive home safely. I'd pay lots of money for that.

I'm glad to never have to worry about that in Thailand - just make sure to have 3,000 baht in cash, and drive home. If you get caught, just pay, and be on your merry way.

The problem is that the police does not let us the opportunity to practice driving drunk - which causes accidents and fatalities due to the lack of drink-driving experience.

Post: #21

(03-24-2017 10:51 AM)Jim Johnson Wrote:  As a church going, dry individual, this is ridiculous. Another case of political pandering to a certain crowd, instead of letting common sense rule.

I live here in UT.

I was previously going to mention this, but I had already said a lot. Being anti-alcohol in the Mormon State is a great political move, akin to being pro-intelligent-design in Texas or pro-marijuana in Oregon.

Post: #22

In another decade or two everyone will have a self-driving car and you'll never have to worry about this.

Post: #23

When I was growing up and the legal drinking age was 18 the DUI level was 0.12 then MADD got the drinking age raised to 21 and the level lowered to .08, the cunts-ruined the party and getting home from it. 18 to drink and .12 is reasonable, keep women out of politics.

Post: #24

It is purely political, and aimed at increasing revenue no doubt.

All it does is criminalize a whole new class of people. It's not going to stop or actually decrease drunk driving at all.

The drunk driver isn't going to say, "Well damn, I had better stop driving drunk now because of this lower BAC level!" They're going to get into their vehicle and drive, and either get somewhere safely, hurt someone, or go to jail.

Nothing changes.

Post: #25

(03-24-2017 04:02 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  When I was growing up and the legal drinking age was 18 the DUI level was 0.12 then MADD got the drinking age raised to 21 and the level lowered to .08, the cunts-ruined the party and getting home from it. 18 to drink and .12 is reasonable, keep women out of politics.

If these fat American cunts of today want someone to keep fucking them, then they should be making it easier for us to be drunk.