Feds want tolower alcohol limits for drivers, from .08, to .05.

[SHOOTALL]

MADD was formed by Candy Lightner (later to quit the organization in disgust and become a spokesperson for the liquor industry).

Please post the proof it would be interesting to read.
 
Didn't know that before.
 
 

MADD is not behind The National Transportation Safety Board's recommendation to reduce the legal limit from the current .08% to .05%.
Critics say that is too low and equals just a couple of beers for the average sized man.

MADD says it would prefer to see tougher enforcement of current DWI laws and wider use of ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers.
The board can only make recommendations, not laws or regulations, to states and the federal government.Reduce DWI from .08% to .05%? MADD says there are better ways

Hard to believe. But actually makes some sense.
 
A good business to open up should this happen would be a tow truck cab combination, pick up the driver and the car. 

[Oldshooter]

MADD was formed by Candy Lightner (later to quit the organization in disgust and become a spokesperson for the liquor industry).

Please post the proof it would be interesting to read.
 
Didn't know that before.
 
 

MADD is not behind The National Transportation Safety Board's recommendation to reduce the legal limit from the current .08% to .05%.
Critics say that is too low and equals just a couple of beers for the average sized man.

MADD says it would prefer to see tougher enforcement of current DWI laws and wider use of ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers.
The board can only make recommendations, not laws or regulations, to states and the federal government.Reduce DWI from .08% to .05%? MADD says there are better ways

Hard to believe. But actually makes some sense.
 
A good business to open up should this happen would be a tow truck cab combination, pick up the driver and the car. 

http://www.duiblog.com/2013/05/14/federal-agency-recommends-new-dui-limit-05/

Dont know if that is "proof" but it is in the Blog.

("Well, the arrest and conviction rates shot up, but there were still too many people escaping the DUI net. Then MADD was formed by Candy Lightner (later to quit the organization in disgust and become a spokesperson for the liquor industry). Soon after, legislation began appearing in many states that created a second crime: driving with a BAC of .10% or higher.")

[SHOOTALL]

Thanks , I had seen false reports of her getting DUI's . Of course she could be helping them stem abuse with a campaign. It may be a good thing not a change od heart.

[Oldshooter]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Candy_Lightner_the_founder_of_MADD_get_a_DUI

[FPH]

I'm tired of hearing......this was his 4th DUI...........one and gone I say.  We had a 19 year old with a second who killed five in the car that he plowed into the other day and he was irate at the victims and he ran the stop sign......get a rope..

[thxmrgarand]

I am always armed, usually open carry but sometimes concealed carry, and therefore it is not legal for me to use alcohol according to state law.  Just the other day I was in a very nice restaurant with 3 other people and a fellow came up to me and thanked me for exercising my right to keep and bear arms, and that is the only time that has happened.  That fellow had his wife and some small children with him.  Sometimes a restaurant owner will see my gun, usually a .45 auto, and talk guns with me.


At least for me it makes more sense to be armed than to use alcohol.  I certainly sometimes drink beer at home. 


Total cost in this state for a first time offense when driving over the legal limit is about $10,000 unless there is an accident related to the alcohol.  An accident can quickly push the dollar cost to $50,000 or more.



Society has markedly changed its view of drunken driving in my lifetime.  When I was a child it was a big joke when someone drove drunk.  I can remember the town drunk jumping a stone wall with his commercial truck when drunk and the entire town making fun of the incident.


This state has a stand-your-ground law and the so-called castle law.  Concealed carry requires no permit.

[yellowtail3]

get 'em! MADD deserves a good smack across the beak - a bunch of Carrie Nation nanny-staters


http://getmadd.com/WHYgetMADD.htm

[ironglow]

As with the anti-gun laws..  They don't need any MORE gun laws, all they need to do is enforce the laws they already have.

[D Fischer]

Don't care for federal laws, each state should have their own. But what good will a lower limit do? They don't catch hardly any now compared to the pull over's? This happened and the business's serving alcohol would be crippled badly. Government make's laws for only one purpose, justify their being!

[Oldshooter]

"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the truth."-- William Jefferson Clinton

[/c][/c]

yt3 this was in that piece! Thats really rich, someone quoting slick willy about the truth!  other than that it was an interesting article.

[Ranger99]

wow.
there sure are more folks than i expected
that feel they have a right to drive, or pilot
a boat or motorcycle or go right back to work
after a few drinks or after a joint or. . . .


i don't have any objection to folks getting sloshed
or high as long as they can meet financial obligations
and don't endanger anyone else by getting out in public
when impaired or exposing their children to their vice.
i must have missed something somewhere that
said folks could do whatever they wanted to regardless
of consequence. there are even some around local that feel
it's perfectly alright to carry a six-pack and a high-powered
rifle to a hunting blind and wait for a shot at a deer
or hog while guzzling beer.


i guess i'm just not with it.

[garbhead]

Might support it on a Federal hiway....as far as I'm concerned 0% alcohol is the right amount.
Dangerous enough out there among the normal idiot drivers...

[Cuts Crooked]

"Guys, they can drag you off your property and do this even if all they see is one beer can or say they
smelled it on your breath. They can detaine you without arrest for 12 hours for just about anything they want if they say they suspected you of being under the influence of something.
And you don't have to be driving they say its to protect you from yourself or your being a danger
to the public. If this is the case they do not even have to give you a breath test its on their word
alone.

Anna, I gotta ask: where in Gawds name do you live? In my state they can't do anything to me on my own property even if I have passed out drunk in the yard! I can be staggering around, scratching my arse, and swillin' shine on my property and there is nothing they can do about it.....my home, my kingdom. If I'm not putting any ones life in immediate danger, like shooting at them, they got no business there......and that's the way it should be in America!

[Oldshooter]

wow.
there sure are more folks than i expected
that feel they have a right to drive, or pilot
a boat or motorcycle or go right back to work
after a few drinks or after a joint or. . . .


i don't have any objection to folks getting sloshed
or high as long as they can meet financial obligations
and don't endanger anyone else by getting out in public
when impaired or exposing their children to their vice.
i must have missed something somewhere that
said folks could do whatever they wanted to regardless
of consequence. there are even some around local that feel
it's perfectly alright to carry a six-pack and a high-powered
rifle to a hunting blind and wait for a shot at a deer
or hog while guzzling beer.


i guess i'm just not with it.

I was thinking earlier that I hope no one thinks my posts on this thread indicate I drink irresponsibly or that anyone should.
 
I hope my posts don't indicate that I think anyone should drive drunk at what ever level. If you drink don't drive. I think the majority here just don't want the Government, getting carried away with this. It should be a local/state issue. Its been stated that at some point anyone may become a victim of this. I rarely drink anything and never drive while doing so. But really one drink and a woman is not fit to drive. Sounds more like the seatbelt law to me, just a revenue thing. Nanny state tyranny.
 
I read your post the other day about a close relative being killed by a drunk, so I know you are more sensitive than some of us, and I understand. Just so you know I don't think its OK to drive drunk.

[SHOOTALL]

We are the Govt. we the people ! We should remember that and act as such. The state govt. is like our left pocket and the Fed govt is like our right pocket no matter the cost it comes out of our pockets and it's not always money . We need to get our voice back in law making and end some of these departments that are out of control. But stifling something that makes sense because of where it originated makes little sense .

[DDZ]

Ok lets make the limit 0. What shall we do with the people that limit there sleep time, fall asleep while driving and kill someone? Shall we remove their driving privileges for ever? I see someone driving drowsy just as negligent as someone that is driving drunk. Its believed that 30% of all crashes are related to drowsy driving. There are a million crashes due to inattention/drowsy driving. Do we remove all their driving license's for ever? A poll was done of 168 million adult drivers. 37% of those (103 million) have said they fell asleep at the wheel. Of those that said they have nodded off, 13% said they have fallen asleep at least once a month. 4% (11 million drivers) have said they had an accident or near accident because they were driving drowsy.
So maybe we can petition government to have the police right people up, take their license, and fine them if they appear drowsy. Maybe we can get an organization together and call it mothers against drowsy drivers. Or how about for stupid drivers?

I'm not arguing that we make it legal for drunk drivers. Just saying 2 out of 3 fatal crashes are non alcohol related, but we are ready to take a drivers license because he had 1 or 2 drinks. I think there should be more worry for sleepy and stupid drivers.         

[Ranger99]

oh i don't accuse anyone here of driving drunk,
and i agree wholeheartedly with states rights
over federal mandates.
i do get the the feeling that there are some
who think they're ok to tool around with a
few under their belt or a few tokes.
don't all the drivers who crash out feel that
they were capable of driving?
on another site, there are some who come right
out and say they have the god-given right to
shoot and hunt with a snoot full and damn anyone
who tries to interfere or complain.


my own beef is the kind of folks who would run over
and injure someone or accidentally shoot somebody
or run over someone with their boat or watercraft
then turn around and say "it's not my fault! i was
drunk/high/sleepy and it's not my fault! ! "
that and bringing suit against tobacco companies
or car manufacturers etc. and say you owe me.


i'm completely against the concept of "overserving"
i'm completely for penalties for "overordering"


i believe if one takes a life while impaired, the
charge should be murder, not manslaughter because
everyone knows what alcohol and drugs to to a
persons judgement and abilities, so that shows
premeditation to me that one is already perfectly
aware of any possible consequence of interacting
in an impaired state. no excuses.

[D Fischer]

I don't think they are targeting the problem drinker's. How much is .8? I haven't a clue. Lower it and what is it? Hell just make it 2.5. Then the problem drinker's are all that will be effected and probably the guy that goes on a binge once a year. Lowering the limit will only serve to make people not a problem a problem, that sucks! BTW, I seldom drink and when I do, it's not very much and at home.

[SHOOTALL]

Ok lets make the limit 0. What shall we do with the people that limit there sleep time, fall asleep while driving and kill someone? Shall we remove their driving privileges for ever? I see someone driving drowsy just as negligent as someone that is driving drunk. Its believed that 30% of all crashes are related to drowsy driving. There are a million crashes due to inattention/drowsy driving. Do we remove all their driving license's for ever? A poll was done of 168 million adult drivers. 37% of those (103 million) have said they fell asleep at the wheel. Of those that said they have nodded off, 13% said they have fallen asleep at least once a month. 4% (11 million drivers) have said they had an accident or near accident because they were driving drowsy.
So maybe we can petition government to have the police right people up, take their license, and fine them if they appear drowsy. Maybe we can get an organization together and call it mothers against drowsy drivers. Or how about for stupid drivers?

I'm not arguing that we make it legal for drunk drivers. Just saying 2 out of 3 fatal crashes are non alcohol related, but we are ready to take a drivers license because he had 1 or 2 drinks. I think there should be more worry for sleepy and stupid drivers.       

To be quite honest yes restrict or take away anyone's driving privilege that shows they either abuse it or can't do it safely. It's a privilege not a birth rite.

[SHOOTALL]

I don't think they are targeting the problem drinker's. How much is .8? I haven't a clue. Lower it and what is it? Hell just make it 2.5. Then the problem drinker's are all that will be effected and probably the guy that goes on a binge once a year. Lowering the limit will only serve to make people not a problem a problem, that sucks! BTW, I seldom drink and when I do, it's not very much and at home.

So how do you know when a one time drunk driver will kill someone ? If you can't see that any drunk driving is a problem you won't understand .

[yellowtail3]

i do get the the feeling that there are some
who think they're ok to tool around with a
few under their belt or a few tokes.

some are

there are some who come right
out and say they have the god-given right to
shoot and hunt with a snoot full and damn anyone
who tries to interfere or complain.

there may be; I've not seen any such posts here. A little herbal refreshment afield can be pleasant.

my own beef is the kind of folks who would run over
and injure someone or accidentally shoot somebody
or run over someone with their boat or watercraft
then turn around and say "it's not my fault! i was
drunk/high/sleepy and it's not my fault! ! "

who said that?

i believe if one takes a life while impaired, the
charge should be murder, not manslaughter because
everyone knows what alcohol and drugs to to a
persons judgement and abilities, so that shows
premeditation to me that one is already perfectly
aware of any possible consequence of interacting
in an impaired state. no excuses.

alright. suppose I'm in an accident, and I've some detectable amount of MJ or alcohol in my system - maybe I've just smoked a whole Texas Torpedo with Willie? - and someone gets killed. In this hypothetical - which happens often enough -  it's his own damned fault, because he wasn't paying attention and didn't yield right of way and ran the light and I hit him. You gonna get a rope and hang me? that's would dovetail with the way the stats are reported, where alcohol present=alcohol related=caused by alcohol (or whatever substance).


if your answer is, you didn't cause it, we'll let you slide and not kill you... okay... let's say I'm the one - stoned! - who got killed by the guy who didn't yield right of way, and who was a teetotaler who never touched anything stronger than weak coffee. You gonna hang him?

lots of out and out stupid self-righteous and disingenuous BS floating around regarding DUI laws. It makes sure that the Right People make bank, sorta like the War on (some) Drugs.

[Ranger99]

well, ok if you're offended and don't
like what i wrote, get the mods or
whoever to delete all of my comments.
i'm glad you're self-confident enough
to believe you can safely navigate
after a few.
good luck

[yellowtail3]

well, ok if you're offended and don't
like what i wrote, get the mods or
whoever to delete all of my comments.

no offence taken. simple disagreement & diff view of the role of the state

i'm glad you're self-confident enough
to believe you can safely navigate
after a few.
good luck

You make me blush, but this thread isn't about me!

[Victor3]

Should we makes mountains out of mole hills, and punish everyone that has a fender bender, or runs off the road, or swerves a bit, or looks a bit sleepy? Should the punishment be equal to someone that has an .08 BAC? What level BAC is equal to a sleepy driver, A driver talking on a phone, or texting, or a 90 year old person that just isn't very sharp anymore? 

 It's difficult to quantify, but sleepy drivers may now be more of an overall danger than drivers above the legal alcohol limit...


https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2012%20DDPW%20Fact%20Sheet%20%282%29.pdf?gclid=CIvfzo75nLcCFeZ_Qgod8jQAsA


 In years past I've driven 1000's of miles when I was so sleepy I was probably more dangerous than the average drunk. I now impose a "zero tolerance" for myself on sleepy driving. I don't care how badly I want to get somewhere; if I need a nap I pull over and take one. I honestly wish there were a precise way for cops to detect sleep-deprived drivers similar to a breath test. Sleepy driving is no "mountain out of mole hill" issue. It's a deadly (but not well documented) problem.

[Dixiejack]

I do not think I overlooked any replies to the OP about the National Transportation Safety Board wanting to drop the legal limit from .08 to .05 (which I am against)?  My question is this:  What individual came up with this idea?  The article  (I believe) stated the staff of the NTSB came up with the mandate. 


Now we know that no federal agency is smart enough or so inclined to come up with ideas on their own.  If I am not mistaken the chair of the NTSB is an appointment made by the President.  So therefore, the NTSB chair takes orders from the President if he or she wants to keep their job. 


Has it occurred to anyone that Muslims don't drink  and think that Christian infidels should not drink either.  This is not about religious or moral issues, but about power the President thinks he has over US citizens.  This is just another ploy by the administration to undermine the freedoms of American citizens and his attempt to destroy the Constitution of the United States.


Where we should focus our interest and influence is not so much with our U.S. Senators and Representatives, but start putting the pressure on our state lawmakers and governors to exercise states rights.  Hold them accountable for not representing us as strongly as could have and more so now.


Alright, I will get off my soap box.  For the record I do drink on occasions.  I quit drinking and driving 43 years ago when I woke up one morning in the middle of a tobacco field WAY off a dirt road about 4 miles from the paved road I last remembered being on.  I had 3 people with me and all were safe and sound except for major hangovers.  When I got home that morning, the first thing I did was to call the GSP to see if there had been any wrecks on the highway I last remembered driving on.  Since that day, I have never got under a steering wheel when I have had something to drink.