Down to 0.08 BAC? - Printable Version
+- WineBoard (http://wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: RESOURCES AND OTHER STUFF (/forum-300.html)
+--- Forum: Wine and Politics (/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Down to 0.08 BAC? (/thread-2889.html)
- anna - 06-15-2000 02:05 PM
The Senate backs lowering the legal limit for drunk driving to 0.08 in a transportation appropriations bill. As usual, this bill threatens to take away federal funding for highways from states who do not lower their legal limits to 0.08 (aka blackmail). I can hear Curmy ranting now...
- Bucko - 06-15-2000 05:18 PM
That is still TWICE what the French allow! I used to have good natured arguments with Jerry over this topic -- I support the 0.08 limit.
- winoweenie - 06-16-2000 06:29 AM
Bucko, those 6% alcohol sissy reislings never get you over .08. What about us`ns that are lucky enuf to drink them powerful-good REDS?Winoweenie
- Drew - 06-16-2000 07:13 AM
Impared driving is a hugh problem in this country and I also support that bill. Anna, is it the .08BAC or the Govt. intervention that bothers you?
- Thomas - 06-16-2000 07:44 AM
Listen Drew and Bucko, as Jerry often pointed out, and the statistics prove the point: most drunk driving incidences involve people with a problem controlling alcohol consumption.
You could lower the BAC to zero, which is what moral managers want to do, and still do nothing to end drunk driving. But by lowering it to zero, you make a bunch of new criminals out of law-abiding citizens who can no longer have a half bottle of wine with dinner at a restaurant and then drive home, unless they sit at the restaurant for at least an hour (maybe more, depending upon their size, weight and alcohol level of the wine) after having finished the wine.
- Thomas - 06-16-2000 07:47 AM
Come to think of it, if we had a civilized enough society to offer a workable public transportation across localities this argument could also be minimized, plus the Prohibitionists would be exposed by having to change their focus from driving to the living room, which is also where they are heading.
- winecollector - 06-16-2000 09:25 AM
I think you make a good point, Foodie, about most drunk driving incidents involving people with a problem of controlling their consumption. As for myself, the average-joe wine taster, if I'm going to be driving, I will not drink as much wine at a tasting or other wine function as I normally would. If its an event where I know I'm going to want to drink a lot of wine, then I'll have my chauffer John take me and others to and from the event. There is no excuse for anyone to be behind the wheel of a car that can't properly control the vehicle.
There is also the arguement that some people retain their ability to drive with a higher blood / alcohol level than others. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms. As far as I see it, they're going to do whatever they want with their laws. If I've had too much to drink, I'm not driving regardless of what my blood alcohol level is. It's called self-control.
[This message has been edited by winecollector (edited 06-16-2000).]
- Bucko - 06-16-2000 06:01 PM
Foodie, are you stepping into Jerry's shoes with stats? You know the bit about liars and damned liars with statistics......
I have seen, and see the carnage from drunk driving all of the time. I have seen numerous driving and task tapes, where they give the volunteers X amount to drink, have them drive or do a task, give them more to drink, repeat, all the while getting BAC. It seems that much over 0.08% is where the problems begin, plain and simple. The tired old hack about repeat offenders is only partially true. It may make criminals out of a few more people, but it might also be a wake-up call to many more.
That said, I'll buy 0.08%, but nothing lower. Why? Because the data for impairment just is not there.
- hotwine - 06-16-2000 07:12 PM
I like Bucko's argument - and also support the 0.08% limit.
- winoweenie - 06-17-2000 06:19 AM
Foodie I agree whole-heartedly with you. I also agree with Bucko, ( I don`t drive when impaired ) and when I know our lil` group will get our noses deep into the vinegar,we hire a driver. .10 is the defining point.I`m certain, IMOM,that if we allow the government to impose the .08, next we`ll see the .06, .04, .02 and out. The more beauracracy we permit, the more derned beaurocrazies we`ll end up paying to play lil` Ceasar. Winoweenie
- Thomas - 06-17-2000 08:23 AM
Bucko, if you truly believe the subversiveness of statistics, then you surely can understand what the government will do after .08 is passed--find stats to support .06, and on down.
To government, I say: enforce the laws that exist, do not slap wrists and let drivers easily return to the road after they have been caught driving drunk, do not use drunk driving as a means to infringe on our personal liberty, do not use drunk driving as a means toward moral engineering, build a public transportation infrastructure with some of that highway money being used to blackmail local governments.
- Innkeeper - 06-17-2000 08:42 AM
You might find it hard to believe, but I agree with just about everything posted here. Maine was the second state to go to .08% and the first to ban smoking in all restaurants in the state. Have not seen any major problems arising from either event. However, I agree that .08% is not the end, and that neither states nor feds should be blackmailing proprietors or states. Being a beady eyed conservative, hate to see government getting in peoples faces. .08% may be OK for now, but we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
- Thomas - 06-18-2000 04:16 PM
Yeah, Innkeeper. What I find particularly smarmy and disgusting about a multitude of so-called "get-gubment-off-our-backs" conservative politicians is that they seem to lose sight of that goal with regard to legislating morality.