Zero tolerance for drunk driving is CRAZY.

[fuji]

It is a fact that a significant percentage of the population believes they can have a drink or two over a period of hour(s) and have no problem operating a vehicle with the same proficiency as someone else. This is a very large group of people. These people are not freaks or assholes or scum like some of you say but people that have measured their judgement and know their limits and what they are capable of.

Or do they? Studies in various areas consistently show that 70-80% of people rank themselves as above average on almost any measure, and generally less than 5% rank themselves as below average. These are stastisticall impossibilities--the overwhelming evidence is that most people over-estimate their abilities and under-estimate their disabilities.

All you've succeeded in convincing me of here is that we should increase funding to crack down on more of these people so as to correct their self deception.

If you have two drinks within an hour and then get behind teh wheel of a car you need to be jailed to protect society from the menace that you actually are, whatever BS you may be telling yourself about your "skills".

But people don't seem to get the idea that the very next step in this process will be zero tolerance for ADULTS OF ANY AGE to drink when operating a vehicle.

Why is that the next step? Seems controversial to me to think that it would be. That would only be the next step if scientific evidence materialized showing that indeed it was the case that any amount of alcohol made you a danger. If that evidence existed wouldn't you concur that it would be the correct law? However I guess we both suspect no such hypothetical evidence will be forthcoming.

will lose a significant part of what makes and allows humans to destress--namely a glass or two of wine or beer.

Oh please, save the ridiculous hyperbole. People go out and get smashing drunk and find ways to get home without driving. All. The. Time.

So first you're on with this hyperbole that the "next step" is going to be a complete ban of any drinking, and now civilization has come to an end?

This isn't the audition for Ophrah.

And to say that the right to drive is a privilege

There is no right to drive. It is indeed a privilege. That is a fact. If it were a right you would not need a permit granting you permission--but by all means argue with plain facts!

 

[S.C. Joe]

This "right to drive is a privilege " I don't agree with..

A..we all HAVE to pay taxes some of which goes to roads and highways.

B..today having a car is almost a need, not a want-unless you are lucky to live and work right by a bus or subway line.

Now I am all for taking the right to drive away from those who abuse it--drink driving, reckless driving, hit and run but driving should be a right, not a privilege.

We have a right to come and go as we please, unless we break the law and get put in jail. Driving should be look at the same way, we all should have a right to drive unless we can not drive the car safety down the road...it should not have to be "earn".

Just how I feel, not what the law might say.

 

[Stoo]

The problem with zero tolerance for anything is that it is rife for being misused. Alcohol can get into a body in ways other than drinking booze. A driver that has had a couple of tablespoons of cough syrup will likely have a small blood-alcohol level.

This new law is well intentioned, but penalizes ALL young drivers when there are only SOME that abuse the privilege of driving. I heard a young guy on CFRB today. He was just 20, and had just returned from a stint in Afghanistan where he had been driving an armored personnel carrier with a load of guys in the back... through a war zone.

He pointed out that not only could he not do that here under this new law, but that also they would have been charged for not wearing seat belts!

 

[johnseeriley]

so, apparently we have a bunch of 19-year-old on here? Because it's only going to effect those under the age of 19, so why are other adults all up in arms? and if you're under 19 you shouldn't be drinking anyway (by law) let alone driving after you've been drinking. so, yes, you should have your life ruined with criminal charges if you decide to do both of those in a night.

firstly, teenagers do not have near the tolerance that an adult does. a BAC of .08 (or any number for that matter) would impact someone new to drinking, like a teen, more than an adult who has been drinking for years. so, yes, one beer could have an affect on their judgement. secondly, teenagers do not have the best skill and focus behind the wheel as it is. I don't see why people can justify imparing their judgement even a little bit. they're new to handling alcohol, and new to driving: they're not that proficient at either.

setting 'zero BAC' as the limit is smart because then you won't teens second guessing when they're "impaired" and when it's 'okay' to drive (because we all know teens NEVER have a sense of over confidence or invincibility)

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

drinks within an hour and then get behind teh wheel of a car you need to be jailed to protect society from the menace that you actually are, whatever BS you may be telling yourself about your "skills".

Your post is priceless, man. Absolutely proves my point. People like you who consider themselves thoughtful people but don't hesitate to put me in jail even if my BAL is below the legal limit. Absolutely priceless. Hail Hitler, errr Maddd.

If I am close to or over the limit, either I am suffering from extreme selfishness and/or I am breaking the law. But If I am neither then I am a law abiding citizen. Why do you think they are the same thing??????

There's no point arguing sacred cows. You have all been brainwashed very well. There is a reason our drunk driving laws are not at ZERO blood alcohol: it's because the vast majority of people in our society believe that moderate drinking and driving are perfectly acceptable. So all of you zealots (hypocrites?) are in the minority. The drunk driving law exists to catch people who cannot control their own levels and have no regard for other people.

Don't any of you wonder why the new law that is coming that will ban any devices in a car but bluetooth is not paired with a zero tolerance drinking law?? Why do you suppose that is? Zero tolerance for handheld device distractions but no zero tolerance law for alcohol? Hmmm why is that??? Hmmmm...

If you firm up spot checks, enforcement and strict unyielding penalties for OVER THE LIMIT drinking and driving, the problem will go away, as I mentioned in the case of France. ZERO TOLERANCE policies do not work, nor should they. In France they told people "you will go directly to jail if you are over the two drink limit" and it worked. It doesn't work here because people can get off the charges. So should you create zero tolerance policies or use other methods that actually work and don't criminalize people who play by the rules?? I know what the TERB mob thinks.

 

[jwmorrice]

Your post is priceless, man. Absolutely proves my point. People like you who consider themselves thoughtful people but don't hesitate to put me in jail even if my BAL is below the legal limit. Absolutely priceless. Hail Hitler, errr Maddd.

There's no point arguing sacred cows. You have all been brainwashed very well. There is a reason our drunk driving laws are not at ZERO blood alcohol: it's because the vast majority of people in our society believe that moderate drinking and driving are perfectly acceptable. So all of you zealots (hypocrites?) are in the minority. The drunk driving law exists to catch people who cannot control their own levels and have no regard for other people.

If you firm up spot checks, enforcement and strict unyielding penalties for OVER THE LIMIT drinking and driving, the problem will go away, as I mentioned in the case of France. ZERO TOLERANCE policies do not work, nor should they. In France they told people "you will go directly to jail if you are over the two drink limit" and it worked. It doesn't work here because people can get off the charges. So should you create zero tolerance policies or use other methods that actually work and don't criminalize people who play by the rules.

Just give it up man and move on. This morning I've had a few beers on an empty stomach and I still don't agree with you!

jwm

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

Just give it up man and move on. This morning I've had a few beers on an empty stomach and I still don't agree with you!

jwm

I agree. Time to move on. Maybe I'll throw back a few and ram FredZed's Hummer and you all can rain some pain on me.

 

[tboy]

The problem with zero tolerance for anything is that it is rife for being misused. Alcohol can get into a body in ways other than drinking booze. A driver that has had a couple of tablespoons of cough syrup will likely have a small blood-alcohol level.

........

Which is why they call it impaired driving, one shouldn't drive while under the influence of ANYTHING that inhibits their ability to reason, react and in any way dulls their senses.

As for the argument that someone needs to de-stress, fine. De-stress all you want, just don't drive afterwards or go for a massage, take yoga, sit in a sauna or a jacuzzi....all good ways to accomplish the same goal without putting anyone else at risk.

I mean, you just openly admitted that it affects you physically. If it releases stress it also at the same time affects your ability to react, be on guard, be ready to react to an ever changing environment. That's just the point: one needs stress is order to be ready for anything that comes your way. To "dull" that ability is called impairment. EOS.

As for this new law affecting all teenagers, well, it won't affect those teenagers that don't drink at all will it? How can a zero tolerance pertaining to alcohol affect someone who doesn't drink? The answer? IT WON'T.

 

[Esco!]

Which is why they call it impaired driving, one shouldn't drive while under the influence of ANYTHING that inhibits their ability to reason, react and in any way dulls their senses.

I agree with Tboy 100%

Sometimes I throw out my lower back and get muscle relaxants from my Doc, I refuse to even drive on those because I know my reflexes and ability to drive are compromised

 

[fuji]

People like you who consider themselves thoughtful people but don't hesitate to put me in jail even if my BAL is below the legal limit.

Unless you are fucking HUGE if within the span of 60 minutes you have two drinks and get into a car your BAL is not below the legal limit.

That is what we were talking about, you edited my quote to delete the two drinks and driving within the hour bit that I was responding to.

If you had two drinks and then waited a full two hours before getting into your car if you're an average sized guy you will be below the legal limit.

the vast majority of people in our society believe that moderate drinking and driving are perfectly acceptable.

No they don't. The overwhelming majority think that minimal drinking and driving is acceptable, which is why the legal limit is so low.

Next time either quote me correctly or crawl back under your bridge.

 

[Malibook]

Unless you are fucking HUGE if within the span of 60 minutes you have two drinks and get into a car your BAL is not below the legal limit.

I suppose it depends on the drinks but if we are talking a bottle of beer or single shot mixed drink, that is bullshit.

It's possible that an immediate breathalyzer test would indicate a failure but this would be due to residual alcohol and would not be an accurate reflection of BAL.
One would be highly unlikely to fail the subsequent tests done at the station later.

The cops generally will lay charges at .1 and over.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

Unless you are fucking HUGE if within the span of 60 minutes you have two drinks and get into a car your BAL is not below the legal limit.

That is what we were talking about, you edited my quote to delete the two drinks and driving within the hour bit that I was responding to.

If you had two drinks and then waited a full two hours before getting into your car if you're an average sized guy you will be below the legal limit.



No they don't. The overwhelming majority think that minimal drinking and driving is acceptable, which is why the legal limit is so low.

Next time either quote me correctly or crawl back under your bridge.

Crawl back under a bridge. Huh? Did I attack you? Is that necessary?

I suspect you're somewhat emotional. I said "moderate" and you say "minimal" They are actually the same thing for the purposes of the argument.

Let me repeat so you get it: The law is currently NOT at zero tolerance because the majority of people believe that one or two drinks under the legal limit is perfectly acceptable. If it were not thus, the law would change almost instantly because of the power of MADD. That is fact.

Now if you're going to attack me personally, please feel free to go elsewhere, okay?

It is a testament to the power of brainwashing that none of you would have the same wrath reserved for someone talking on their cellphone or texting of other modes of driver distration that are way more lethal than ONE OR TWO drinks behind the wheel. Think about it before you attack me.

And isn't it interesting that Ontario is set to have a zero tolerance plan for gadgets behind the wheel but not alcohol. Hmmmmmm. I wonder why. Hmmmm.

Anyway, over and out. The hypocrisy of this thread is starting to get to me.

 

[rama putri]

Your post is priceless, man. Absolutely proves my point. People like you who consider themselves thoughtful people but don't hesitate to put me in jail even if my BAL is below the legal limit. Absolutely priceless. Hail Hitler, errr Maddd.

You don't get it. Drinking is not a necessity at all. For anything. It's a choice. Driving is not a right. It's a privilege. The privilege to drive is given to someone who meets certain standards, how ever arbitrary they seem to be set. Ergo, if the standard is zero BAL, don't drink AT ALL before you drive. Your choice. Get it? Oh and go to AA.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

You don't get it. Drinking is not a necessity at all. For anything. It's a choice. Driving is not a right. It's a privilege. The privilege to drive is given to someone who meets certain standards, how ever arbitrary they seem to be set. Ergo, if the standard is zero BAL, don't drink AT ALL before you drive. Your choice. Get it? Oh and go to AA.

AA is for people who have a problem with alcohol. You sound like you're from MADD, equating responsible drinking with problem drinking. Got news for you: not the same thing. I'll go to AA when you go to school for basic Internet discussion, k? And I'll probably still run circles around you all liquored up.

And drinking is a choice? No shit. I mean, I thought it was a societal obligation myself, a motherfucking citizen's pact... Jesus, the level of stupidity mixed with anger is just fantastic.

And one more thing: the standard in Ontario is not zero BAL. Are you even paying attention to the thread before you compose your missiles?

 

[tboy]

AA is for people who have a problem with alcohol. You sound like you're from MADD, equating responsible drinking with problem drinking. Got news for you: not the same thing. I'll go to AA when you go to school for basic Internet discussion, k? And I'll probably still run circles around you all liquored up.

And drinking is a choice? No shit. I mean, I thought it was a societal obligation myself, a motherfucking citizen's pact... Jesus, the level of stupidity mixed with anger is just fantastic.

And one more thing: the standard in Ontario is not zero BAL. Are you even paying attention to the thread before you compose your missiles?

Well, if you go out and must have a drink then IMO you DO have a problem with alcohol. Anytime someone must have something, that indicates a problem.....

 

[a 1 player]

I agree with Tboy 100%

Sometimes I throw out my lower back and get muscle relaxants from my Doc, I refuse to even drive on those because I know my reflexes and ability to drive are compromised

I agree as well, I do not drive at all after taking some of my heavier meds. I know I am a risk and my judgment and reactions are impaired.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

Well, if you go out and must have a drink then IMO you DO have a problem with alcohol. Anytime someone must have something, that indicates a problem.....

This is my last fucking post. The ignorance combined with cocksure certainty just becomes too much.

Who said anything about "must"?? Having a drink with friends at dinner and then driving is called "pleasure" and many of you motherfucking hypocrites do it all the time. Having more than a drink, or two, at most in a given period of time is horribly irresponsible and selfish.

What part of THOSE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS don't you geniuses get?? The difference between one drink and four is, well about four times different. LOL. The law makes a distinction, society makes a distinction, but not many of you.

I will look forward to all of you pressing the government to pass zero tolerance laws for adults and watch the prisons fill up with the hypocrites. But the government never will, because there would be a revolt from here to Botswana.

Having less than the BAL is called "within the law" and we don't put people in jail or send them to AA because of it. Thank God the TERB lynch mob isn't in charge.

Max Weber would be proud of all of you.

 

[a 1 player]

Max Weber would be proud of all of you.

......................

 

[Captain Fantastic]

I agree that there should be a zero alcohol tolerance law for all new drivers, regardless of age - we're talking about inexperienced drivers with limited skills after all. Their licence should be immediately revoked for a minimum of one year whereupon they will have to start their licencing from square one - at their own cost. And if the driver is under the legal drinking age of 19, charges should be laid and they shouldn't be allowed to drive again until they are 19 (maybe even 21) or two years have passed, whichever is greater.

Driving is not a right and we should do all we can to weed out the idiots before they have "full access" to the roads.

As for adults with full licence privileges driving after drinking, I think we should have a good look at what the legal limit should be (perhaps a bit lower than present - 0.05% BAL is closer to the average international norm) and make it very clear what is and is not within these limits, based on age, sex, time between drinks, body size and type...

 

[red]

This is my last fucking post. The ignorance combined with cocksure certainty just becomes too much.

Who said anything about "must"?? Having a drink with friends at dinner and then driving is called "pleasure" and many of you motherfucking hypocrites do it all the time. Having more than a drink, or two, at most in a given period of time is horribly irresponsible and selfish.

What part of THOSE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS don't you geniuses get?? The difference between one drink and four is, well about four times different. LOL. The law makes a distinction, society makes a distinction, but not many of you.

I will look forward to all of you pressing the government to pass zero tolerance laws for adults and watch the prisons fill up with the hypocrites. But the government never will, because there would be a revolt from here to Botswana.

Having less than the BAL is called "within the law" and we don't put people in jail or send them to AA because of it. Thank God the TERB lynch mob isn't in charge.

Max Weber would be proud of all of you.

save your breath. its not worth arguing with some people.