It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One drink may put you over the limit

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:
CX

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Party pooper or not, this is the one law i could'nt give a rats ass about being passed. I'd welcome it.

If i had a pound for every person i've scraped up off a road, not picked up, yes scraped up, after saying that they've "only had one pint", i'd be sat here a rich man.

True, some are fine after one drink, but theres a thousand more than are'nt after the same amount.

I'd like to see my daughters outlive me, not become a statistic that is plastered on the tv every xmas.

This is a no brainer to those who deal with drink drivers on a regular basis, and to those dead and live who have paid the consequences.

CX.




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by solidgroundcafe
 


Not just Mormons! Here in Baton Rouge, we just got rid of our Blue Law and now we can buy alcohol all day on Sunday.

As far as the thread goes...

I think the suggestions about 0% BAC are impractical. As some have pointed out, cough syrup can potentially affect BAC.

It all basically comes down to personal responsibility. If you know you have to drive yourself, limit yourself to 1 or 2 drinks... don't do shots... things like that. I'm sure that nobody wants to drive on streets full of impaired drivers, so why would you want to be an impaired driver yourself?

I'll admit, there have been times that I have driven when I shouldn't have, so I am not trying to be preachy. Sometimes it takes a "wakeup call" before you realize how stupid something is. I hope that most people can grow up without that wakeup call. A young man that I know was killed over the summer by a drunk driver. Once you see a coffin close on a 19 year old, it gives you a different perspective. I don't want to disrespect his memory by drinking and driving, and potentially causing that pain for some other family.

I sincerely hope that the comments I have seen about how the more you drink, the better you drive, have been jokes.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Why would anyone even drink and drive in the first place?

if you have to drive somewhere...then dont drink...if that is to hard for you... maybe you have a problem.

Don't get me wrong...I like to drink and get hammered, but i would never drive with alcohol in my blood.

I could never forgive myself if I where involved in an accident and killed someone under the influence of alcohol.

And I could never forgive anyone accidently killing some of my family members by drunkdriving.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 


I fully understand your stance, but where I'm from it's not drunk driving that happens when you're stopped. It's DUI (driving under the influence) and it could mean being arrested for cold medicine, prescription drugs, etc. being in your system. Lowering the BAC to nil would mean even having a glass of wine with your meal could result in an arrest and conviction.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I see nothing wrong with the idea.

I for one am sick of hearing about some stupid fool that thought they were fine and end up killing or seriously injuring someone because they could not drive. What’s wrong with walking or getting a ride from someone who has not had a drink? Are people becoming that dependent on others that you need someone to tell you what is right and what is wrong?

I have no problems with drinking but it should be done at home or some place where you will not be in control of a vehicle. It is flat out stupid to drive under the influence, and another poster was right it is normally though not always a young and dumb thought telling you your okay to drive unless you are a serious alcoholic.

Raist



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I dont know what it should be.

I dont know what a safe limit is.




I do know I know VERY FEW drinkers that have just ONE drink before driving.

And I do know I was hit at 55 mph last month while I wasnt moving by some clown who blew a .239






posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Then are you prepared to not drive after taking one dose of cold medicine, or after gargling with mouthwash? Those two events alone will make you blow above zero on a breathalyzer. Furthermore, some people have stomach enzymes or other medical conditions that will produce a positve result on a breathylyzer without taking any sort of drug at all.

Quote from source:

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has found that dieters and diabetics can have acetone levels hundreds and even thousand of times higher than that in others. Acetone is one of the many substances that can be falsely identified as ethyl alcohol by some breath machines."

www2.potsdam.edu...



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by migliavacca
 




I am prepared yes.

Primarily for the reason I gave above.

Cops aint gonna make a big bust over the smell of mouthwash on your breath, or the hairtrigger of the breathalizer on such.

Cops are trying to stop drunk drivers.

This is one area I will defend the law in without question.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by smirkley
 


So then to make sure I understand your stance, you're in favor of zero as the Blood Alcohol Content Level?

Be aware (for example) that if you (generally speaking) were involved in an accident that may be your fault and you meet any of the criteria I posted above (such as being a diabetic), you run a risk of being arrested for DUI if the arresting officer administers a breathylyzer test.

I am in support of DUI laws, but under no circumstance would I want the BAC legal limit to be below .08. Lowering it to zero could potentially make thousands, if not more, innocent people guilty of a crime they didn't commit. The penalties for conviction are in some instances stiffer then a felony (and some DUI's are now prosecuted as felonies as well). I am for the elimination of breathylyzers completely and opt for a blood sample testing procedure.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by migliavacca
So then to make sure I understand your stance, you're in favor of zero as the Blood Alcohol Content Level?

Be aware (for example) that if you (generally speaking) were involved in an accident that may be your fault and you meet any of the criteria I posted above (such as being a diabetic), you run a risk of being arrested for DUI if the arresting officer administers a breathylyzer test.


In reply to your example,..



www.diabetesmonitor.com...


There's a lot of speculation (mainly by trial lawyers defending drunken driving charges by people with diabetes) that diabetes can somehow influence the test that measures blood alcohol level. To the best of my knowledge, this is a lot of hooey. I think your physician should talk to the head of the laboratory, and find out more about what test was done, what the level was, whether there is interference from other substances, and what the odds were that someone else's blood sample was accidentally interchanged with yours.
William Quick MD




There's also the possibility that you were producing ketones because of the dehydration and lack of insulin. Ketones will cause the breath to smell like you were drinking. In addition, if the test they did in the ER was for acetone, this will be positive.
Stephanie Schwartz, RN, MPH, CDE


Ketones DO NOT alter your BAC, they just give you that smell.

And if you look it up, a NORMAL dose of cough medicine WILL NOT produce a BAC. Nor do paint fumes or asthma meds.


But to answer your question directly, several people could have been killed in the incident I was involved in, and no he didnt blow a .05 BAC, my vehicle was destroyed, I have had a CAT scan, am scheduled for a MRI, lost time from work, countless hours dealing with insurances, and it doesnt end there.

So YES, I am for zero tolerance.


I have a RIGHT to live and travel freely without fear of being harmed by the ignorance of some fools that think their RIGHTS are being taken from them because they can come up with several lame examples (imo) of all the different things that make a person possibly test positive for alcohol, when all they want to drink and be able to drive.




[edit on 1-12-2007 by smirkley]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by smirkley
 


Sorry to dispute you, but false positives do indeed happen. Here's one article about ketone levels:

wiki.answers.com...

So while I agree with you that we need drunks off the road, my suggestion is make the BAC zero, but eliminate the breatylyzer and require a blood test, unless false positives can be effected there as well.

Thanks for this discussion!



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
No problem and no worries.

But handheld breathalizers in cop cars can give good cause under suspicion that someone is DUI, which will lead the cop to detain the person for the official test downtown, whether it be the better tester at the cop station, or the hospital blood tester.


And I do appreciate your discussion, although I much prefer the opinion of the Dr. Quick I linked in my external quote above, then answers.com wiki articles, as his resume speaks for his educated position.

I know it isnt realistic to have an absalute zero tolerance, but imo, the lower the better.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by smirkley
 


I agree with you completely. I just would rather have the most accurate test possible if my rear was in a sling. You have first hand experience at the hands of a drunk driver and I'm glad you came out of it in one piece. I've had quite a lot of exposure to the intoxicated and they're bad enough outside of a car where I have to deal with them, let alone behind the wheel.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
In Australia the BAC has always been .05 for as long as I can remember.

On top of that, a few years ago a kiddy wrapped his skyline around a pole and media used & abused the story for all it was worth. As a result, the aussie government brought in new rules/restrictions to reduce road deaths caused by P-platers (apparently all P platers drive while drunk, sniffing coke off a strippers stomach and run over little old ladys at 300km/h).

One of the more recent rules is that while on your Learners/P's, you must maintain a BAC of 0.00 while driving. No, that's not a typo. If it goes above 0.00, you immediately loose your license. So be carefull when you use listerine/breath mints then decide to go for a cruise...

Australia has alot of other completely ridiculous laws to stop the 'killer P-platers', but I'll save that for another rant


As a side note, the stereotypical people that wrap themselves around a pole while on their P's, are still just as likely to so regardless of whether their BAC is .0, or .1, or the size of the cars engine. A V4 hitting a pole at 140km/h or a V8 @ 240km/h, the result is still going to be the same...



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by migliavacca
 


At what point did I say it should be a zero tolerance in my post? Please point that out as I must have missed it.

I understand that cold medicine and mouthwash could cause a positive blow as well as eating just prior to or smoking. My point again was that if you insist on drinking do not get behind the wheel. Or how about this if you are in a condition that does not make you safe behind the wheel lack of sleep, drug use, whatever else, then maybe you should not be driving.

I will say this is someone hurts my family or a member because of their intoxication they will have a lot more to fear then punishment from the law. I will make them feel a great deal of pain in very many ways. If you cannot get past your need to get away from reality you need to stay away from vehicles.

As for being prepared to test before I enter a car I say it is not a big deal. I do my drinking at home my cold medicine comes in gel caps (going to be hard to blow a positive right after taking them) and my mouthwash is alcohol free. It seems to me those with the largest problem with this are the ones who on occasion might be getting behind the wheel when they should not. As I said anyone who hurts my family on accident because they were under the influence had better hope the law keeps them far from me.

Please do show me in my post where I said it should be zero tolerance though as your post seems to insinuate that I am stating this.

Raist



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Where did I claim you said it should be zero? Thehypnotoad mentioned some people wanted to lower it to zero and he didn't agree with it stating it would be iimpractical. My posts are based on lowering it to zero.

I'm for getting rid of breathalyzers because they are prone to manipulations. I did not mean to infer that you said anything about zero.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by migliavacca
 



Originally posted by migliavacca
reply to post by Raist
 


Then are you prepared to not drive after taking one dose of cold medicine, or after gargling with mouthwash?Those two events alone will make you blow above zero on a breathalyzer . Furthermore, some people have stomach enzymes or other medical conditions that will produce a positve result on a breathylyzer without taking any sort of drug at all.




The bold text is what made me believe you were saying I was for a zero limit. I am not for a zero limit as there are always chances it will become a false reading.

But I am for finding ways to get any drunks off the road. I would not mind seeing many cars come equipped with tests in order to get them started, though I suppose these could put an innocent person out for a short time.

Personally I hate the fact that so many people I know that are in my life drink and quite possibly get behind the wheel. The only thing I can do though is hope they get caught (again) or only hurt themselves if they are on the road and the situation comes up. I would like nothing more than to beat it into them but at this moment that does not appear to be an option.

Sorry for misreading your post but I truly thought you were saying I wanted zero limit.

Raist



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   



Police could also be given powers to stop and breathalyse drivers at random, even if their driving gives no cause for concern.



What a bunch of baloney. Maybe if we drew up our communities better people would have to drive everywhere because there would be public transit. So long as people drive, there will always be some drinking and driving. You can cut down on it by making a better transportation infrastructure by cutting back on urban sprawl.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Scramjet76
 


Another way to cut down on this would be to shut the selling of drink on premises alcohol. This would shut down bars and cause some recreants to stop selling alcoholic beverages.
The ability to sell drink elsewhere alcohol would remain though. Yeah people could still drink and drive as there would be parties and such but it would surely take many of the drunks off the road.

I realize this would not be a very popular idea but it would help. As I said I have no issue with drinking so long as one remains off the roadways after imbibing their drink of choice. I am fully against driving while intoxicated and would actually recommend leaving power tools alone as well


I don’t see police pulling people over though like this since that would eat up a great deal of resource time and money by doing so. It would be much easier to force auto manufacturers to install some sort of breathalyzer type equipment in their vehicles. Granted there would be ways around this as a passenger could blow into the device to allow the car to start and older models would be lacking the equipment.

It is a shame that people cannot wake up and see the danger they pose when drinking and driving though.

Raist







 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join