Draconian? No. Wearing a blindfold isn't illegal. Wearing one and attempting to drive is. Nobody is saying you can't drink, they are just saying you cannot drink and drive. That's fair. Do bars only sell alcoholic beverages? They don't ask because it's none of their business. Next time you wake up next to a fat chick whose name you don't know, ask yourself that question again.
phlogistician, What will it take for you to realize that you are not being practical or realistic? "The Law is the Law!" is just a sorry cop out. How many ridiculous laws are on the books? Many for the sake of revenue? Without questioning ridiculous or oppressive laws, there will be no stop to them. DC is apparently well outside of the normal regulations. Well outside. The law is impractical. Questioning that is not wrong. Cutsie Marie, you too. By the standard of "Driving Impaired"- You would require that the LAW states that people should be arrested for having a cold. Or driving while upset. Or sneezing on the freeway. I'll point out that I do not drink AT ALL. So I never have to worry about drinking and driving. But claiming someone is impaired at .01 or .03 is NOT ACCURATE. Your claim is nonsense. This is WHY lawmakers set a limit- DUH! To be realistic and fair. The lady found a place that was extraordinary. The fact the DC is well outside the norm is reasonable grounds to point out that it IS well outside the norm. Cut the holier than thou art crap. I bet you never drink out of a soda while driving or listen to music while driving, right? All of that impairs driving too. So does EVER taking your hands off the wheel. Or one hand off the wheel. You're both being VERY unreasonable.
Zero tolerance is very practical. I do not support people's supposed right to drink and drive, period. Have some limit implies it's kind of Ok to drink and drive, and thus we are on a slippery slope. Remoe all ambiguity, and we level the playing field.
No it isn't. Simple minds like simple solutions and zero tolerance is the simplest of all. Hell, no brain required, just stamp it as a zero and shrug on to the next... Nonsense. No one is claiming a supposed right to drink and drive. People are pointing out the fallacy in claiming someone is IMPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. If I SMELL alcohol am I suddenly impaired? Well that's not how the laws are most anywhere in the world. It seems the rest of humanity disagrees with you.
Alright, so let's say I'm at a bar and have a beer. When can I drive home? After all, I can't check my BAC. To be safe, I should probably wander around the entire night and wait until morning to drive home. Or maybe I should wait until tomorrow afternoon, just to be safe. Or evening... See, this doesn't make sense. At all. Yesterday, I met up with some friends after work. We went to a bar to watch a basketball game. I drank two sixteen ounce beers over the course of three hours, then drove home. This is not "drinking and driving." Be sensible.
Go to the bar, don't have a beer. Simple. That's the problem, nobody can. Oh yes it is, you're a drink driver. You aren't a drunk driver, but you're a drink driver.
I think you need to go read up on the subject. Recent research has shed more light onto the effects of alcohol on reaction times and motor skills, and it's disturbing enough that the researchers who conducted those experiments recommend a zero tolerance policy. Yes you are. Nobody has made that claim, have they? I said a single pint of beer increases your reaction time. If you doubt that, go Google. Yes yes, and we used to allow people to smoke on aeroplanes. Times change.
Alright, so let's say I'm at home one evening and decide to have a beer. When can I drive to work? After all, I can't check my BAC. To be safe, I should probably call work tomorrow morning and let them know I won't be in until late afternoon, just to be safe. Or evening...
LOL So now we title it a "Drink Driver" and justify your claim. What about a Sniff Alcohol Driver? Are people that hang out with a drink driver guilty by osmosis or association? Can you PROVE that someone soaking their finger in a glass of wine til it looks like a raisin isn't impaired? Zero Tolerance is nothing more than a way of saying, "I don't want to have to put forth the effort to come up with reasonable circumstance, so I'll just blanket cover it with extremist control measures." Links? Citations? 99.99% of elephants like chocolate milk. Without support, a claim is just a claim.
The bottom line is, phlogistician is in favor of arresting someone for driving while intoxicated when they are not actually intoxicated. It's absurd on its face, just as it would be absurd to charge anyone with any crime that they have not actually committed. What if I drink a beer at home? How long should I wait before I drive myself? Two hours? Ten hours? After all, there will still be some non-zero amount of alcohol in my system ten hours after drinking a beer. But is it too much for me to drive? Should I wait 20 hours? 40? With a sensitive analysis technique, I guarantee you that you will still be able to detect some residual alcohol in your system 40 hours after drinking a single beer. Not much, but there will still be a few ethanol molecules knocking around in your body.
Today many places that serve alcohol are being sued by customers who get into accidents after they leave drunk from any place selling them alcohol and are winning lawsuits big time. So if you sell alcohol today be careful that the people that drink aren't drunk or you can get a big piece of money taken away in a lawsuit.
Exactly. But our friend phlogistician seems to think that ANY amount of alcohol is too much, which is why he is in favor of charging people with drunk driving even when it is medically impossible for them to be intoxicated based on their BAC.
Molecules, wow, you really are now going to absurd lengths to try and justify your support for drinking and driving. On alcohol metabolism; Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Alcohol metabolism doesn't follow a half life, because it requires a multi stage process to be expelled, it's concentration falls off linearly.
What? Do you support "zero tolerance," or not? If not, exactly how much alcohol do you think is permissible? Clearly it's somewhere between 0.03 BAC and a few molecules, so tell us specifically where you would draw the line. This is only true in relatively high concentrations. Once your BAC gets low enough, it stops following linear kinetics and starts following normal first-order kinetics. Your chart might say that after some amount of time you have a BAC of "zero," but that's just because it's not measuring BAC out to enough decimal places. There most certainly will still be a non-zero amount of alcohol in your system.
The law is the law, if it is stupid or people don't like it then it can be changed. If you are under 21 and have a BAC of .01 or higher you will recieve a DUI regardless if you are actually impaired or not. How often do people have a few drinks and think they're perfectly fine to drive home? Too many, which is why the law was created. People with a high tolerance for alcohol are less likely to know when they are impaired. And it is also illegal to drive even if you have only been taking cough medicine, it doesn't matter what drug causes the impairment or why you took it. People think they can do things, but they are often wrong. Which is why there are so many driving laws. You can make something "fool proof", but you can't make it "stupid proof". When people stop being stupid, DUI's and all related "you can't do this and drive" laws will be a thing of the past. And fyi you're right, I don't drink or eat while driving nor do I listen to music or talk on the phone and ask that my passengers refain from talking to me if possible, driving can be very dangerous not only to myself but everyone else on the road and deserves my full attention. So I'm sorry but not drinking and driving is hardly unreasonable.
