Feds want to lower BAC to .05 for drunk driving

[Dot Com]

Trying to get rid of Hillary

she doesn't have worry about it. she hasn't drove her fat butt around since her hounddog hubby left office

"fat"? Thats rich coming from the rw lady that stands in a lunch line 5days/week

guno !!! Where is that pic of Steph?

THATS the one I was looking for.

 

[Stephanie]

More money for the Prison Industrial Complex.

No dummies, I'm not saying people should be allowed to Drive With Drinking Indicated either.

how did we know that was going to be thrown out there? they are just predictable.

 

[Dot Com]

who are you talking to Staph???

 

[guno]

The feds want to shift everyone over to pot.

no kidding. people better start standing up to these feds. we have our STATE governments

Wasn't that what that operation american springy thingy was supposed to "take care"of ?

 

[Skylar]

The NTSB has made this recommendation for the last several years in a row. I don't believe a single state has followed that recommendation either, I could be wrong though.

Nope. Not one.

 

[Skylar]

I'm all for this but the constitution says DUI is a state issue. Of course 99% of what the feds do should be handled by the states if we follow the constitution; in particular the 10th amendment.

Feds Want to Lower LegalDriving Limit to One Drink

jan 15 2016 The National Transportation Safety Board wants to decrease the legal driving limit to one drink, lowering the legal limit on blood-alcohol content to 0.05 “or even lower.”

The agency released its “most wanted list” on Wednesday, a laundry list of policies it would like implemented nationally. The list includes recommendations to reduce the current 0.08 blood alcohol content limit and outlaw all cell phone use while driving, even hands-free technology.

“When it comes to alcohol use, we know that impairment begins before a person’s BAC reaches 0.08 percent, the current legal limit in the United States,” the agency said. “In fact, by the time it reaches that level, the risk of a fatal crash has more than doubled. That is why states should lower BAC levels to 0.05— or even lower.”

What exactly is your issue? These are NTSB recommendations. The NTSB is an advisory and investigatory board. Making recommendations is what they do.

How does that violate the constitution?

The NTSB was hijacked a long time ago by people who have a religious belief that consuming alcohol is contrary to their religion. Abolitionists.

They have no right to force their silly religious beliefs on everyone else.

Abolitionists are people who oppose slavery. You're pretty much making this shit up as you go along.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The feds want to shift everyone over to pot.

I don't know about the feds but the auto-industry is funding the legalize drugs movement. Car crashes mean car sales and the war on DUI has hurt the car industry and they figure if people won't drive drunk, lets con them into driving stoned.

 

[leftwinger]

Why do bars have parking lots? One/two drinks and you are over limit 0.08%.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

What exactly is your issue? These are NTSB recommendations. The NTSB is an advisory and investigatory board. Making recommendations is what they do.
How does that violate the constitution?

They're not gonna confine themselves to recommendations, you fool. They want to lower the BAC nationwide and they plan on doing that. I want lower BACs but it should be left to the states. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I'm fine with this. Drunk drivers kill 10K a year. Same amount as guns murder but libs only focus on the gun murders.

I agree but still it should be left to the states.. The tenth amendment makes this a state issue.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The NTSB was hijacked a long time ago by people who have a religious belief that consuming alcohol is contrary to their religion. Abolitionists.

.

HAHA. I think you mean prohibitionists!!! Anyway, the complaint is not with drinking but drunk driving. THINK

 

[Skylar]

What exactly is your issue? These are NTSB recommendations. The NTSB is an advisory and investigatory board. Making recommendations is what they do.
How does that violate the constitution?

They're not gonna confine themselves to recommendations, you fool. They want to lower the BAC nationwide and they plan on doing that. I want lower BACs but it should be left to the states. THINK

The NTSB has been making the same recommendation for 7 years. And not a single state has adopted it. 'They' don't regulate these issues. The NTSB is a advisory board. They report on research that they do. They make recommendations based on that research.

Fool.

 

[Muhammed]

I'm all for this but the constitution says DUI is a state issue. Of course 99% of what the feds do should be handled by the states if we follow the constitution; in particular the 10th amendment.

Feds Want to Lower LegalDriving Limit to One Drink

jan 15 2016 The National Transportation Safety Board wants to decrease the legal driving limit to one drink, lowering the legal limit on blood-alcohol content to 0.05 “or even lower.”

The agency released its “most wanted list” on Wednesday, a laundry list of policies it would like implemented nationally. The list includes recommendations to reduce the current 0.08 blood alcohol content limit and outlaw all cell phone use while driving, even hands-free technology.

“When it comes to alcohol use, we know that impairment begins before a person’s BAC reaches 0.08 percent, the current legal limit in the United States,” the agency said. “In fact, by the time it reaches that level, the risk of a fatal crash has more than doubled. That is why states should lower BAC levels to 0.05— or even lower.”

What exactly is your issue? These are NTSB recommendations. The NTSB is an advisory and investigatory board. Making recommendations is what they do.

How does that violate the constitution?

The NTSB was hijacked a long time ago by people who have a religious belief that consuming alcohol is contrary to their religion. Abolitionists.

They have no right to force their silly religious beliefs on everyone else.

Abolitionists are people who oppose slavery. You're pretty much making this shit up as you go along.

Prohibitionists.

 

[Muhammed]

The NTSB was hijacked a long time ago by people who have a religious belief that consuming alcohol is contrary to their religion. Abolitionists.

.

HAHA. I think you mean prohibitionists!!! Anyway, the complaint is not with drinking but drunk driving. THINK

No it isn't. They are against drinking, period. They are scumbag religious extremists.

 

[Skylar]

I'm all for this but the constitution says DUI is a state issue. Of course 99% of what the feds do should be handled by the states if we follow the constitution; in particular the 10th amendment.

Feds Want to Lower LegalDriving Limit to One Drink

jan 15 2016 The National Transportation Safety Board wants to decrease the legal driving limit to one drink, lowering the legal limit on blood-alcohol content to 0.05 “or even lower.”

The agency released its “most wanted list” on Wednesday, a laundry list of policies it would like implemented nationally. The list includes recommendations to reduce the current 0.08 blood alcohol content limit and outlaw all cell phone use while driving, even hands-free technology.

“When it comes to alcohol use, we know that impairment begins before a person’s BAC reaches 0.08 percent, the current legal limit in the United States,” the agency said. “In fact, by the time it reaches that level, the risk of a fatal crash has more than doubled. That is why states should lower BAC levels to 0.05— or even lower.”

What exactly is your issue? These are NTSB recommendations. The NTSB is an advisory and investigatory board. Making recommendations is what they do.

How does that violate the constitution?

The NTSB was hijacked a long time ago by people who have a religious belief that consuming alcohol is contrary to their religion. Abolitionists.

They have no right to force their silly religious beliefs on everyone else.

Abolitionists are people who oppose slavery. You're pretty much making this shit up as you go along.

Prohibitionists.

Now that you're at least using the correct terminology for you fantasy, now factually back it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

When my parents were in college, 18 was the legal drinking age. They would go have a beer after class. Now, they would be summoned or arrested for doing the same thing.

In 2012, there were 120 MILLION self reported episodes of drunk driving in America.

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

 

[Skylar]

When my parents were in college, 18 was the legal drinking age. They would go have a beer after class. Now, they would be summoned or arrested for doing the same thing. Yet, raising it to 21 has caused an increase in drunk driving incidents over the years. Every time the gov't steps in the shit gets worse. You must be careful when you read about the number of drunk driving deaths decreasing. That's very much in large part that our vehicles are safer now than they've ever been. So if there are 1000 crashes but one death, its reported as a death. But in 1980 you could have 10 crashes and one death, both show as one death.

In 2012, there were 120 MILLION self reported episodes of drunk driving in America.

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

In comparison to what in 1980?

Remember, your argument is prefaced by 'if'. You'll need to move past 'if' to make an argument that is relevant to this discussion.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Personal Opinion:

I have no issue with anyone drinking and I enjoy drinking Jim Beam or Southern Comfort but I do have a issue with someone driving under the influence and it should not be tolerated.

I believe it should be 0 seeing society knows the affects of driving under the influence, but that is me, and I am sure some if not many will disagree.

Now for those wanting to make a claim that people want to outlaw booze or the drinking of that, well we have done that, and can never be done again on the Federal Level after the repealing of the eighteenth amendment.

A state and local government can prohibit the sales of booze within their borders but on the federal level it will never happen again.

So with that if a state want to lower it to .05 then by all means and if a state does not then that is their choice and rightfully so...

 

[Skylar]

Personal Opinion:

I have no issue with anyone drinking and I enjoy drinking Jim Beam or Southern Comfort but I do have a issue with someone driving under the influence and it should not be tolerated.

I believe it should be 0 seeing society knows the affects of driving under the influence, but that is me, and I am sure some if not many will disagree.

Now for those wanting to make a claim that people want to outlaw booze or the drinking of that, well we have done that, and can never be done again on the Federal Level after the repealing of the eighteenth amendment.

A state and local government can prohibit the sales of booze within their borders but on the federal level it will never happen again.

So with that if a state want to lower it to .05 then by all means and if a state does not then that is their choice and rightfully so...

No one has argued otherwise. What's being pointed out is that the NTSB is merely and advisory board. Tasked by Congress to research transportation safety, report their findings and make recommendations.

And that's all they've done here: make a recommendation. The same recommendation that they've made for the last 7 years. And states are free to ignore it or implement it as they wish.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Personal Opinion:

I have no issue with anyone drinking and I enjoy drinking Jim Beam or Southern Comfort but I do have a issue with someone driving under the influence and it should not be tolerated.

I believe it should be 0 seeing society knows the affects of driving under the influence, but that is me, and I am sure some if not many will disagree.

Now for those wanting to make a claim that people want to outlaw booze or the drinking of that, well we have done that, and can never be done again on the Federal Level after the repealing of the eighteenth amendment.

A state and local government can prohibit the sales of booze within their borders but on the federal level it will never happen again.

So with that if a state want to lower it to .05 then by all means and if a state does not then that is their choice and rightfully so...

No one has argued otherwise. What's being pointed out is that the NTSB is merely and advisory board. Tasked by Congress to research transportation safety, report their findings and make recommendations.

And that's all they've done here: make a recommendation. The same recommendation that they've made for the last 7 years. And states are free to ignore it or implement it as they wish.

Yes someone is arguing that they are attempting to outlaw something and I can point that out easily, so please.

Also you are barking at the wrong poster because I am not Sassy nor Stephanie, and I did not write anything disagreeing with the NTSB and actually wrote I would be stricter on what I would want.

I understand their recommendation is not law nor will it be, so I hope you understand that!