Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
The record is mixed. Many studies confirm that since the drinking age was standardized at 21 in 1984, the overall number of alcohol-related fatalities for those aged 18-20 has decreased. However, this pattern of decline began in the early 1970s, years before passage of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. Though organizations like MADD claim the 21 year-old drinking age has saved over 21,000 lives since the mid-1980s, its is impossible to assert a cause and effect relationship between the change in the law and the decline in alcohol-related traffic fatalities; many other factors, such as safer vehicles and more stringent drunk driving laws have played an undeniably important role (see below). Several scholars have also presented the important argument that while deaths on the road may have declined sharply among 18-20 year-olds in the years following enactment of the 21 year-old drinking age, the slowest rate of decline and greatest number of annual fatalities is seen each year in the 21-24 age group. In 2002, for example, twice as many 21 year-olds died in alcohol-related auto accidents as 18 year-olds. Such a staggering statistic speaks volumes: a policy that claims to be saving thousands of each year may simply be re-distributing deaths over the life cycle to the point at which it becomes legal to drink alcohol—age 21.
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.”
I don't have to back jack shit. The onus is on you religious freaks to back your opinion.Prohibitionists.The NTSB was hijacked a long time ago by people who have a religious belief that consuming alcohol is contrary to their religion. Abolitionists.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.
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 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.
Now that you're at least using the correct terminology for you fantasy, now factually back it.
WHat will happen is that the feds will say it should be so then hold states hostage by denying federal highway funds to any state that doesn't knuckle underI'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?
WHat will happen is that the feds will say it should be so then hold states hostage by denying federal highway funds to any state that doesn't knuckle underI'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?
That's how the federal government side steps the constitution
WHat will happen is that the feds will say it should be so then hold states hostage by denying federal highway funds to any state that doesn't knuckle underI'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?
That's how the federal government side steps the constitution
that's why the STATES have given up their rights once they latch us onto that now Tyrant Federal Government. they are having problems in Missouri with the FEDS because they wouldn't bow to them. the people can't go into a federal building if they don't have a birth certificate or a passport because they claim the Missouri drivers license doesn't COMPLY to something they demanded. How the hell is that FREEDOM to make the people SUFFER BECAUSE something they want?
WHat will happen is that the feds will say it should be so then hold states hostage by denying federal highway funds to any state that doesn't knuckle underI'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?
That's how the federal government side steps the constitution
that's why the STATES have given up their rights once they latch us onto that now Tyrant Federal Government. they are having problems in Missouri with the FEDS because they wouldn't bow to them. the people can't go into a federal building if they don't have a birth certificate or a passport because they claim the Missouri drivers license doesn't COMPLY to something they demanded. How the hell is that FREEDOM to make the people SUFFER BECAUSE something they want?
Did you ever think you'd see the day when a US citizen had to carry a passport to travel within the country?
Where in the Constitution does it mention drunk driving?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.”
Just like when Reagan forced the drinking age to be changed?State's rights issue
Just like when Reagan forced the drinking age to be changed?State's rights issue
…the possession of alcohol for an established religious purpose; when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older; for medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution; in private clubs or establishments; or to the sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful employment of a person under the age of twenty-one years by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of alcoholic beverages.
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.
WHat will happen is that the feds will say it should be so then hold states hostage by denying federal highway funds to any state that doesn't knuckle under
That's how the federal government side steps the constitution
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.
Where in the Constitution does it mention drunk driving?
the people can't go into a federal building unless they have a birth certificate or a passport, because they claim the Missouri drivers license doesn't COMPLY to something they demanded
Yeah because everyone is falling down drunk after one drink........lower the alcohol limit?State's rights issue
look like you are in big trouble
Grow up Guano, just grow up. Maybe go start another thread in the Flame Zone, clueless old geezer
Interesting that you would oppose it
Yeah because everyone is falling down drunk after one drink........lower the alcohol limit?State's rights issue
look like you are in big trouble
Grow up Guano, just grow up. Maybe go start another thread in the Flame Zone, clueless old geezer
Interesting that you would oppose it
Its callled the Law of diminishing returns ...check it out........you've alrdy passed it at .08
