Utah plan would give state strictest DUI limit in US
Source: Utah plan would give state strictest DUI limit in
Utah plan would give state strictest DUI limit in US
Michelle L. Price, Associated Press Updated 3:36 pm, Tuesday, January 3, 2017
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) A state lawmaker wants to make Utah's DUI threshold the strictest in the nation by lowering the blood-alcohol content limit to 0.05 percent.
Though state numbers show alcohol-related driving deaths and DUI arrests are down in Utah, Rep. Norman Thurston said there's more to be done. The Provo Republican plans to introduce legislation lowering the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05 when Utah's lawmakers return for their annual session later this month.
The BAC limit for most drivers is 0.08 in all states, but limits vary among states for commercial drivers or drivers who have had a past DUI conviction.
If Thurston's bill passes this year, it would give the state the strictest BAC limit in the nation, but a tough stance on alcohol is hardly new for the majority Mormon state. An estimated 60 percent of the state's residents and most of the state Legislature are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which instructs church members to avoid drinking alcohol.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Bill-to-drop-Utah-BAC-to-05-would-be-strictest-10832812.php
2naSalit
(86,646 posts)That's one of those states that requires an altered state of mind just to drive through it! Although it is far more scenic than Kansas or Nebraska.
UT_democrat
(143 posts)that says it all. He'd like the rest of us to suffer the tenants of the Mormon church like they do in "Happy Valley." Screw you Thurston.
forgotmylogin
(7,530 posts)Matthew28
(1,798 posts)I guess only when it hurts people. They love to hurt people.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)mwooldri
(10,303 posts)They have a 0 limit, have had for years. Romania, Slovakia and Hungary too. Makes England/Wales limit of 0.8 look like a booze-up in comparison. The "norm" in Europe is 0.5, so I have no problem with Utah going there.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)FrodosNewPet
(495 posts)But after SO MANY YEARS of my personal and professional life dealing with DFIs (Drunken Fuckin' Idiots), I support this lowering of BAC limits whole heartedly.
DFIs KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE! DFIs cause conflict. DFIs drain the emotional energy of their families and friends.
To hell with unrepentant DFIs, because that's where they send others.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Prohibition of drugs has done a great job of feeding it. Let's just keep doing it. More harsh laws. more draconian sentences!
The pig needs more to eat!
duhneece
(4,113 posts)has such a high rate of death by drunk drivers. Living with the 'fallout' of these deaths is too hard for our families and communities. I'm opposed to the entire War on DRugs but support laws dealing with folks who can't control their driving while drunk.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It begs the question, what then is the precise BAC a driver should be legally allowed to operate a vehicle with, and on what objective measure is that number based?
FreeState
(10,572 posts)Is there a study that shows that or just a hunch?
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2017, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Johnathan146
(141 posts)At that point you likely dont have the cordination to get up and walk to your car.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,636 posts)...since attending one will be illegal for anyone without a teetotalling friend to drive home. This will really hurt restaurants where one may want a glass of wine or a beer served with dinner as well.
I don't think this has so much to do with ending drunk driving as it does placating religious people who don't like alcohol served to others under any circumstance.
christx30
(6,241 posts)that drank at parties, I was always the designated driver. Even if she offered me a sip of what she was drinking, just so I could try it, I always refused. I stuck with Dr. Pepper.
To this day I don't drink. I had 2 beers at home alone on NYE. Didn't even finish the second one.
Finding a designated driver isn't hard. You just have to care about your life and the lives of passengers and drivers around you more than you care about the liquid in the glass.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Quackers
(2,256 posts)I was hit 11 months ago by an uninsured drunk driver. I'm still receiving bills in the mail from the hospital and ambulance. Fuck drunk drivers!
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)It is inevitable and drunk driving accidents will decrease as as consequence
groundloop
(11,519 posts)It's not ok to be in control of a car while in any way impaired. Do your alcohol or drugs at home, at a friends house, or arrange for a designated driver.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)States with legal medical weed are seeing noticeable declines in DUI fatalities
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)And don't take unnecessary risks.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)feel comfortable driving moments after ripping a fat tube.. . For sure, it's not as debilitating as alcohol, bit that doesn't make it "safe".
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)although to quite a leaser dwgree than booze.
The biggest problem with cops and weed is, a drig test can't tsll if you smomed 5 minutes ago, or the day before. I don't see cops having any accurate test, other than bloodshot eyes and reeking of weed...
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)tougher laws so our prison industrial complex and get more people. Enough is enough. Tough laws and draconian sentencing only exploded our prison population.
I am against off of it. IT doesn't work and never has.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)No one is advocating draconian drug sentencing. If someone drives fucked up, they're a piece of crap for putting people's lives at risk.
If someone thinks they aren't impaired when they drive high, they care more about their weed than the safety of others.
Pretty simple, really... there's a video on youtube where a study taped people driving, before and after hitting some serious bud. They are clearly impaired, backing over cones and shit.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)In fact, make everything jail time.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)It actually helps me not want to push some fucking asshole forward when the light turns green because they haven't finished their text yet
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Same argument they use for Welfare, gun control, and anything else Republicans hate.
But augmenting the police state. . .well, it is good for public safety.
Add to that their theocratic bullshit and I will say it without reservation: FUCK UTAH!!!
Ghost OF Trotsky
(61 posts).08 was bad enough.
I'd be happy with a constitutional amendment that made it illegal to drug or alcohol test ANYONE.
The ONLY person who should be administering a test like that to someone is their doctor.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)want into their body, but i sure as hell don't want em behind the wheel while doing it!
I got hit head on by a drunk in an F-350, seatbelt saved my life, my car was totalled. Driving impaired is a direct threat to someone elses life.
progree
(10,909 posts)No, the below is NOT from The Onion:
Joseph Schwab, 36, was pulled over on August 5, 2015, by a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control agent in an unmarked car who claimed the 36-year-old had cut her off and was driving erratically,
It wasn't until samples were sent to an outside testing facility in Pennsylvania that caffeine showed up as the only drug in Schwab's system when he was arrested, The Guardian reported. Now, just about 18 months later, Schwab and his attorney are gearing up for trial.
According to California law, a drug is any substance that isn't alcohol that might impair, to an appreciable degree a driver's capability behind the wheel. How the state might attempt to argue caffeine did that to Schwab, we are not sure.
More: https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-california-fighting-caffeine-dui-192312988.html
Breathalyzer was 0.00%, toxicology report was that no illegal drugs, nor any alcohol.
There was nothing in any article I've seen that he was acting "hyper" or anything like that.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)generators big time!
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)any downside...
Retrograde
(10,137 posts)and it doesn't seem to slow down the bars and pubs at all. Of course, this is in cities, where there are alternatives to driving.
I like to visit local brewpubs and maybe have a few drinks at local restaurants when I travel, but I make sure I'm staying within walking/public transportation range: I'd rather pay a few $$ extra for someplace close than risk a DUI.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Americans are addicted to their cars.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)Norway sells about 45,000 new cars a year for the whole country (4+ million people).
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/24/this-country-has-hit-a-major-milestone-for-electric-cars-heres-how.html
dionysus
(26,467 posts)the limit, and the officer deems you buzzed, you will get charged.
It may be a slightly lesser offense, but it's still enough to lose your license.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
Here's an example. In the late 9ps, in NY the limit was .10. Of you blow a .09, they let you go. This happened to me when i got hit head on by a drunk driver. He had his eye on a cop ahead who had someone pulled over. He blew a red light AND drifted into my lane at the same time, hitting me head on with his huge truck, totalling my car. I blew under the limit and was let go, he didn't and got hauled off.
15 years later, the limit is .08... if you blow a .07, hell, even a .04... and the cop wants to, you will still get charged.
It's a DWAI insread of a DWI, but you'll still get your license yanked...
They take impaired driving a lot more seriously these days, which is good. In the old days, cops were known for leniency. In the 60s my dad missed a turn and drove out into a field. The cop helped him get his car back on the road, and basically said "you drive straight home now..." attitudes were vastly different back then, obviously. Today, you'd get busted hard for doing that kinda shit...
Seasider
(169 posts)so laws like this don't really affect me but this is another classic example of how embarrassing the alcohol laws are in the state. Other laws already in place are the infamous "zion curtain" law which means restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages cannot be seen mixing or pouring those drinks by customers so they either need to have a wall or curtain obscuring that view. There's also the law that grocery stores can only sell beer and any other alcoholic drinks like wine and liquor can only be purchased at liquor stores.
I'm all for having a society where people aren't abusing alcohol and being a menace to others but it does make me laugh and shake my head when my fellow conservative friends here keep whining about big gov't and how gov't needs to stay out of their lives.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)According to Provo city ordinance 9-14-101, "every person who shall . . . throw stock, stick, snowball or other missile whereby any person shall be hit . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/575039869/Snowball-a-weapon-in-Provo.html
Utah... LOL
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It was "any detectable BAC". I think enough teetotalers got DUIs that they eventually stopped doing that.