4 votes

Feds Look to Lower Legal Drunk Driving Limit to Increase Revenue


By JG Vibes
May 17, 2013

The government is here to help again, and as usual they are probobly going to make a lot of money, and fill a lot of their cages in the process.

According to CBS:

A federal agency’s recommendation to lower the legal limit is drawing some opposition. The National Transportation Safety Board says the recommendation could cut the number of DUI deaths but not everyone is on board. If the NTSB has its way, the legal limit could drop from .08 to .05 across the country.
“Studies have shown if you can bring it down to .05, you can significantly reduce the number of fatalities and accidents on our nation’s highways,” said one official.
As it stands right now the way that the state deals with drunk driving is tyrannical and infringes upon everyone’s rights, even people like myself, who don’t drink at all. To lower the limit even more would be insane, and it is obvious when things are done like this that the government isn’t concerned about anyone’s safety, they are just looking for another excuse to fill their pockets and their jail cells. Recently economist Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article on this subject and discussed the problems with the status quo while offering some solutions as well.

In his article he said that:

Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice. The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime.
And we can see where this is heading. Texting is now illegal in most places. So is talking on the phone. Maybe talking itself should be illegal. Some communities are talking about banning eating. All of this is a distraction from the real issue.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A driver blows through a stop sign and kills you.

Does your family really care if:
1) he had a blood alcohol content of .05 or .35?
2) he was texting or loading a CD?
3) he was drowsy due to a legal prescription of Xanax or driving home from working a 16hr shift?
4) he was an unlicensed driver or a 88 yo man with dementia?
5) he was a cop on an unnecessary high speed chase or a 16 yo boy who had just gotten his license?
6) he just spilt hot coffee in his lap or dropped a cigarette?

Let people have their freedom and let those who cause damage be tried and pay the price of their actions.

Drunk and/or distracted

Drunk and/or distracted driving are incredibly dangerous. What is a sensible liberty response to idiots who engage in either as they become a hazard to all drivers. Yes, self-driving cars are on their way, but that's still a good five years off. Should dangerous drivers face insurance rates that reflect their poor decision making? What about the driver with an otherwise spotless record who gets drunk once (or texts someone), causes a collision and kills someone?

I agree here. On one hand you

I agree here. On one hand you have more laws, but on the other, not following something like this is dangerous to more than just yourself.
In this case, I would have to think basic laws are ok. Nothing draconian or anything though.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.



"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Restaurants Fear Tough Drunk-Driving Law


By Amy Langfield, NBC News

Imagine having a drink with dinner at a restaurant only to be pulled over on the way home and slapped with a DUI. That could happen under a proposed plan to toughen the drunk driving laws across the country, and it has restaurateurs alarmed.

The National Transportation Safety Board wants states to make it illegal to drive with a blood-alcohol content level above 0.05. Currently all U.S. states set the limit at 0.08. For some people, the lower level could mean no more than a glass of wine.

"It would have a devastating impact on the restaurant industry," said Sarah Longwell , the managing director of the American Beverage Institute.

"Give a man a gun, and he could rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he could rob the world."

Have a drink at home

Have a drink at home afterward or take a cab. Driving even mildly inebriated is a choice that only a fool makes.

And this means less revenue

And this means less revenue from liquor taxes.

You'd rather the roads were

You'd rather the roads were full of drunks? Think about it.