Govt officials call for lowering drunk driving threshold to BAC of .05

On 2013-05-16, Bill Graham > wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> Police are already unable to stop drivers
>> who are absolutely pickled and stagger
>> out of large bars and drive away.
>>
>> Police DO NOT focus on people leaving large bars.
>> Apparently focusing on people leaving a bar
>> would be seen as entrapment or unfair somehow.
>> I don't buy it but that's what a cop told me.
>>
>> This .05 BAC proposal would enable Police
>> to waste time on the "small fish" yet show
>> an impressive score sheet for arresting
>> "drunk drivers".
>>
>> Instead of busting the SERIOUSLY drunk drivers
>> cops would be more busy wasting time on the
>> "small fish".
>>
>> Wouldn't our streets be safer if the BAC limit
>> was put at .10 but seriously and severely enforced?
>>
>> Instead of criminalizing tens of thousands of
>> lightweights, why not focus more on the few
>> hardcore drunks and repeat offenders who
>> actually do the worst damage?
>>
>> Who is the obsessive OP and why do
>> they seem to be so completely unaware
>> of the real world? Aspies much?
>
> Depends on where you live. The police stopped and ticketed a friend of mine
> once for staggering out of a bar and,.....Walking home! He knew he was too
> drunk to drive, and only lived about four blocks from the bar, so he walked.
> The cops got him for being drunk in public. This was, (of course) in
> California, the most liberal place in the world.

It is about revenue and making performance objectives.
By criminalizing walking home and sleeping it off in the car they are
trying to encourage people to drive home. By walking one takes much
longer to get home and thus more chance of being spotted by a cop. By
sleeping it off in a car one will be there for hours when driving home
would take minutes. Same deal, more likely to get busted for sleeping it
off.

Government needs ways to crack down on responsible people who aren't a
problem for anyone. This is the source of its power. the old saying when
there aren't enough criminals it makes them. It's got to stay in
business. It has to grow year over year. That means keeping people
fearful. That means having the perception as a protector.

Of course now with this 0.05BAC recommendation nobody is apologizing to
those who predicted this slope. The people who were called paranoid and
worse. Never mind them... this is good now. Why can't people see how
they are scammed?

On May 17, 8:16*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2013-05-16, Bill Graham > wrote:
>
> > Greegor wrote:
> >> Police are already unable to stop drivers
> >> who are absolutely pickled and stagger
> >> out of large bars and drive away.
>
> >> Police DO NOT focus on people leaving large bars.
> >> Apparently focusing on people leaving a bar
> >> would be seen as entrapment or unfair somehow.
> >> I don't buy it but that's what a cop told me.
>
> >> This .05 BAC proposal would enable Police
> >> to waste time on the "small fish" yet show
> >> an impressive score sheet for arresting
> >> "drunk drivers".
>
> >> Instead of busting the SERIOUSLY drunk drivers
> >> cops would be more busy wasting time on the
> >> "small fish".
>
> >> Wouldn't our streets be safer if the BAC limit
> >> was put at .10 but seriously and severely enforced?
>
> >> Instead of criminalizing tens of thousands of
> >> lightweights, why not focus more on the few
> >> hardcore drunks and repeat offenders who
> >> actually do the worst damage?
>
> >> Who is the obsessive OP and why do
> >> they seem to be so completely unaware
> >> of the real world? * Aspies much?

> > Depends on where you live. The police stopped and ticketed a friend of mine
> > once for staggering out of a bar and,.....Walking home! He knew he was too
> > drunk to drive, and only lived about four blocks from the bar, so he walked.
> > The cops got him for being drunk in public. This was, (of course) in
> > California, the most liberal place in the world.

> It is about revenue and making performance objectives.
> By criminalizing walking home and sleeping it off in the car they are
> trying to encourage people to drive home. By walking one takes much
> longer to get home and thus more chance of being spotted by a cop. By
> sleeping it off in a car one will be there for hours when driving home
> would take minutes. Same deal, more likely to get busted for sleeping it
> off.
>
> Government needs ways to crack down on responsible people who aren't a
> problem for anyone. This is the source of its power. the old saying when
> there aren't enough criminals it makes them. It's got to stay in
> business. It has to grow year over year.

Not many people seem to realize
that bureaucracies actually do have
pressures like that to grow, to enlarge.

> That means keeping people
> fearful. That means having the
> perception as a protector.

When ICE came up with "cutbacks"
they turned loose some dangerous
repeat criminals and Felons.

This is in keeping with the well known
"Closing the washington Monument" ploy.
When forced to cut back, agencies tend
to first cut the parts of their organization
that hurt the public the most.

Rather than cut the fat, they cut the meat.

When ICE (Part of Homeland Security)
turned loose dangerous illegals into
the US, were they trying to make the
public fearful and cause the public to
feel they NEED ICE and Homeland Security
even more?

ie: Bureaucracies make the most painful
cuts in order to rationalize giving them back
all of their funding and more.

> Of course now with this 0.05BAC
> recommendation nobody is apologizing
> to those who predicted this slope.

Yeah, "slippery slope" and "mission creep"
certainly do seem to apply to this issue.

> The people who were called paranoid and
> worse. Never mind them... this is good now.
> Why can't people see how they are scammed?

Have grown adults been inculcated to act
like children and look toward government
as a parent to us all?

Government itself seems to be one giant
mass of "slippery slope" and "mission creep".

Citizens should not settle for "selective enforcement"
and "prosecutorial descretion" but even those
get rationalized for one reason or another and
then have unintended consequences.

I'll say it again though, if you REALLY
want to clean up drunk drivers, then
quit thinking that lowering the BAC standard
is the way. It only causes Police to
waste time arresting lightweights rather
than making them concentrate on the
seriously drunk and repeat drunk drivers.

Make Cops stop giving breaks to relatives
and politically connected drunk drivers.

Is NTSB really sober and rational or are they
a government sponsored LOBBYING group
pulling to enlarge law enforcement?

Did Mothers Against Drunk Driving hold
back for the reason I described?

That it would cause Cops to waste
time on lesser cases rather than going
after the worst offenders?

NHTSA is very interested in getting paid to
do "studies" on this in any state goes for this..

Which lobbying or research groups are
eyeing this with a "jaundiced eye"?

This issue needs a "jaundiced eye" rather
than more "system sucks" who benefit
from their lobbying for such stuff.

In fact, why doesn't the writer of this article mention the
restaurant association or other opposition opinions?

Why did the article writer make this issue seem
so very one sided?

From the article:

Even safety groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and AAA
declined Tuesday to endorse NTSB’s call for a .05 threshold. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets national
safety policy, stopped also short of endorsing the board’s
recommendation.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2013-05-16, Bill Graham > wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Police are already unable to stop drivers
>>> who are absolutely pickled and stagger
>>> out of large bars and drive away.
>>>
>>> Police DO NOT focus on people leaving large bars.
>>> Apparently focusing on people leaving a bar
>>> would be seen as entrapment or unfair somehow.
>>> I don't buy it but that's what a cop told me.
>>>
>>> This .05 BAC proposal would enable Police
>>> to waste time on the "small fish" yet show
>>> an impressive score sheet for arresting
>>> "drunk drivers".
>>>
>>> Instead of busting the SERIOUSLY drunk drivers
>>> cops would be more busy wasting time on the
>>> "small fish".
>>>
>>> Wouldn't our streets be safer if the BAC limit
>>> was put at .10 but seriously and severely enforced?
>>>
>>> Instead of criminalizing tens of thousands of
>>> lightweights, why not focus more on the few
>>> hardcore drunks and repeat offenders who
>>> actually do the worst damage?
>>>
>>> Who is the obsessive OP and why do
>>> they seem to be so completely unaware
>>> of the real world? Aspies much?
>>
>> Depends on where you live. The police stopped and ticketed a friend of
>> mine
>> once for staggering out of a bar and,.....Walking home! He knew he was
>> too
>> drunk to drive, and only lived about four blocks from the bar, so he
>> walked.
>> The cops got him for being drunk in public. This was, (of course) in
>> California, the most liberal place in the world.
>
> It is about revenue and making performance objectives.
> By criminalizing walking home and sleeping it off in the car they are
> trying to encourage people to drive home. By walking one takes much
> longer to get home and thus more chance of being spotted by a cop. By
> sleeping it off in a car one will be there for hours when driving home
> would take minutes. Same deal, more likely to get busted for sleeping it
> off.
>
> Government needs ways to crack down on responsible people who aren't a
> problem for anyone. This is the source of its power. the old saying when
> there aren't enough criminals it makes them. It's got to stay in
> business. It has to grow year over year. That means keeping people
> fearful. That means having the perception as a protector.
>
> Of course now with this 0.05BAC recommendation nobody is apologizing to
> those who predicted this slope. The people who were called paranoid and
> worse. Never mind them... this is good now. Why can't people see how
> they are scammed?
>
>

The drug laws in general, (and marijuana laws in particular) are excellent
examples of this. They account for one third of our police force and the
money we spend on law enforcement services. Government can't afford to
legalize drugs. They would have to lay off too many people and diminish too
much in size and budget

"Greegor" > wrote in message
...
On May 17, 8:16 am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2013-05-16, Bill Graham > wrote:
>
> > Greegor wrote:
> >> Police are already unable to stop drivers
> >> who are absolutely pickled and stagger
> >> out of large bars and drive away.
>
> >> Police DO NOT focus on people leaving large bars.
> >> Apparently focusing on people leaving a bar
> >> would be seen as entrapment or unfair somehow.
> >> I don't buy it but that's what a cop told me.
>
> >> This .05 BAC proposal would enable Police
> >> to waste time on the "small fish" yet show
> >> an impressive score sheet for arresting
> >> "drunk drivers".
>
> >> Instead of busting the SERIOUSLY drunk drivers
> >> cops would be more busy wasting time on the
> >> "small fish".
>
> >> Wouldn't our streets be safer if the BAC limit
> >> was put at .10 but seriously and severely enforced?
>
> >> Instead of criminalizing tens of thousands of
> >> lightweights, why not focus more on the few
> >> hardcore drunks and repeat offenders who
> >> actually do the worst damage?
>
> >> Who is the obsessive OP and why do
> >> they seem to be so completely unaware
> >> of the real world? Aspies much?

> > Depends on where you live. The police stopped and ticketed a friend of
> > mine
> > once for staggering out of a bar and,.....Walking home! He knew he was
> > too
> > drunk to drive, and only lived about four blocks from the bar, so he
> > walked.
> > The cops got him for being drunk in public. This was, (of course) in
> > California, the most liberal place in the world.

> It is about revenue and making performance objectives.
> By criminalizing walking home and sleeping it off in the car they are
> trying to encourage people to drive home. By walking one takes much
> longer to get home and thus more chance of being spotted by a cop. By
> sleeping it off in a car one will be there for hours when driving home
> would take minutes. Same deal, more likely to get busted for sleeping it
> off.
>
> Government needs ways to crack down on responsible people who aren't a
> problem for anyone. This is the source of its power. the old saying when
> there aren't enough criminals it makes them. It's got to stay in
> business. It has to grow year over year.

Not many people seem to realize
that bureaucracies actually do have
pressures like that to grow, to enlarge.

> That means keeping people
> fearful. That means having the
> perception as a protector.

When ICE came up with "cutbacks"
they turned loose some dangerous
repeat criminals and Felons.

This is in keeping with the well known
"Closing the washington Monument" ploy.
When forced to cut back, agencies tend
to first cut the parts of their organization
that hurt the public the most.

Rather than cut the fat, they cut the meat.

When ICE (Part of Homeland Security)
turned loose dangerous illegals into
the US, were they trying to make the
public fearful and cause the public to
feel they NEED ICE and Homeland Security
even more?

ie: Bureaucracies make the most painful
cuts in order to rationalize giving them back
all of their funding and more.

> Of course now with this 0.05BAC
> recommendation nobody is apologizing
> to those who predicted this slope.

Yeah, "slippery slope" and "mission creep"
certainly do seem to apply to this issue.

> The people who were called paranoid and
> worse. Never mind them... this is good now.
> Why can't people see how they are scammed?

Have grown adults been inculcated to act
like children and look toward government
as a parent to us all?

Government itself seems to be one giant
mass of "slippery slope" and "mission creep".

Citizens should not settle for "selective enforcement"
and "prosecutorial descretion" but even those
get rationalized for one reason or another and
then have unintended consequences.

I'll say it again though, if you REALLY
want to clean up drunk drivers, then
quit thinking that lowering the BAC standard
is the way. It only causes Police to
waste time arresting lightweights rather
than making them concentrate on the
seriously drunk and repeat drunk drivers.

Make Cops stop giving breaks to relatives
and politically connected drunk drivers.

Nobody can speak for all cops in every little berg in the country. Each
department conducts itself in its own way, encouraged by the local judges
and mayors/governors. Few of these people have even read the constitution,
much less are able to interpret it the way its framers intended. I was not
surprised when my friend was arrested for, "drunk walking". The local cops
were just on their usual fishing expedition for money.As government grows,
the constitution is swept further and further under the rug. It's just
another pesky obstacle to their efforts to collect money.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

Simple alternative ... blow over .05 and under .08, get a 12 hour
suspension, and, if required, a free call for a taxi, and a tow costing no
more than $50 ... no criminal charge, no report to insurance.

On 2013-05-17, M.I.Wakefield > wrote:
> "Bill Graham" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Simple alternative ... blow over .05 and under .08, get a 12 hour
> suspension, and, if required, a free call for a taxi, and a tow costing no
> more than $50 ... no criminal charge, no report to insurance.

Too old timey peace officer stuff.
These days it's law enforcement and severe punishments.
Also no money in that for the system and the people in it. Except the
tow operator, maybe, but he wins regardless.

Brent wrote:
> On 2013-05-17, M.I.Wakefield > wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> Simple alternative ... blow over .05 and under .08, get a 12 hour
>> suspension, and, if required, a free call for a taxi, and a tow
>> costing no more than $50 ... no criminal charge, no report to
>> insurance.
>
> Too old timey peace officer stuff.
> These days it's law enforcement and severe punishments.
> Also no money in that for the system and the people in it. Except the
> tow operator, maybe, but he wins regardless.

That's right. Those California liberals are desperte for money. They have
been giving our tax dollars away to the deadbeats for so many years that
they are billions of dollars in debt, and are willing to steal it from
anyone and everyone who still has any left, no matter why they have it or
how hard they worked for it. Not only that, but their sick and unfair
attitude is creeping into the other states, so that soon your money won't be
safe anywhere.

On 5/17/2013 10:09 AM, Greegor wrote:
> Make Cops stop giving breaks to relatives
> and politically connected drunk drivers.

Or conversely, allow police to arrest politically connected drunk
drivers without facing retribution for doing so.

Most cops will look the other way, when they know that not only will an
arrest not be prosecuted, but that they will likely lose their job (or
worse) for making the arrest.

--
T0m $herm@n

On May 17, 2:59*pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:

>
> The drug laws in general, (and marijuana laws in particular) are excellent
> examples of this. They account for one third of our police force and the
> money we spend on law enforcement services. Government can't afford to
> legalize drugs. They would have to lay off too many people and diminish too
> much in size and budget

Except for the drug alcohol. That truly is a problem since it leads
to drunk driving and people killing other people. All money
spent on the drug wars should be focused on DUI.