NTSB recommends BAC of .05

[Barrister]

Anyone who drinks less than me is a teetotaler.

That sounds like a challenge.   

[DGuller]

I actually have a radically opposite view from ulmont.  I think the problem with the law all too often is that it punishes for results, not actions.  Given that the world we leave in is probabilistic, punishing for results is in effect punishing for bad luck.  That's a sub-optimal strategy for prevention, since people can't control their luck, but they can control their actions.  If anything, it makes much more sense to punish every drunk driver the same, whether they killed someone on the way home or not.

[Barrister]

Do you not see why restricting people from drinking 'moderate' amounts of alcohol, which in this case is roughly 3-5 drinks, and then driving, would also help us discourage people from drinking larger amounts of alcohol and driving?

I thought AF said 1-2 drinks.  Since when is drinking 3-4 drinks considered moderate amounts?  If I sat down and had a half a sixpack I would think I had consumed quite a bit.

Because as I have said, 1-2 drinks is <50 BAC.  3-4 puts you in the 50-100 range that we're talking about.  People don't understand how much you have to drink before you blow over.

[ulmont]

So lets say a homeowner walks out their front steps, pulls out their pistol and casually starts letting off shots, not aiming at anyone or anything in particular.  If no one winds up being injured this fellow has done nothing wrong?

Other than potentially, in no particular order, trespass, criminal damage to property, and assault, no.  I further note that my parents actually could pull this off without committing any crimes, so you'd have to be a wee bit more specific.

[Valmy]

Because as I have said, 1-2 drinks is <50 BAC.  3-4 puts you in the 50-100 range that we're talking about.  People don't understand how much you have to drink before you blow over.

But you want >10 BAC to get me busted right?

[Barrister]

Because as I have said, 1-2 drinks is <50 BAC.  3-4 puts you in the 50-100 range that we're talking about.  People don't understand how much you have to drink before you blow over.

But you want >10 BAC to get me busted right?

There's a trouble with units here.  The language in our Criminal Code is "milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood", and so that is what I use.  The current legal limit is 80, and we're discussing reducing it to 50.

50 translates to .05, and 80 translates to .08.

Not sure what your 10 refers to.

[Valmy]

There's a trouble with units here.  The language in our Criminal Code is "milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood", and so that is what I use.  The current legal limit is 80, and we're discussing reducing it to 50.

50 translates to .05, and 80 translates to .08.

Not sure what your 10 refers to.

It refers to .01.  You said you wanted all alcohol levels criminalized.

[Barrister]

There's a trouble with units here.  The language in our Criminal Code is "milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood", and so that is what I use.  The current legal limit is 80, and we're discussing reducing it to 50.

50 translates to .05, and 80 translates to .08.

Not sure what your 10 refers to.

It refers to .01.  You said you wanted all alcohol levels criminalized.

Nu'uh.  Did not.

[Valmy]

We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive".  And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that.

If that is not the end-game what did you have in mind?  If I can go out and have a drink with dinner and drive home doesn't that ruin your little plan of changing my thinking?

[Barrister]

We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive".  And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that.

If that is not the end-game what did you have in mind?  If I can go out and have a drink with dinner and drive home doesn't that ruin your little plan of changing my thinking?

50 sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  It allows you to (depending on body weight and how fast you consume) 2 drinks with your dinner and still be fine.

[crazy canuck]

I actually have a radically opposite view from ulmont.  I think the problem with the law all too often is that it punishes for results, not actions.  Given that the world we leave in is probabilistic, punishing for results is in effect punishing for bad luck.  That's a sub-optimal strategy for prevention, since people can't control their luck, but they can control their actions.  If anything, it makes much more sense to punish every drunk driver the same, whether they killed someone on the way home or not.

Just as it makes sense to punish everyone who gives their four year old child a rifle - whether or not that child uses it to kill a sibling?

This will surprise the gun nuts around here.  But I dont think that makes much sense at all.  What makes much more sense is reasonable regulation of behaviour.  In the context of drinking and driving laws the kind of progressive punishment we use here in BC makes sense.

[Barrister]

Crazy canuck saw an opportunity to hijack this thread, and by jove he took it.

[crazy canuck]

Crazy canuck saw an opportunity to hijack this thread, and by jove he took it.

Not really.  If we go down the road of criminalizing all behaviour that might pose a risk we would have very little ability to do anything.

[Admiral Yi]

Haven't read every single post in the last day or so, don't necessarily agree with Beeb's position, but quite impressive the way he dealing with several counterparties simultaneously.

[Berkut]

What was done in BC (and in Alberta) is similar to what Berkut talked about.  If you blow over 50 you get an administrative license suspension and fine, but it's not a criminal offence.

Yet another example of my brilliance.

Berkut: He saves lives!