FWIW, I’ve never understood why not imbibing before driving is such a hardship for some folks. Especially pro-lifers.
and I have never understood why alcohol is singled out as the ultimate evil to do while driving, while other things like putting on makeup, eating, talking to others in the car, ect can be just or even more distracting.
I am pro-life without exception and I resent the fact that you would question that because I’ll have a wine while out to dinner. Of course if I thought I was impaired I wouldn’t drive. But I can have a drink without being intoxicated
^^^THIS!^^^
I don't drink by choice. It isn't because of any perceived "self-righteousness" - as I have none. It isn't because I am a religious fanatic (though I am a Baptist pastor). I do not think lower of people who enjoy a drink from time to time. I DO have an issue when alcohol use becomes a "necessity" and it begins to drive people. Personal responsibility, not actually followed, results in laws like the one Utah has apparently passed. Sadly, freedom always is the cost of people not acting responsibly.
FWIW, you should never be allowed to get near a keyboard!
Thank goodness you’re not in charge of our freedoms.
Just because you want something don’t make it right.
A beer an hour is a joke.
You probably like red light and speed cameras too.
I also never understood why so many people are so eager to give up their freedoms in exchange for a little perceived safety. As Benjamin Franklin would say, those people deserve neither.
Reminds me of an instructional video we were shown when we were in driver's education class in high school. The purpose of the video was to demonstrate the effect of alcohol on a driver's abilities. They had a road course set up with hundreds of orange cones in a giant parking lot somewhere, and they have four drivers drive through the course several times. The drivers were scored based on the number of cones they knocked over while they were driving through the course ... i.e., the higher the score, the worse they were driving.
They first sent each driver through the course completely sober, then had them drive through it a second time after drinking two beers, then a third time after drinking two more beers, etc. I think the drivers did the last round of the test after they had consumed ten beers. As you can imagine, it was pretty comical by the time they got to that point, with orange cones knocked down all over the place.
It was a good lesson for the class, but here's the thing I remember most about it: One of the drivers actually did better in the "two beers" round than he did when he was completely sober. I'm not sure THAT was part of the lesson they wanted to give us.
Nicely played
I really don’t think this lower limit will save any lives. At some point, human nature kicks in, and the thought process is ‘screw it, one drink already put me over the limit, so I might as well have another’...so who knows, the lower limit may actually be counter-productive.
At some point, the lower limits have to be recognized for what they really are - revenue producers.
If this was really about saving lives, states wouldn’t have diversion programs where you could buy your way out of a dui. Keep the limit realistic and eliminate diversions - that would be a pro-life stance. Instead states are pushing for the dui version of a speed trap.