Elite Ladies
Toronto Passions
  • Dear Guest,
    To be able see or reply in all our forum threads please register and become a member.

Zero-alcohol limit for drivers 21 and under

C

Cycleguy007

Guest
It should be 0 alcohol limit for any age. Drinking and driving are stupid.
Because then people that just go out for dinner and have a cocktail before and maybe a glass of wine with their meal would not be allowed to drive.... And that is just not going to happen. It would either KILL the restaurant business or make the cab companies uber wealthy. :shock:

THAT is why there are limits to how much IS allowable.
 

Darfus

New member
Because then people that just go out for dinner and have a cocktail before and maybe a glass of wine with their meal would not be allowed to drive.... And that is just not going to happen. It would either KILL the restaurant business or make the cab companies uber wealthy. :shock:

THAT is why there are limits to how much IS allowable.

Yes but, there aren't many people out there knows where to stop.
 

Esco!

Senior Member
They should enact a ZERO alcohol on your breath program when driving!
Thats the way it is some European countries.

I like that idea

Even on one drink you dont drive!
 
T

Tgirl Nikki

Guest
I support this new law because the area of the brain involving judgement doesn't mature until one's early 20s, which is why some teenagers show very poor judgement, especially regarding the consequences of their actions. They're also relatively inexperienced drivers, and should probably be sober at all times when behind the wheel (especially when their obnoxious friends are in the car with them).

But I'm against the 0.00 BAC requirement for all drivers, because I don't think it would actually reduce irresponsible driving, and you can still drive safely after one or two drinks (assuming you're a safe driver to begin with!).

(Any medical professionals out there, please correct me if I'm wrong!)

As I understand it, you can go to dinner, have one drink, and after your body metabolizes the alcohol through the liver, your BAC will drop right back down to 0.00. Your body metabolizes alcohol at a rate of around one drink per hour (give or take) but slows down as your BAC increases, reaching a "tipping point" where your cognitive abilities become substantially reduced.

They've done numerous studies on how alcohol affects the cerebellum (the part of the brain specializing in fine motor movements) and I believe the effect is not cumulative, but multiplicative, because the body can't metabolize it fast enough. So, if one drink has a 2-point impairment factor, each subsequent drink multiplies the level of impairment, rather than adding to it.

Cumulative: 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8
Multiplicative: 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16

So, your impairment between your first and second drink is minor, because your body is still able to metabolize alcohol at a normal rate. But between the third and fourth drink, the effect is actually doubled, because your body's ability to metabolize alcohol decreases as your BAC rises.

(Again, if there are any medical professionals who can verify or refute this, please do - I can't speak for the accuracy of the info, I read this a couple of years ago and can't remember the author of the original study.)

At the end of the day, it all comes down to judgement. I decided to leave my car at the CAERF party after my second drink; I might still have been legal, but I was definitely impaired, so I made my decision accordingly. But on other occasions, I've driven after having three drinks, because I had a large dinner and spent several hours in conversation after we finished eating.

A law is only as good as society's ability to enforce it. How will an officer know that I have a BAC of 0.01? There are no visible or noticeable cognitive effects at this level, and as far as the extensive research has suggested, there are no significant impairments to driving ability until you reach 0.06 - 0.09 BAC. So, why should we restrict the freedoms of people to make sound, safe choices for themselves by passing an unenforceable and unnecessary law?

As far as I'm concerned, MADD is heading towards PETA status in my books - good intentions highlighting important concerns, pushed way too far by zealotry and obsessive single-mindedness. :no:
 
H

HOF

Guest
Within the next decade, there will be a zero tolerance for alcohol or any type of impairment while driving. It is just a matter of time. People still haven't learned not to drink and drive and it is a privilege not a right.

I wouldn't be surprised if one day all vehicles are just made with breathalyzers installed.
 

Tyrell

Senior Member
I support this new law because the area of the brain involving judgement doesn't mature until one's early 20s, which is why some teenagers show very poor judgement, especially regarding the consequences of their actions. They're also relatively inexperienced drivers, and should probably be sober at all times when behind the wheel (especially when their obnoxious friends are in the car with them).

But I'm against the 0.00 BAC requirement for all drivers, because I don't think it would actually reduce irresponsible driving, and you can still drive safely after one or two drinks (assuming you're a safe driver to begin with!).

(Any medical professionals out there, please correct me if I'm wrong!)

As I understand it, you can go to dinner, have one drink, and after your body metabolizes the alcohol through the liver, your BAC will drop right back down to 0.00. Your body metabolizes alcohol at a rate of around one drink per hour (give or take) but slows down as your BAC increases, reaching a "tipping point" where your cognitive abilities become substantially reduced.

They've done numerous studies on how alcohol affects the cerebellum (the part of the brain specializing in fine motor movements) and I believe the effect is not cumulative, but multiplicative, because the body can't metabolize it fast enough. So, if one drink has a 2-point impairment factor, each subsequent drink multiplies the level of impairment, rather than adding to it.

Cumulative: 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8
Multiplicative: 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16

So, your impairment between your first and second drink is minor, because your body is still able to metabolize alcohol at a normal rate. But between the third and fourth drink, the effect is actually doubled, because your body's ability to metabolize alcohol decreases as your BAC rises.

(Again, if there are any medical professionals who can verify or refute this, please do - I can't speak for the accuracy of the info, I read this a couple of years ago and can't remember the author of the original study.)

At the end of the day, it all comes down to judgement. I decided to leave my car at the CAERF party after my second drink; I might still have been legal, but I was definitely impaired, so I made my decision accordingly. But on other occasions, I've driven after having three drinks, because I had a large dinner and spent several hours in conversation after we finished eating.

A law is only as good as society's ability to enforce it. How will an officer know that I have a BAC of 0.01? There are no visible or noticeable cognitive effects at this level, and as far as the extensive research has suggested, there are no significant impairments to driving ability until you reach 0.06 - 0.09 BAC. So, why should we restrict the freedoms of people to make sound, safe choices for themselves by passing an unenforceable and unnecessary law?

As far as I'm concerned, MADD is heading towards PETA status in my books - good intentions highlighting important concerns, pushed way too far by zealotry and obsessive single-mindedness. :no:

:great::great:
 

a 1 player

New member
I think that this new law is the biggest pile of horse shit out there. Now I agree that people should not drink and drive. That is not the issue. I agree that a persons alcohol/blood limit should be 0. That is not the issue.

The issue that I have is that the law is discriminatory. To make a law that only pertains to a certain segment of the population is just plain wrong, especially when that segment is of legal age. Would there have been an outrage if the law said, "Asains must have a blood/alcohol limit of 0", or "Women must have a a blood/alcohol limit of 0", or "Fat people must have a a blood/alcohol limit of 0"? You are damn right there would have been an outrage and possibly potential law suits. What is happening here is that the law makers are playing on the fact that this is something that they can get moral support from, and counting on that people will not see the huge 'moral wrongness' of their decision, which is again... DISCRIMINATION. They will try to back it up with a bunch of facts about how younger drivers are more likely to drink and a bunch of other bullshit, but the fact remains the same. Rights are being taken away from certain groups, while they remain for others.

This has been going on for some time now, and it always is being 'sold' to us that it is for the 'good' of 'society', or 'children', or some other mysterious faceless entity. This has happened with 'sweets in schools', 'smokers', alcohol consumption and leading to prohibition', and thousands of other things that are swept under the rug. The theme never changes though, that the government and lobby groups are slowly chipping away our rights until we will have none left.

Some of you might support it, but who will be left to defend you when it is your rights that are being taken away for 'the good of society'

This is horse shit and evil, and 99% of the people can't even see it.
 

tboy

New member
Player: I think you missed the part where it said all NEW drivers, no matter what age.

I see no problem at all at bringing out laws that target a specific group that is prone to break those laws repeatedly and are THE highest risk factors of breaking said laws.

I think your analogy to race related laws is unfounded. We have ALL sorts of laws based on age. The age of majority, the legal drinking age, retirement age, age that you have to be to buy cigarettes, etc etc.

PLayer: my rights already have been taken away, I can no longer smoke indoors anywhere except my own home, or another private home. I am paying about 300% tax on my habit of choice now and there is talks in the works about doing the same for unhealthy foods.

The problem lies not in the lawmakers or the politicians or lobby groups, it lies with us. The private citizen. Most of us have no self control and left to our own devices, we'd be running wild in the streets. It is only laws like this that control our actions.

Cycleguy: I finally found something we don't agree on. This subject has been discussed to death but the underlying factor about having a drink with dinner is: have a designated driver, if you can afford to order a bottle of wine with dinner you can afford the cab ride home and finally, no one FORCES you to have a drink with dinner, you can easily forgo the drink for the general safety of the rest of society. Just like I bet you supported smoking bans in bars and restaurants I support a total ban on driving after consuming ANY alcohol.
 
C

Cycleguy007

Guest
Cycleguy: I finally found something we don't agree on. This subject has been discussed to death but the underlying factor about having a drink with dinner is: have a designated driver, if you can afford to order a bottle of wine with dinner you can afford the cab ride home and finally, no one FORCES you to have a drink with dinner, you can easily forgo the drink for the general safety of the rest of society. Just like I bet you supported smoking bans in bars and restaurants I support a total ban on driving after consuming ANY alcohol.
Using that rationale...

BRING BACK PROHIBITION!
Or at the very least- ban alcohol from all restaurants too! The temptation for us is just too great. :roll:

Listen, I am a BIG proponent of NOT drinking and driving... (But not of MADD, I can't stand those fuckers for a multitude of reasons...) but 1 glass of wine or a cocktail with dinner will not impair anyone to the point where they could not operate a vehicle properly. (Assuming of course they are safe drivers to begin with of course...)

And for the record- I couldn't care less about smoking bans. Since I rarely go to bars anymore- it really doesn't affect me one way or the other.
 

Jawbone

New member
I enjoy a beer or a glass of wine with my meal and I operate my car just fine. I would never drive if I had more than that in a span of 2 hours.

I agree with AP1 and CG on this one, the rest of you are out to lunch, and probably having too much to drink!
 

Top