Feds want to lower BAC to .05 for drunk driving

T

Text Drivers are Killers

Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
I'm all for this but the constitution says DUI is a state issue. Of course 99% of what the feds do should be handled by the states if we follow the constitution; in particular the 10th amendment.


http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-want-to-lower-legal-driving-limit-to-one-drink/

jan 15 2016 The National Transportation Safety Board wants to decrease the legal driving limit to one drink, lowering the legal limit on blood-alcohol content to 0.05 “or even lower.”

The agency released its “most wanted list” on Wednesday, a laundry list of policies it would like implemented nationally. The list includes recommendations to reduce the current 0.08 blood alcohol content limit and outlaw all cell phone use while driving, even hands-free technology.

“When it comes to alcohol use, we know that impairment begins before a person’s BAC reaches 0.08 percent, the current legal limit in the United States,” the agency said. “In fact, by the time it reaches that level, the risk of a fatal crash has more than doubled. That is why states should lower BAC levels to 0.05— or even lower.”
Click to expand...
 
We need to get stoners and opiate freaks off the roads as well. It's sickening how the smell of alcohol can be so litigious but the dopers get free passes every day. Do you not agree? I've seen people very close to me that don't drink at all. But they get so fucked up on other things not so immediately recognizable that it's just a shame and they certainly SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING ANYTHING beyond maybe a golf ball.
 
Leonthecat said:
I agree with TDK. We need to get drunks off the roads.
If it takes federal steps to accomplish that, so be it.
There were no interstate highways when the constitution was written.
Click to expand...

But if they do that, Bucky; how are you going to ever find a way to get home?? :dunno:
 
Leonthecat said:
I agree with TDK. We need to get drunks off the roads.
If it takes federal steps to accomplish that, so be it.
There were no interstate highways when the constitution was written.
Click to expand...

You don't understand. The interstate highways system is clearly unconstitutional and when the feds decided to create one, they should have amended the constitution to give themselves authority to do so. Yes, times change and the constitution should change with them. That's why the FF wrote the amending process into the constitution.

As it is, all federal highways are unconstitutional and any involvement in drunk driving would be too.
 
ZoomZoom said:
We need to get stoners and opiate freaks off the roads as well. It's sickening how the smell of alcohol can be so litigious but the dopers get free passes every day. Do you not agree? I've seen people very close to me that don't drink at all. But they get so fucked up on other things not so immediately recognizable that it's just a shame and they certainly SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING ANYTHING beyond maybe a golf ball.
Click to expand...

The legalize-drug movement is funded by the auto industry. Car crashes mean car sales and they have lost a lot of money due to the war on DUI. They want stoned drivers.

That's also why the auto industry builds cars that do 100 mph and installs distracting devices like internet access.
 
NOVA said:
"In 2013, a total of 43,982 deaths in the United States were attributed to drug poisoning, including 16,235 deaths (37%) involving opioid analgesics.

Why no worry about something important.
Click to expand...

Because those are people who injured THEMSELVES. Drunk drivers often kill or maim OTHERS.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The legalize-drug movement is funded by the auto industry. Car crashes mean car sales and they have lost a lot of money due to the war on DUI. They want stoned drivers.

That's also why the auto industry builds cars that do 100 mph and installs distracting devices like internet access.
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
2nd funniest post of the day.
This guy should be doing stand up somewhere wearing an aluminum foil hat and x ray spectacles.



tinfoil-hat-2.jpg

img-thing
 
Last edited:
Leonthecat said:
Funniest post of the day.
Hands down.
Click to expand...

Board notes you evaded the issue. Tell us where the constitution says the feds can build roads. Actually Article 1 section 8 does give congress power "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads", but that's it.

I like the interstates but the tenth amendment makes it clear roadbuilding is up to the states. The constitution should have been amended to allow this construction by the feds. Case closed. Looks like i gutted you again.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Board notes you evaded the issue. Tell us where the constitution says the feds can build roads. Actually Article 1 section 8 does give congress power "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads", but that's it.

I like the interstates but the tenth amendment makes it clear roadbuilding is up to the states. The constitution should have been amended to allow this construction by the feds. Case closed. Looks like i gutted you again.
Click to expand...

Oh noes, I have been "gutted" by the constitution! AND THE BOARD NOTED IT! CASE CLOSED!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Can you make a three cornered hat out of aluminum foil ?
Lol
You are too funny man.
Tell us another one!
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Board notes you evaded the issue. Tell us where the constitution says the feds can build roads. Actually Article 1 section 8 does give congress power "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads", but that's it.

I like the interstates but the tenth amendment makes it clear roadbuilding is up to the states. The constitution should have been amended to allow this construction by the feds. Case closed. Looks like i gutted you again.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the Commerce Clause or the Necassary and Proper Clause retard?
You just gutted yourself.
Furthermore you can hardly speak for yourself.
STOP CLAIMING TO SPEAK FOR THE BOARD.
 
Leonthecat said:
Oh noes, I have been "gutted" by the constitution! AND THE BOARD NOTED IT! CASE CLOSED!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Can you make a three cornered hat out of aluminum foil ?
Lol
You are too funny man.
Tell us another one!
Click to expand...

He is a truly profound idiot.
 
Rune said:
Ever heard of the Commerce Clause or the Necassary and Proper Clause retard?
Click to expand...

Yes and they are meaningless. The only powers congress has are the listed powers. It would have made no sense for the FF to tell congress "you can do A and B and C plus anything you think is necessary and proper." THINK
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Yes and they are meaningless. The only powers congress has are the listed powers. It would have made no sense for the FF to tell congress "you can do A and B and C plus anything you think is necessary and proper." THINK
Click to expand...
:what:

Who do you think wrote the clause you fucking oygen bandit?

You are trying to say that the government fashioned to rule the union of states is forbidden to connect those states with roadways or regulate the use of those roadways?
What do you think the purpose of the Federal government is?
 
It's untrue that the federal government only has the powers explicitly listed in the constitution. The 10th amendment says nothing of the sort. All it says is that the federal government only has the powers that it has (which was already the case, the 10th amendment is entirely redundant and serves no legal purpose). This does not prevent it from interpreting certain powers implied by the constitution that are not explicitly listed in the constitution, powers that are necessary for carrying out the duties listed in the constitution. Pseudo-constitutionalists read "explicitly" into the 10th amendment (a reading which Madison explicitly rejected when crafting the amendment), thus distorting its purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top