Another attempt to force the "one true religion's" prohibitions on
society at large.Pathetic, DN, absolutely pathetic.
I agree Ranch.Why are they so determined to force other people to
follow their belief system?Shouldn't people have "free
agency" to choose how they want to live their life?Totally
Come on DN. Go for it -- totally outlaw any drinking in Utah anytime or any
place. You know that's what you want
a 100 lb woman could reach .05 BAL with one Drinka 180 lb man can get
there with 2 drinks.I would much rather encounter a person on the
road that has had 2 or 3 drinks than a completely sober texter.
The % isn't the problem. It doesn't matter what the limit is (to
people who abuse alcohol).Most Utahns don't drink (obviously
they would not drink regardless of this number). Most of those who do drink
would not drink at all if they they need to drive (8% or 5%). There's a
small fraction of Utahns who think it's wise to drink knowing they need to
drive, betting THEY can skirt the legal limit or even exceed it and be OK to
drive (because they think these silly rules don't apply to them because
they can drive just fine after drinking). To this small percentage of the
population the legal level doesn't really matter. They're going to
do it whether it's 5% or 8%. The 3 points won't change their
behavior.Same with guns, seatbelts, etc. MOST people don't
even have guns. Most people who do wouldn't abuse them. And people who
want to abuse guns don't care if it's legal or not. Seatbelts... Those who understand why we use them will use them regardless of
the law. If you won't change to save your life...
Of course it's been your position for 20 years. You're schilling your
opinion for someone else; Ranch hinted at whom.
Those of you who want to defend drunk driving, explain why to the families of
the 39 people that died last year in drug and alcohol related accidents. And
trying to blame the effort to reduce the limit on the LDS church is a cop out.
Sweden's limit is .02. Is this also some Mormon plot? Accidents can't
be totally avoided but when people intentionally place others at risk because of
they can't control their drinking, they should have their driving
privileges permanently revoked.
Thanks for the weight ratio's Joe, this is totally about imposing sin laws
not about safety.Cell phone users are a far bigger problem, but of course
theirs no commandment against that, soooo not a problem.Here's
another Idea, make alternatives to driving available.Taxi's are a
joke in the state, public transportation stops way to early. MADD should do more
to keep drunks from driving instead of just trying to catch them after it's
to late, since they're already driving at that point.Trains run
special hours for conference.
Who cares if you drink alcohol? Just don't drive drunk! Has nothing to do
with "religion" and everything to do with safety. By the way, why would
anyone with a brain drink alcohol? Why not just hit yourself in the head with a
hammer everyday? The effect are about the same and think of the money and lives
you could save! If you have no brain, drink all you want and destroy what little
you have left, but just don't drive because the rest of us don't want
to be your next victim.
@Happy ValleyAmen about the taxi's and trains. I don't know if
you can't hail a cab in SLC or if they just won't stop but hailing a
cab doesn't work, and calling them at 2 on a weekend means your waiting 45
minutes to an hour and a half for a cab to show up. I really don't want to
leave the bar at 9 to catch a bus or 10 for a train either. The bar is open
until 2. UTA should really run at least one train at the end of the night on
Friday or Saturday to take drunks home. You pretty much have to have a DD and
make someone sit the night out because actually getting home using cabs or UTA
is a joke.
Happy Valley Heretic,Re: "this is totally about imposing sin
laws not about safety"...If this were just about evil Mormons
imposing sin laws on you... they would outlaw drinking period (not just a limit
on the legal level to drive).If it wasn't about safety... the
limit would be all the time (not just when you are driving).No...
DUI laws are NOT an evil Mormon plot. We have DUI laws in every State in the
United States (not sin laws, safety laws). IMO the % is
irrelevant. And no... they are not just trying to keep you from sinning. And
DUI laws ARE about safety (not just about preventing you from doing what you
want).Why would you WANT to drink and drive???And why
would you assume DUI laws (which we have in every State) are just Mormon sin
laws?If this were just a sin law... it would outlaw drinking all
together (not just when driving). Since it only impacts the level allowed when
driving... I think it IS about safety.Why run the trains at 2:00 AM
just for drunks? They mostly run empty already at 10:00. We have Taxis you
This is way beyond absurd. You will fill jails and use police resources
arresting people that are no danger to themselves or others'.
@ Dave. Drink all you want, just stay off the highways! Problem solved for you
and other drivers and their passengers.
MountanmanThat was a leap in logic. I never espoused drinking and
driving. I support reasonable restrictions. The .05 is in no way reasonable.
Happy Valley Heretic,Re: "Trains run special hours for
conference"...Those trains are also PACKED (and UTA MAKES money
running those full trains). Do you think the 2:00 AM train is going to be as
packed with drunks as the trains they run on Conference weekends to help limit
traffic congestion??The decision to run special trains on conference
weekends makes economic sense. I don't know if it makes as much sense to
run trains until 2:00 every night in case drunks need a ride and they can't
wait for a Taxi.
2 bit said: "Those trains are also PACKED (and UTA MAKES money running those
full trains). Do you think the 2:00 AM train is going to be as packed with
drunks as the trains they run on Conference weekends to help limit traffic
congestion??"Is it about safety or profit? I see profit is the
motivator for conservatives...again.We pay extra overtime on new years and
other holidays to bust folks why not allocate some of that fishing trip money to
preventative actions?.05 is no where near intoxicated, ask a cop not
a religious leader.
@2 bits;You bet your booty that it's about "sin". If
it weren't you'd see the legislature outlaw texting and phoning while
driving, but that's something they like to do, so it won't make it to
To "Ranch" wow, you and your chronies really have an axe to grind
here.First of all, this does NOTHING to change the drinking laws in
Utah. You can still go to your favorite watering hole and get plastered with
whatever they serve.All this does it lower the legal blood alcohol
levels to a point where other nations have found that the number of accidents
was significantly decreased. This has nothing to do with any church or
religion, but is using safety data gathered in Europe as some nations adopted
the lower blood alcohol levels.Utah is not the leader in this. Read
"States Urged to Cut Limit on Alcohol for Drivers" in the NY Times. The
.05 level is a recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board.Why are the liberals here blaming the LDS church for something
recommended by the Federal Government?
I think personal responsibility alone is what will reduce the amount of drunk
drivers on the road! Even if the law does change to .05% there are still going
to be those who decide to drink and drive regardless. I am frequently DD for my
friends who drink, as I live downtown and am happy to drive them home if need
be, but I can only do this if they call. Thank goodness they do. Laws can change
but people won't. Those who drive drunk will continue to do so, and I will
be surprised if the amount of accidents reduce if they do pass this law.
If the issue is public safety, then discuss other more risky driving behaviors
such as using cell phones or driving through red lights (both epidemic in Utah).
But this is not really about safety is it.
@JSB"Those of you who want to defend drunk driving, explain why to the
families of the 39 people that died last year in drug and alcohol related
accidents"*shrugs* I don't defend drunk driving, though
I'm intrigued by the concept of gunowners having to defend our lax gun laws
to the 1000s of families across the nation who lose loved ones due to gun
violence each year. After all, we have an amendment that protects alcohol
purchase just like we do with guns. I guess regulation is allowed after all.
Where is your advocacy of banning cell phone use while driving? A friend
participated in driving an obstacle course at the University of Utah. He was
part of the .08% blood-alcohol group. There was also a .05% group, a .16% group,
and hand-held and hands-free phone groups. Of course the .16% (twice the legal
limit) group were the worst drivers. Both hands-free and hand-held phone users
were worse than the .08% group. The best drivers were the .05% group.
To "donahoe" and anybody else who complains about cell phones and
driving. We already have laws that prohibit using cell phones and texting while
driving.See the Utah Code, Title 41, Chapter 6a, Section 1715, which
defines distracted driving as a person that "commits a moving traffic
violation under this chapter other than a moving traffic violation under Part 6,
Speed Restrictions, while being distracted by one or more activities taking
place within the vehicle that are not related to the operation of a motor
vehicle, including: (i) using a wireless telephone or
other electronic device unless the person is using hands-free talking and
listening features while operating the motor vehicle;"We
don't need more laws, we need to enforce the laws that we already have.
donahoe,Re: "If the issue is public safety, then discuss other
more risky driving behaviors such as using cell phones or driving through red
lights"...- Utah already has strict laws about Texting and
driving. It's already illegal in Utah. - Utah's "Careless
Driving" law already covers Distracted Driving (which includes being
distracted by trying to use a hand-held cell phone when driving).- Running
red lights is already against the law in Utah.So all 3 are already
against the law in Utah (as is DUI). What more do you expect?So...
how are DUI laws not about safety? And how are the other 3 red-herrings you
bring up proof of that?Even if there's a law... some people
will decide they don't have to obey it. You've noticed we still have
numerous DUI accidents and fatalities even though it's against the law...
right? It's the same for the other 3. Some people will still do it...
even though it's against the law.
As a drinker, I'm not necessarily opposed to a reduction in the BAC limit
required for a DUI. I've measured myself with a fuel cell style breathlyzer
(similar to ones used by UHP) between the .07% and .08% range and felt that my
faculties were sufficiently diminished that I would be at increased risk of a
crash. Based on this experience I think .05% would create a better buffer
between impaired vs non-impaired.That said, if we're going to
go down this path, the state should in turn eliminate some of the more absurd
alcohol laws on the books. Firstly, the quota system for liquor licences need to
be eliminated. The free market should be the sole arbiter regarding the number
of licenses issued. Second, state oddities such as the Zion curtain, and
limitations on the types of drinks can be served, e.g. "heavy" beer on
draft, doubles, etc, need to be removed.
DUI is a serious public health problem resulting in death and disability.
Blaming the LDS culture for wanting to reduce DUI and its consequences is a well
directed compliment. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and driving impaired
is a crime. Leave religion out of it. Enforcing strict DWI laws has resulted in
decreased motor vehicle accidents in Europe. The US is far behind in stemming
this useless carnage.
Ranch and Church Member and NO SIXDid you even comprehend the point
of the article? It is not about prohibition, it is about what alcohol level to
allow for driving. You guys make it sound as if it would be OK for a person to
have the right to drive no matter how drunk they were. Think about it.
I still want to know why the DN monitor bounced my comment?:"I
will support this AFTER only if they consider it a matter of public safety and
not simply Word of Wisdom laws.For example -- making it about ALL
impaired and distracted driving -- i.e, some prescription medications and
texting while driving."