most countries in the world have BAC laws of .05 or lower.EU states
that the .05 level has reduced DUI deaths by 50% over the last 10 years.These same people advocating against the .05 are the same advocating for
legalized marijuana. Same ones supporting PP genocide policies.
It would help improve highway safety if the state got serious about using a
phone while driving. or made it illegal to shoot a gun with an .005 BAC level.
The legislature, almost all LDS and gun rights supporters, are singling out only
one factor of dangerous behavior.
For those like Dubakis who claim a .05 limit won't help, please apply
logic.If the .08 limit reduced injuries and deaths... why would
lowering it again hurt?Would it make our highways more dangerous if
people are not only not driving above .08, but not even driving when they are
above .05?Can you see the logic?If .08 limit resulted in
an improvement... Won't .05 be even better?There is absolute
proof that the .08 limit saved lives. Google the research if you don't
believe me.Google "Does .08 limit save lives"... Read
National Highway Traffic Safety research on it.There's proof
.08 resulted in improvement, but we are still having many alcohol related
deaths. Why not do more?Google "Study: Utah's .05 Alcohol
Limit Will Save Lives"..."The study is a meta-analysis of
international studies on how lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC)
limit works to prevent alcohol-related crashes. The study found that, when the
limit was lowered from .08 to .05 percent, fatal crashes declined by an average
of 11 percent. The conclusion is a straightforward espousal of lower BAC limits
to prevent loss of life"...Where's your research?
Onanisland, prove your statistics. I'd be you'd be way incorrect in
@long lastRE: "Again, this law about .05 BAC is merely virtue
signaling"...---Was it "virtue signaling" when States
passed laws against smoking in public places?Utah was one of the
last to make that change.Is it only "virtue signaling" when
Utah does it?Same for drunk driving laws. All State have them (not
just Utah). Is that "Virtue Signaling"? Or only in Utah?==RE: "One comment wonders why we in Utah shouldn't be
first, I would suggest that it shows the rest of the country what backward moral
hypocrites Utahns are"...---California passed smoking
restrictions before us... Did that show the rest of the country what backward
moral hypocrites they are?Or only Utah?==RE:
"in that we don't, as a state, want any drinking of alcohol
whatsoever"...---MalarkeyThat's not what drunk
driving laws are about (stopping ALL drinking). They only stop drinking and
driving. You can drink as much as you want as long as you don't drive.Drunk driving laws are about safety. Not stopping "any drinking
whatsoever".You can drink all you want in Utah... as long as you
don't drive after.
Anybody supporting .05 is doing so because your Mormons and you allow your
religious beliefs to dictate legislation. We all know there's no
separation between church and state here. Someone check the stats
but my guess more people killed by guns in Utah than drunk drivers?As a non Mormon living in Utah and having LDS friends and learning about your
sect you all need to take a hard look and perhaps modernize some beliefs.. I have had some very interesting conversations with Mormons when
separated from the herd. On the bright side passing the .05 law
will keep you people in the "forefront of backwards".Glad I
am not in the tourism industry. Are you going to pass laws that
shorts need to be below the knees next?
Interesting that Sen. Jim Dabakis gave his presentation at .05 but seemed to
know that he should have someone else do the driving for him. Thank you Senator
for that good example in driving safety and showing us wisdom in not drinking
and driving even before .05 becomes law.
Keep .05 right there OR lower to zero tolerance. If you drink don't drive.
I don't drink alcohol but have had two accidents caused by persons who
were impaired by alcohol.The restaurant claiming no effects at .05
is the fox telling that it is OK to let the chickens out.Fine, you
don't want to take common sense arguments then how about: "Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the National Transportation Board both
concluded there is impairment at .05 percent. National Academy of Sciences
study that found deterioration well below that number."
Most the world have BAC levels of .05 or below but don't think you can show
the list of countries representing the billions of people in those countries.
Somebody is offended by the list.
Those funny people in the following countries with their limits .05 and lower.
Those stupid Americans, looks like Utah is ahead of the game for once.UkraineBelarusBosnia and HerzegovinaChileEcuadorIndiaJapanMaliMoldovaSerbiaTongaUruguayArmeniaColombiaLithuaniaSamoaAlbaniaArgentinaArubaAustraliaAustriaBelgiumBeninBulgariaCambodiaCanadaChadCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCyprusDenmarkDominican RepublicEast TimorEgyptEl
GuianaFrench PolynesiaGermanyGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGuadeloupeHollandHong KongIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJordanKosovoLatviaLuxembourgMacedoniaManitobaMartiniqueMauritiusMayotteMicronesiaMonacoMongoliaMontenegroNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaPeruPhilippinesPortugalSaint MartinSaint Pierre and MiquelonSan MarinoScotlandSloveniaSolomon IslandsSouth
The Senator has now demonstrated that drinking and being over confident goes
hand in hand. If you are driving a steep mountain road do you want to hug the
mountain or go as far out to edge as possible? This is a good law and something
needed in all 50 states. Let's get serious about drunk driving. This is a
If you think those analogies are sufficient to justify not implementing the new
DUI law, you’re even further mistaken. Your analogies are nothing more
than smoke-screen designed to distract from the problem at stake.
I know many people who are unable to drive after ONE beer. I know some who can
drink an entire bottle of rum in 2 hours and is NOT drunk. Everyone is
different. But there has to be a standard limit that applies equally to
everyone. Is it a moral issue or safety issue? Maybe ask those who had a family
member killed by a driver who felt "perfectly fine" at .05.
Again, this law about .05 BAC is merely virtue signaling. One comment wonders
why we in Utah shouldn't be first, I would suggest that it shows the rest
of the country what backward moral hypocrites Utahns are. . . in that we
don't, as a state, want any drinking of alcohol whatsoever, but lack the
guts to prohibit drinking.
"Dabakis contends there is "zero" evidence that the lower level
would save lives."This is either a flat out lie or willful
ignorance. This is being promoted by the National Transportation Safety Board to
be implemented in all states based on solid scientific evidence. If you are
against this, you support some level of drunk driving, plain and simple. We need
to change this culture. Special interests are fighting this tooth
and nail because they are only worries about their bottom line. They know that
one one state starts to implement the NTSB's recommendations, others will
follow as they did last time. Beverage companies should be ashamed that they are
putting their own sales above lives that could be saved based on the evidence
Why would we pass a law requiring Utah to be "Followers" and not
"Leaders"?Somebody has to go first. Somebody had to go
first on everything.Getting your alcohol level up to .05 before
going to work seems like a lame demonstration to me. Guess it makes sense to
some.The .05 limit is a limit before driving, not talking. Most
people can still talk and stuff when they are above 2.0. Doesn't mean we
should let people drive at 2.0. Lame demonstration.And the .05
limit isn't saying you are incapacitated at that level. It's to keep
people from driving after drinking at all.It's to prevent
people from having to do the Calculus while a little drunk to figure out how
many drinks they had, over how much time, with or without food... and calculate
if they could pass a Breathalyzer. The .05 limit encourages people to just
give up and not drive after drinking at all (which is a good thing).There's plenty of people who can drive you where you need to go after
drinking.Ever heard of this thing called UBER? They will take you
anywhere you want to go. Just summon them on their app and they will be
there.If you must drive that night... just don't drink. At
Mr. Dabakis and his buddies who support this legislation who the same straw-man
argument that the pot-pushers use: "Yeah, but it's not as bad as . . .
. . . . " Clearly there's data that shows this saves lives. Be smart
and never, ever drink and drive.
Why do I have this feeling I don't trust Dubakis?
Got to give it to the Senator, he definitely knows how to bring attention to an
issue and instigate debate. With that said people really have no idea how many
times their Doctor, lawyer, bishop, neighbor or family member has been with them
when under the influence of some drug. This new law is more about inflicting
someone's personal views on others than it is public safety.
"I'm at .05, and I feel perfectly fine."Mr. Dabakis,
I'm sure the drunk driver who killed my 8-months pregnant niece and her
unborn daughter probably felt perfectly fine as well.The FAA
requires pilots to be 0.04 or less. Obviously, this is based on at least some
level of impairment at 0.04. The old saying "better safe than
sorry" applies nicely with this legislation. Let's let go of all the
hand-wringing and lead the way on the societal scourge that is drunk driving, at
any impairment level, whether or not one "feels perfectly fine." Way
too many lives have been lost at the hands of irresponsible drunk drivers to
just poo-poo the problem with "I'm at .05, and I feel perfectly