Cruentus
Grandmaster
I've never had a DUI before, because I am careful.
I also have sympathy for anyone who has lost a loved one to drunk driving.
However, I do feel that too often alcahol is demonized by special interest groups such as MADD, NCADD (http://www.ncadd.com/), and others.
Now, my goal isn't to demonize groups like MADD or SADD, because they do a lot of positive work in the community. But, I do feel that many activists often forget that we live an america, and that we have the right to drink. I think that Alcahol statistics are often inflated to unrealistically demonize the substance by these groups. Why? Well, losing a son or daughter can be very tragic and emotional, and I think that activists are often looking for something to blame. Alcahol provides a good scapegoat. What is not realized is that sometimes accidents just happened, regardless of what influence the person may be under. Often times, when alcahol is blamed for fatal accidents, the alcahol blood content level of the offender is below the legal limit.
So, because these groups are looking to place blame on something, more and more biased research comes out to support the claims that alcahol is an evil substance. On the NCADD site above, you can see all kinds of evidence supporting the new 0.08 limit (the now new legal limit in Michigan and many other States). Example: In one piece of evidence, they highlight that men's driving skills are "significantly affected" at 2 drinks. There is no indication, however, as to what "significantly affected" means, or the scientific basis behind it. Also, the information is doubtful, given that at 2 drinks, I (a 220 lb make) would only be at a 0.03 (statistically not affected by the alcahol at all) compared to 100 lb female who would be at 0.09. An example of biased statistics at its best.
(See chart: http://www.ncadd.com/08_impairmentcharts.cfm)
All this is able to occur because their is no strong organization to oppose groups like NCADD, or MADD. If I started a group like IDFA, Irish Drinkers for America, or something like that, how many would join? People aren't as passionate about drinking because "not drinking" didn't kill their son or daughter. Furthermore, groups like MADD DO do good work when they aren't participating in logical fallicies and emotionally based arguements and research. However, a major factor is the emotional arguement. How do you argue against emotional arguements like, "My son was killed at 17 by a drunk driver. Alcahol killed my son, so no one under any kind of influence should be behind the wheel! 0 Tolerance!" ??? As illogical as the arguement is (for one, we often aren't told the actual blood alcahol content of the driver, and for two, "alcahol" didn't "Kill" her son; if anything it would have been the driver who decided to get behind the wheel while drunk, provided that he actually was drunk) it is very difficult to argue against someone who has lost a loved one.
Now, if we look at the chart provided here we see a number of things ("Relative Risks of Fatal Crash As a Function of BAC):
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/DrinkingAndDriving.html
The main thing that we see is that the chart doesn't start to truely rise exponentially until the 0.12 BAC mark. The arguement behind the 0.01 legal limit was to set the limit BEFORE you were to be considered truely intoxicated to drive. Now, of course, new arguements have pushed the limit down to 0.08.
I don't by the idea that setting lower and lower limits is the answer. We don't throw people in jail for wanting to kill someone, for instance, but we will do so if they threaten or attempt too. To do so would be a restriction on our civil liberties. Thus, setting a legal limit below what would be considered "too drunk to drive" is a restriction on our civil liberties as well in my opinion. Despite what interest groups say, drinking and driving, as long as your not impaired, is our right.
So, I propose that we raise the limit to 0.12, where the statistics show that that is the breaking point for most people in determining intoxication. Bottom line: we have the right to drink and get behind the wheel, just as long as we aren't impaired. 0.12 and below is not impaired, despite what special interest groups and biased research wants you to think.
What are your opinions?
:supcool:
I also have sympathy for anyone who has lost a loved one to drunk driving.
However, I do feel that too often alcahol is demonized by special interest groups such as MADD, NCADD (http://www.ncadd.com/), and others.
Now, my goal isn't to demonize groups like MADD or SADD, because they do a lot of positive work in the community. But, I do feel that many activists often forget that we live an america, and that we have the right to drink. I think that Alcahol statistics are often inflated to unrealistically demonize the substance by these groups. Why? Well, losing a son or daughter can be very tragic and emotional, and I think that activists are often looking for something to blame. Alcahol provides a good scapegoat. What is not realized is that sometimes accidents just happened, regardless of what influence the person may be under. Often times, when alcahol is blamed for fatal accidents, the alcahol blood content level of the offender is below the legal limit.
So, because these groups are looking to place blame on something, more and more biased research comes out to support the claims that alcahol is an evil substance. On the NCADD site above, you can see all kinds of evidence supporting the new 0.08 limit (the now new legal limit in Michigan and many other States). Example: In one piece of evidence, they highlight that men's driving skills are "significantly affected" at 2 drinks. There is no indication, however, as to what "significantly affected" means, or the scientific basis behind it. Also, the information is doubtful, given that at 2 drinks, I (a 220 lb make) would only be at a 0.03 (statistically not affected by the alcahol at all) compared to 100 lb female who would be at 0.09. An example of biased statistics at its best.
(See chart: http://www.ncadd.com/08_impairmentcharts.cfm)
All this is able to occur because their is no strong organization to oppose groups like NCADD, or MADD. If I started a group like IDFA, Irish Drinkers for America, or something like that, how many would join? People aren't as passionate about drinking because "not drinking" didn't kill their son or daughter. Furthermore, groups like MADD DO do good work when they aren't participating in logical fallicies and emotionally based arguements and research. However, a major factor is the emotional arguement. How do you argue against emotional arguements like, "My son was killed at 17 by a drunk driver. Alcahol killed my son, so no one under any kind of influence should be behind the wheel! 0 Tolerance!" ??? As illogical as the arguement is (for one, we often aren't told the actual blood alcahol content of the driver, and for two, "alcahol" didn't "Kill" her son; if anything it would have been the driver who decided to get behind the wheel while drunk, provided that he actually was drunk) it is very difficult to argue against someone who has lost a loved one.
Now, if we look at the chart provided here we see a number of things ("Relative Risks of Fatal Crash As a Function of BAC):
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/DrinkingAndDriving.html
The main thing that we see is that the chart doesn't start to truely rise exponentially until the 0.12 BAC mark. The arguement behind the 0.01 legal limit was to set the limit BEFORE you were to be considered truely intoxicated to drive. Now, of course, new arguements have pushed the limit down to 0.08.
I don't by the idea that setting lower and lower limits is the answer. We don't throw people in jail for wanting to kill someone, for instance, but we will do so if they threaten or attempt too. To do so would be a restriction on our civil liberties. Thus, setting a legal limit below what would be considered "too drunk to drive" is a restriction on our civil liberties as well in my opinion. Despite what interest groups say, drinking and driving, as long as your not impaired, is our right.
So, I propose that we raise the limit to 0.12, where the statistics show that that is the breaking point for most people in determining intoxication. Bottom line: we have the right to drink and get behind the wheel, just as long as we aren't impaired. 0.12 and below is not impaired, despite what special interest groups and biased research wants you to think.
What are your opinions?
:supcool:
