The general decline in standards today

[AtomicEraTom]

We bought one for 50 bucks or so a year or two ago. They make for a fun drinking game. See who's over the limit first lol

 

[Flicka]

We have 0.02 here, and if I remember correctly, the reason we didn't go for 0 is that 1. Instruments such as breathalyzers are never 100% precise so it was deemed that we needed a safety margin 2. You may have a higher degree of alcohol in your breath than in your bloodstream due to something you recently ate or drank, and since it's what you have in your bloodstream that affects your abilities, it was deemed that a sort of safety margin was necessary.

People here pretty much treat it as a zero limit, though. If you're driving, you don't have even one beer. You don't drink, period. On the other hand, people sometimes miscalculate how long it takes for alcohol to leave their system. If you drink in the evening, you may not be fit to drive the morning after.

My biggest beef is the disrespect people show for being tired. That's as much a hazard as DUI, yet people don't seem to worry about it at all. Unlike alcohol, there's no easy way to measure it, and common sense doesn't seem to hack it.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Regarding the decline in standards -- I would guess that attitudes toward drinking and driving were far more relaxed during The Era. I remember the three-martini lunches of the early 1960's. Really, nothing much happened, except that work didn't seem to be so completely grim in those days. People who were careful drivers before lunch were careful drivers after lunch. If you misbehaved, you got picked up by the police, drunk or sober (and in my home town, Baltimore, you didn't want to get picked up by the police . . . ).

 

[LizzieMaine]

Public crusades against drunk driving began in earnest within a short time after Repeal, with graphic public service film shorts and stark posters courtesy of the WPA:

Breath-testing devices were being experimented with during the late forties, with the Breathalyzer introduced in 1954. As for the three-martini crowd, how many of those guys were driving to lunch in their own cars, versus public transportation or taxicabs?

We didn't have three-martini lunches around here. We didn't even have martinis. The closest we came to such things was the dockhands sneaking off for a 'Gansett when the dinner whistle blew.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

The driving while impaired is a grey area. How is it tested on the road and proven in court? I think it is very helpful if someone is driving dangerously because of marijuana or other drugs that a breathalyser can't yet test for. I still think with alcohol, any amount greater than zero and less than 0.08 should be automatically charged with impaired (so there is no judgement call on the side of the road by a police officer). There can be a separate charge for 0.08 or more, but either way, no one should be legally allowed to drive with any alcohol in their system.

Here in Ontario, they have recently banned using any hand-held electronic devices such as phones or GPS. They did this because of the danger of distracted driving which we are told is as great as (if not worse than) impaired driving. If you get caught with a phone to your face here, you will get a charge as the police are enforcing the new law. But if you are at 0.07 blood alcohol the police can just say "on your way".

The laws are inconsistent here and it makes me a bit batty!

You act as though it's some kind of rare occurrence. We get convictions on that section all the time. A well trained police officer's testimony has convicted many an impaired driver. Of course it's a matter of opinion whether any alcohol should be tolerated, but I feel the current laws are quite adequate and reasonable. It's frankly just unreasonable to say that you can't have any alcohol whatsoever in your blood or you're committing a criminal offence. The law as it stands makes a very clear delineation which makes it easy to convict people who are clearly a danger to the public while still allowing convictions against people who are not above a certain prescribed limit yet still present a danger due to impairment. There are many, many people who can have a couple of drinks and be perfectly fine to drive, and it is unreasonable to arbitrarily convict such people when doing so does not further the purpose for which the law was written. Also, your mention of the cell phone ban is not an accurate comparison; that's a provincial traffic offence where carries nothing even remotely close to the consequences of a criminal conviction. It's apples and oranges to try to compare them.

I'm a law enforcement officer, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with as stern a "law and order" mindset as me. I have zero sympathy for drunk drivers, but even I feel a complete ban on alcohol in the blood while driving is unreasonable and unnecessary. Naturally, you're welcome to your opinion and we may agree to disagree; I just wanted to point out that the law in Canada wasn't exactly as you described it and in fact there are many convictions on the books under section 253.(a).

 

[Noirblack]

You act as though it's some kind of rare occurrence. We get convictions on that section all the time. A well trained police officer's testimony has convicted many an impaired driver. Of course it's a matter of opinion whether any alcohol should be tolerated, but I feel the current laws are quite adequate and reasonable. It's frankly just unreasonable to say that you can't have any alcohol whatsoever in your blood or you're committing a criminal offence. The law as it stands makes a very clear delineation which makes it easy to convict people who are clearly a danger to the public while still allowing convictions against people who are not above a certain prescribed limit yet still present a danger due to impairment. There are many, many people who can have a couple of drinks and be perfectly fine to drive, and it is unreasonable to arbitrarily convict such people when doing so does not further the purpose for which the law was written. Also, your mention of the cell phone ban is not an accurate comparison; that's a provincial traffic offence where carries nothing even remotely close to the consequences of a criminal conviction. It's apples and oranges to try to compare them.

I'm a law enforcement officer, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with as stern a "law and order" mindset as me. I have zero sympathy for drunk drivers, but even I feel a complete ban on alcohol in the blood while driving is unreasonable and unnecessary. Naturally, you're welcome to your opinion and we may agree to disagree; I just wanted to point out that the law in Canada wasn't exactly as you described it and in fact there are many convictions on the books under section 253.(a).

I'm just saying that 0.08 is an arbitrary cut off point and from my pov I can't see how it makes any sense to allow any alcohol in your system if you are driving. So, we definitely agree to disagree Driving is a privilege, not a right, and a government can set any conditions it wants on alcohol use while driving. As you know, in Ontario we have graduated licencing. So for the first couple of years of driving the limit is 0.0 percent. Then once you are through your first couple of years you can have alcohol in your system. Yet another arbitrary aspect of the law.

If you are in law enforcement, how would you feel if you tested a driver who blew 0.03 and you let him go and he wiped out a family a few miles down the road? Wouldn't you rather have it so that you don't need to make any judgement calls, especially when you have the clear evidence of the breathalyser backing you up and giving you a clear cut reason to lay the charge? The person charged can then fight it in court if they feel they have a defence.

Also, not everyone who is impaired while driving gets convicted based on the testimony of the police. Check out the article below. It sounds to me like he was driving drunk but he got a sympathetic (and somewhat gullible) judge. I know it is just one example, but when I read this article I can only shake my head.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/a...eaf-rick-vaive-not-guilty-of-impaired-driving

 

[Noirblack]

I'm always the designated driver. I either have one beer, or none at all. It's cheaper to drink at home and I'm friends with the owner of our hangout, so if I'm driving, he'll give me free soda. Some bars do that to promote Designated Drivers, too.

Tom, I am glad to hear you are the designated driver. I just urge you to make sure that if you have the one beer wait at least an hour before driving. You are being a good guy to all your friends. Hopefully they are the DD sometimes so you can have a little more to drink on occasion

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I always have one around 10 or 11 and don't leave until bar time, which is 2:30 on Saturdays. I don't mind doing it, and it's just logical because I drive an 8-passenger wagon, I can take a lot of people home.

Tom, I am glad to hear you are the designated driver. I just urge you to make sure that if you have the one beer wait at least an hour before driving. You are being a good guy to all your friends. Hopefully they are the DD sometimes so you can have a little more to drink on occasion

 

[Angus Forbes]

Prohibition was nasty business in my opinion. Unfortunately, the prohibitionist spirit never died, and is alive and well today; it was simply out-voted with repeal. I think that sometimes, especially when well meaning people become too sure of controversial moral convictions, we move in directions that have serious consequences that are unintended -- prohibition resulting in widespread disrespect for the law and the entrenchment of organized crime, the Vietnam War resulting in widespread distrust of government and unanticipated loss of life and treasure, the Great Society resulting in three-generation welfare families, and today's war on drugs resulting in big-time multinational crime and more incarcerations per capita in the USA than anywhere else in the world.

Regarding the three-martini lunch: Most people interested in retro things remember William Powell's portrayal of the Thin Man during the Era, which was a little overdone I'm sure. Likewise, the three-martini lunch is only a metaphor for drinking at lunch during the work day by white-collar people, of course, as not many actually had three walloping martinis (just speaking from my own experience -- clearly, I am not a scholar of the subject). Typically, at least where I lived, people would go out in groups in private cars -- literally nobody used public transportation for lunch (too slow) or taxicabs (too inconvenient and unreliable). Really, the end result was that nothing much happened, except that productivity probably went down in the afternoons.

I am not an advocate of drunken driving. On the other hand, I do believe that people were not so uptight about this issue in the Era or in the 1960's, and that the adverse consequences were negligible. People differ -- there is probably no need for Big Brother to jackboot everyone into the same mold -- somebody who has an IQ of 140 and the reflexes of a fighter pilot can probably drink a full bottle of Jack Daniels for lunch and still be a better driver than I am on my best day. So, 0.01, 0.08, whatever -- I don't care, as long as the person drives carefully.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think attitudes depended on where you lived -- obviously you'd find a different view among the crowd at the Rainbow Room than you'd find among the bunch hanging around down by the Interurban Station in Small Town USA. Up here, the Prohibition spirit went a lot deeper than the Volstead Act -- we had Prohibition in Maine starting in 1851, and it wasn't lifted until Federal Repeal at the end of 1933. So you had nearly eighty years of it here, compared to less than fourteen years nationally, and several generations grew up under its influence. Drunkenness was considered not just criminal, but a shame and disgrace upon the family of the drunkard -- and those views didn't go away when the Volstead Act disappeared.

Those views were still common in my own childhood -- and we still have many dry towns today. But generally speaking the attitudes toward boozing (not mild social drinking, but really getting hammered) are far more permissive now than they were then -- which, given the social consequences, is extremely unfortunate.

 

[Angus Forbes]

^^ I think that you are right -- regional attitudes differ a lot. By the way, I love small-town Maine; a good part of my family comes from Standish, Cornish, Kezar Falls, Parsonsfield, Sebago . . . I had better behave -- we may be seventh cousins, once removed . . .

 

[Gin&Tonics]

I'm just saying that 0.08 is an arbitrary cut off point and from my pov I can't see how it makes any sense to allow any alcohol in your system if you are driving. So, we definitely agree to disagree Driving is a privilege, not a right, and a government can set any conditions it wants on alcohol use while driving. As you know, in Ontario we have graduated licencing. So for the first couple of years of driving the limit is 0.0 percent. Then once you are through your first couple of years you can have alcohol in your system. Yet another arbitrary aspect of the law.

If you are in law enforcement, how would you feel if you tested a driver who blew 0.03 and you let him go and he wiped out a family a few miles down the road? Wouldn't you rather have it so that you don't need to make any judgement calls, especially when you have the clear evidence of the breathalyser backing you up and giving you a clear cut reason to lay the charge? The person charged can then fight it in court if they feel they have a defence.

Also, not everyone who is impaired while driving gets convicted based on the testimony of the police. Check out the article below. It sounds to me like he was driving drunk but he got a sympathetic (and somewhat gullible) judge. I know it is just one example, but when I read this article I can only shake my head.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/a...eaf-rick-vaive-not-guilty-of-impaired-driving

Well, in a sense everything in law could be said to be arbitrary. I would say that the .08 limit was chosen for a reason, probably because some sort of science has indicated that it is the point at which the majority of persons begin to become impaired. That is, admittedly, speculation on my part, though I suspect neither of us knows the definite answer to that question.

In answer to your second question, I am paid to use sound judgement in making my decisions, so I'm very comfortable doing so. If I suspected that a person was in any way impaired by drugs or alcohol, I would arrest that person for driving while impaired. I could move forward with it regardless of what they blew on the breathalyzer. If the situation arose where I used my judgement, which I believe to be very sound, and it turned out that the person ended up in a crash where someone died, of course I would be very sad for the person who died and their loved ones, but I would know that I made sound judgement based on the information I had available to me. Unfortunately they don't teach us to see the future in our training or to read minds. The only time I would reproach myself is if I knew I could have acted and failed to do so, which I would not allow to happen. Also, I never said that every person charged with impaired gets convicted; I'm sad to say that not everyone who blows over on the breathalyzer is convicted either! However, many do get convicted on either charge.

As for idiot judges, unfortunately that is something which we in our profession know all too much about. It can be excruciatingly frustrating, but again one must take some perspective; that is our system, for good or bad, and we have to focus on doing our bit. One could drive himself mad if he was constantly pulling out his hair over the decisions of myopic morons sitting on the judges bench.

BC, where I live, also has graduated licensing. Again, you have to be cautious not to compare a provincial traffic law to a criminal code offence, as it's a whole different ball of wax.

 

[John in Covina]

Channel Seven has the best car chase coverage - watch for the finger.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Channel Seven has the best car chase coverage - watch for the finger.

I call Channel 9 the Police Chase Channel. lol

 

[scottyrocks]

They sell breathalyzers that anyone can buy, presumably affordably, if you're one of those people inclined to reach .08 quicker than others. I was considering one for myself. I'm probably .09 just by sitting at the same table as an unopened beer, so I hate to think what I might be after actually drinking one.

No wonder you're opening a coffee house. How's that going, by the way?

 

[jamespowers]

Prohibition was nasty business in my opinion. Unfortunately, the prohibitionist spirit never died, and is alive and well today; it was simply out-voted with repeal. I think that sometimes, especially when well meaning people become too sure of controversial moral convictions, we move in directions that have serious consequences that are unintended -- prohibition resulting in widespread disrespect for the law and the entrenchment of organized crime, the Vietnam War resulting in widespread distrust of government and unanticipated loss of life and treasure, the Great Society resulting in three-generation welfare families, and today's war on drugs resulting in big-time multinational crime and more incarcerations per capita in the USA than anywhere else in the world.

Regarding the three-martini lunch: Most people interested in retro things remember William Powell's portrayal of the Thin Man during the Era, which was a little overdone I'm sure. Likewise, the three-martini lunch is only a metaphor for drinking at lunch during the work day by white-collar people, of course, as not many actually had three walloping martinis (just speaking from my own experience -- clearly, I am not a scholar of the subject). Typically, at least where I lived, people would go out in groups in private cars -- literally nobody used public transportation for lunch (too slow) or taxicabs (too inconvenient and unreliable). Really, the end result was that nothing much happened, except that productivity probably went down in the afternoons.

I am not an advocate of drunken driving. On the other hand, I do believe that people were not so uptight about this issue in the Era or in the 1960's, and that the adverse consequences were negligible. People differ -- there is probably no need for Big Brother to jackboot everyone into the same mold -- somebody who has an IQ of 140 and the reflexes of a fighter pilot can probably drink a full bottle of Jack Daniels for lunch and still be a better driver than I am on my best day. So, 0.01, 0.08, whatever -- I don't care, as long as the person drives carefully.

That is pretty much how I feel about the subject. I have been out to lunch that included drinks and nothing ever happened as well.
Being uptight about drinking just depends on how you were raised I suppose. If you saw people drink in social situations and they hardly ever got even slightly drunk then you are more than likely to see drinking as just one of those things that adults do. If you were raised with uptight teetotallers then drinking is a forbidden thing and those people usually end up being drunks because they never saw moderation and when they finally try drinking they have no idea how to handle it. It is one of those European conundrums.

 

[Edward]

Well, in a sense everything in law could be said to be arbitrary. I would say that the .08 limit was chosen for a reason, probably because some sort of science has indicated that it is the point at which the majority of persons begin to become impaired. That is, admittedly, speculation on my part, though I suspect neither of us knows the definite answer to that question.

AFAIK, those places which set the higher limits like that do so for exactly that reason. Of course it can only ever be an assumption based on the "average adult" - in much the same way that not everyone really is mature enough to vote or drink alcohol at eighteen (or twenty-one).

The closest to a zero limit of which I've heard is the 0.2 to which Flicka refers. Nowhere does a total zero limit, as that would inevitably at some point involve criminalising someone who had had a drink or two the night before in the same bracket as someone who had jumped in the car right out of the bar.

That is pretty much how I feel about the subject. I have been out to lunch that included drinks and nothing ever happened as well.
Being uptight about drinking just depends on how you were raised I suppose. If you saw people drink in social situations and they hardly ever got even slightly drunk then you are more than likely to see drinking as just one of those things that adults do. If you were raised with uptight teetotallers then drinking is a forbidden thing and those people usually end up being drunks because they never saw moderation and when they finally try drinking they have no idea how to handle it. It is one of those European conundrums.

Quite. I remember one guy on a course I was on years ago who was a really heavy drinker mentioning his father would have gone mad had he known. His father, he told us, was a militant tee-totaler as his own father had been a hardcore alcoholic. guy I knew will be well on his way to being one by now if he still canes it as heavily and as regularly as that.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Prohibition was incredibly unpopular in Wisconsin. I actually think we were the last or one of the last states to give in, same with the .08 limit. Wisconsin has two things that it really doesn't like messed with, beer and motorcycles. Laws about the two usually go over like a lead balloon.

Besides, Wisconsin was the beer state in those days, it did a lot of hurt to the state economically and left many companies scrambling to figure out something else to make.

I think attitudes depended on where you lived -- obviously you'd find a different view among the crowd at the Rainbow Room than you'd find among the bunch hanging around down by the Interurban Station in Small Town USA. Up here, the Prohibition spirit went a lot deeper than the Volstead Act -- we had Prohibition in Maine starting in 1851, and it wasn't lifted until Federal Repeal at the end of 1933. So you had nearly eighty years of it here, compared to less than fourteen years nationally, and several generations grew up under its influence. Drunkenness was considered not just criminal, but a shame and disgrace upon the family of the drunkard -- and those views didn't go away when the Volstead Act disappeared.

Those views were still common in my own childhood -- and we still have many dry towns today. But generally speaking the attitudes toward boozing (not mild social drinking, but really getting hammered) are far more permissive now than they were then -- which, given the social consequences, is extremely unfortunate.

 

[jamespowers]

Prohibition was incredibly unpopular in Wisconsin. I actually think we were the last or one of the last states to give in, same with the .08 limit. Wisconsin has two things that it really doesn't like messed with, beer and motorcycles. Laws about the two usually go over like a lead balloon.

Besides, Wisconsin was the beer state in those days, it did a lot of hurt to the state economically and left many companies scrambling to figure out something else to make.

A lot of them started making "medicinal alcohol" during the Evil Prohibition. Sounds like favorite kind of alcohol.

 

[jamespowers]

Quite. I remember one guy on a course I was on years ago who was a really heavy drinker mentioning his father would have gone mad had he known. His father, he told us, was a militant tee-totaler as his own father had been a hardcore alcoholic. guy I knew will be well on his way to being one by now if he still canes it as heavily and as regularly as that.

It is definitely one of those cases where heavy handedness causes more problems than it solves.