Pat Ayres Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Why should there, you consume alcohol and you're in trouble. All those things you mention state on the container that alcohol is a component and there are always alternatives. It will be illegal to consume alcohol and drive a vehicle, what's not to understand there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 What about the brandy christmas pudding, or sherry trifle. Doesn't mouth wash contain alcohol? (hope so, I've been drinking half a bottle to help me sleep). Plenty of consumables contain alcohol without having a drink. Should be some interesting test cases. For the trifle and pudding there are alcohol free flavourings, for the moutwash you can get alcohol free mouthwash, as for other goods the same. If the law says you cannot drive with over a certain limit then it is up to you the consumer to ensure you do not, no excuses, no test case needed, the responsibilty is yours, ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I thought it was pretty hard to have 0mg of blood alcohol due to the body producing very small levels from sugar in food and drinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I thought it was pretty hard to have 0mg of blood alcohol due to the body producing very small levels from sugar in food and drinks Which makes a "zero tolerance" level unenforceable. Hence the lowering from 1.75 pints of beer to just the one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Why should there, you consume alcohol and you're in trouble. All those things you mention state on the container that alcohol is a component and there are always alternatives. It will be illegal to consume alcohol and drive a vehicle, what's not to understand there? So you are driving along and cannot see through the windscreen. You pull the lever back and loads of screen wash covers the screen and the wipers start to go. Screen wash gets into the ventilation system and you breath in the vapours. Hey presto you are driving illegally. A zero limit is stupid and unenforcable, period. You dont always have control of what you ingest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 As PK said it is not a zero limit they are stating but a workable minimum limit (equivelent to 1 pint) which would easy cover slight accidental ingestion of small amounts, in this case zero limit means using a small acceptable level as the zero point, so it is enforcable full stop (not period as I am not an American). Of course if you have already had a drink that puts you on the edge of this limit then one of these other events occur to put you over then it is your own stupid fault for drinking in the first place. Just to add that a simple blood test would enable courts to establish that any alcohol in the bloodstream came from a source such as windscreen wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I thought it was pretty hard to have 0mg of blood alcohol due to the body producing very small levels from sugar in food and drinks Which makes a "zero tolerance" level unenforceable. Hence the lowering from 1.75 pints of beer to just the one. I know, I guess I should have quoted the "There's a zero limit here" post to put it in context Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 As PK said it is not a zero limit they are stating but a workable minimum limit (equivelent to 1 pint) which would easy cover slight accidental ingestion of small amounts, in this case zero limit means using a small acceptable level as the zero point, so it is enforcable full stop (not period as I am not an American. of course if you have already had a drink that puts you on the edge of this limit then one of these other events occur to put you over then it is your own stupid fault for drinking in the first place. Just to add that a simple blood test would enable courts to establish that any alcohol in the bloodstream came from a source such as windscreen wash. I don't condone drink driving but changing limits will do nothing to change what problem is left with drink driving. Enforcement is the key. As GL4ELI said earlier, two regular drunks are now locked up because of enforcement, not because of limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 For me I go with both, as I have previously said any drink drive conviction should be a maditory 5 year ban, £3000 fine and 6 months in prison with any repaeat offenders being banned for life. On this subject of lowering the limits, then if that means that those who now make sure they drink just under the limit before they drive now have to drink less to stay legal then it is all for the good and that also includes my views for morning after drink driving btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devil Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I pretty much agree with this. I don't think that lowering the limit will make the slightest difference. If someone is going to get in a car with 230mg or 300mg, what difference is a legal limit of 80mg, 50mg or 0mg going to make. How not? You drink X amount thinking your under the limit... you then drive... and get caught to be under the limit, you haven't got recklessly drunk but over the limit non the less. Lowering the limit to one pint then indicates that if you have have any alcohol you can get banned... where as if you was 1-2pints people still think they might be under the limit. Same in the mornings... have a late night and get up to go to work? over the limit... many diffrent cases. Personally I won't have a drink and drive anymore after having been banned for DD while being like 2mg over the limit, again another case of felt fine and thought I was within the guide lines... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I pretty much agree with this. I don't think that lowering the limit will make the slightest difference. If someone is going to get in a car with 230mg or 300mg, what difference is a legal limit of 80mg, 50mg or 0mg going to make. How not? You drink X amount thinking your under the limit... you then drive... and get caught to be under the limit, you haven't got recklessly drunk but over the limit non the less. Lowering the limit to one pint then indicates that if you have have any alcohol you can get banned... where as if you was 1-2pints people still think they might be under the limit. Same in the mornings... have a late night and get up to go to work? over the limit... many diffrent cases. Personally I won't have a drink and drive anymore after having been banned for DD while being like 2mg over the limit, again another case of felt fine and thought I was within the guide lines... You were unlucky. But if you read my other post which says "I don't condone drink driving but changing limits will do nothing to change what problem is left with drink driving. Enforcement is the key. As GL4ELI said earlier, two regular drunks are now locked up because of enforcement, not because of limits." you will see where I am coming from. The other thing over here is if you go back to the DOT survey carried out over the 11 years from the mid ninties, when John Shimmin (I think it was) wanted to impose an all Island speed limit. Death and serious injury from drunk driving was bottom of the accident list, below sober people hitting parked cars and having a loose animal running around in the car. Basically it is not a problem. You cannot fix what is not broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 The other thing over here is if you go back to the DOT survey carried out over the 11 years from the mid ninties, when John Shimmin (I think it was) wanted to impose an all Island speed limit. Death and serious injury from drunk driving was bottom of the accident list, below sober people hitting parked cars and having a loose animal running around in the car. Basically it is not a problem. You cannot fix what is not broken. On that basis if we take another criminal offence i.e. murder, we find this is less common here than drink driving so as you say basically it is not a problem so we should ignore it. As you see that last statement is a load of bollocks which is just the same as saying drink driving is not a problem, one drink driver is one too many and should be punished severely, you go on some of the back roads where police can't be arsed to patrol at nights and I bet a good percentage of drivers after the pubs are shut are drunk, if the police could make the effort and stop a few of those the statistics would rocket up I bet. Just because the police turn a blind eye does not mean it isn't a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 On that basis if we take another criminal offence i.e. murder, we find this is less common here than drink driving so as you say basically it is not a problem so we should ignore it. As you see that last statement is a load of bollocks which is just the same as saying drink driving is not a problem, one drink driver is one too many and should be punished severely, you go on some of the back roads where police can't be arsed to patrol at nights and I bet a good percentage of drivers after the pubs are shut are drunk, if the police could make the effort and stop a few of those the statistics would rocket up I bet. Just because the police turn a blind eye does not mean it isn't a problem. Murder isn't a problem and the police don't spend hundreds of man hours trying to prevent it. If the governments own statistics, and the polices own statistics says there is no real problem, why should they waste my tax dollar on solving a problem that does not exist? In Bermuda there were about 16 murders last year. They have a murder and shooting problem. They are spending tax money on trying to solve the problem. I would prefer to save the tax money and put it against teh almighty cock up that the IOM government have made of the VAT issue and the RHA. Not waste it on a problem that basically does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 It still does not get away from the fact that drink driving is a serious crime that often ruins lives, therefore it is a problem if just one person does it. I for one would not and have not hesitated in the past of phoning the police to report a drunk driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 It still does not get away from the fact that drink driving is a serious crime that often ruins lives, therefore it is a problem if just one person does it. I for one would not and have not hesitated in the past of phoning the police to report a drunk driver. No. Drug dealing is a serious crime that often ruins lives. Drunk driving is a crime that occasionally ruins lives. If you want to spend tax dollars on preventing people from shattering other's lives, tackle the drugs problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.