4 ms·

This is absurd. By your own admission you have no evidence that even 0.08 is unsafe (impairment is established by definition and not observation in your link) a

by dpark 9y ago

This is absurd. By your own admission you have no evidence that even 0.08 is unsafe (impairment is established by definition and not observation in your link) and yet you expect me to prove a negative and show that 0.07 is safe. 0.00 isn’t even safe. People have accidents while driving sober all the time. The reality is that you are deferring to the law when you assume that 0.08 is proven unsafe. And that’s a pretty reasonable assumption. 0.08 was supposed to be established as the level at which essentially everyone demonstrates some level of impairment (whether that’s actually true, I don’t know). But you have no evidence that 0.07 is unsafe. You lack scientific evidence and you also lack the ability to defer to the law. So your belief is arbitrary. You’re essentially saying that .08 is definitely unsafe because the law says so, so 0.07 must be unsafe, too, because it’s close. But this is unreasonable. If the law defines safety then defer to the law. Otherwise the law could be .07 and you’d be making this argument about .06. And so on.

thaumaturgy 9y ago
Hey, dial it back a notch, okay? My "admission" was that I could not find any data to support your claim that ".07 isn't likely to kill anyone either". The NHTSA's statement on why .08 was chosen: https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-laws/08history/1_introduction.htm https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-law... A TIME article considering whether .08 is too high: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2025301,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2025301,0... The National Academy of Sciences recently recommended lowering the limit to .05: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24951 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?Rec... (there are a few links to pdfs at the bottom with more details) My original comment was a plea for people to reconsider driving while "just barely legal", because it wasn't worth the risks. You want to know if there is actually any risk. Well, here you go.
- learc83 9y ago
  So if a state has a limit of .05, are you OK with convicting people who blow a .04?
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    Not so much.
    - learc83 9y ago
      So the real problem here is that you want a lower limit. The margin of error has the effect of occasionally lowering that limit, so you're OK with it. You're OK with police incorrectly applying the law as long as the outcome is something that you agree with. There are a few problems with that. 1. You're not always going to agree with the way the police incorrectly apply the law and police culture and procedure is harder to change than statutory limits. 2. The margin of error works both ways. It lets some people who are over a .08 go free. And it punishes some people who are below a .08. We should strive to remove arbitrariness from our justice system. It's not always possible but we should try for it anyway.
      - thaumaturgy 9y ago
        sigh Yes, I think the limit should be lower. No, there's not a chance in hell I personally will be able to do anything about that. Yes, I understand the value of clear, fair, equal treatment under law. Yes, I get that police abuse is a problem in many areas. No, I can't be moved to care about this particular issue, because the people affected are too close to the legal limit to not be a danger to others. I really regret my original comment on this topic, what was supposed to be a straightforward plea to not drive "buzzed", which would bring with it the added benefit of not finding yourself in a situation where a device with a small margin of error might get you into legal trouble. I had no reason to expect that it would ignite a flamefest. I kind of wish ~dang or somebody would just nuke my comment and everything under it, since there's nothing of value here. Anyway, this is my last on the subject, since it's just adding to the noise.
        learc83 9y ago
        >Yes, I understand the value of clear, fair, equal treatment under law. >No, I can't be moved to care about this particular issue, because the people affected are too close to the legal limit to not be a danger to others. That's the problem. You don't really understand the value of equal treatment under the law. If you only care about equal treatment when you personally think the person deserves it, you don't really care about it.

by dpark 9y ago

thaumaturgy 9y ago

Hey, dial it back a notch, okay? My "admission" was that I could not find any data to support your claim that ".07 isn't likely to kill anyone either". The NHTSA's statement on why .08 was chosen: https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-laws/08history/1_introduction.htm https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-law... A TIME article considering whether .08 is too high: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2025301,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2025301,0... The National Academy of Sciences recently recommended lowering the limit to .05: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24951 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?Rec... (there are a few links to pdfs at the bottom with more details) My original comment was a plea for people to reconsider driving while "just barely legal", because it wasn't worth the risks. You want to know if there is actually any risk. Well, here you go.

learc83 9y ago
So if a state has a limit of .05, are you OK with convicting people who blow a .04?
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  Not so much.
  - learc83 9y ago
    So the real problem here is that you want a lower limit. The margin of error has the effect of occasionally lowering that limit, so you're OK with it. You're OK with police incorrectly applying the law as long as the outcome is something that you agree with. There are a few problems with that. 1. You're not always going to agree with the way the police incorrectly apply the law and police culture and procedure is harder to change than statutory limits. 2. The margin of error works both ways. It lets some people who are over a .08 go free. And it punishes some people who are below a .08. We should strive to remove arbitrariness from our justice system. It's not always possible but we should try for it anyway.
    - thaumaturgy 9y ago
      sigh Yes, I think the limit should be lower. No, there's not a chance in hell I personally will be able to do anything about that. Yes, I understand the value of clear, fair, equal treatment under law. Yes, I get that police abuse is a problem in many areas. No, I can't be moved to care about this particular issue, because the people affected are too close to the legal limit to not be a danger to others. I really regret my original comment on this topic, what was supposed to be a straightforward plea to not drive "buzzed", which would bring with it the added benefit of not finding yourself in a situation where a device with a small margin of error might get you into legal trouble. I had no reason to expect that it would ignite a flamefest. I kind of wish ~dang or somebody would just nuke my comment and everything under it, since there's nothing of value here. Anyway, this is my last on the subject, since it's just adding to the noise.
      - learc83 9y ago
        >Yes, I understand the value of clear, fair, equal treatment under law. >No, I can't be moved to care about this particular issue, because the people affected are too close to the legal limit to not be a danger to others. That's the problem. You don't really understand the value of equal treatment under the law. If you only care about equal treatment when you personally think the person deserves it, you don't really care about it.