Should the legal drinking age be lowered to 18?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

The state government is allowed to place age-related restrictions on you as long as there's a rational basis, which there is here. That isn't contradicted by anything in the Constitution about adulthood. Even children maintain most Constitutional rights.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Unfortunately, the damage is done in this society. We've turned drinking into some big rite of passage and benchmark in a person's life. We should have never had prohibition and not have turned drinking into something taboo and that is not something that is going to be undone overnight. I believe you need to ratchet back, but not 21 to 18, but rather 21 to 19 and allow college age students to drink.

And for the people that are using the 'Old enough to do X.. ', I hope you are arguing that an 18 year old should also be able to be president or in congress because as they can vote for those offices, but not hold those offices.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

As you asked your question, yes, though I highly doubt that could actually happen.

You'd be surprised how functional alchoholics are when heavily intoxicated, at least on the surface. Some guys at .20 don't even slur their words, and they can certainly drive (though their relflexes, etc, are still compromised).

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

WOW

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

It should also be noted that drunk driving fatalities have plummeted since all States went to a drinking age of 21. 21,113 in 1982, to 12,998 in 2007. (And that's before you adjust for the fact that Americans drive far more miles now than they did in 1982)

And if smoking has declined since they put the "Surgeon General Warning" on the packaging, that surely must be the cause?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I can't question why the writers of the Constitution felt like putting in those age requirements, but there has not been much noise made about it over the years, has there? I don't know of any myself. Why don't they just leave this to individual states to decide? The US government played games with "federal money" in order to have their way on this issue. So, they take taxpayer money and then say things like, "You must not let people under the age of 21 buy alcohol", and at one time they said, "You must not have a speed limit higher than 55 miles per hour", else we will not send you 'your share' of the taxpayer booty. If it is such a worthy cause, let's just take the federal government out of the game and let each state decide on their own what is best for them. I expect they would know better what their young adults can handle and what they cannot.

I definitely agree it should be up to the states, but as a state, I'd be very, very reluctant to bring the drinking age down overnight.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

And if smoking has declined since they put the "Surgeon General Warning" on the packaging, that surely must be the cause?

It's worth considering as a cause.

I realize that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but that doesn't mean the opposite is true - that correlation rules out casuation, which people seem to argue sometimes.

But that's a fair place to have the discussion - would lowering the drinking age overnight increase the amount of drunk driving deaths, or not? I think it definitely would. If you don't, I can certainly understand why you'd be in favor of reducing the drinking age today. But nobody ever argues that there'd be no impact on drunk driving deaths (or that there'd be no negative impact generally). All you ever hear is the comparisons with the voting age, military service age, and how things are in Europe, which all miss the mark, IMO.

[Icy]

It's 18 in Spain, but the problem is not 18 years old drinking, but that drinking being under 18 or selling them the alcohol drinks is not enforced or prosecuted enough.

[Wolfpack]

I'm rather conflicted on the issue. The more libertarian side of me thinks the age should be lowered to 18, but with a zero BAC law for drivers until they turn 21 with heavy penalties for breaking it (lost license, lost car, something like that). Most college campuses are fairly compact so it's not as likely that drunk driving would increase if the age were lowered as most 18-20-year-olds probably would walk to the campus area watering holes, especially those who are 18 since many colleges have a rule against freshmen having cars on campus. It may also strengthen local businesses in the area as there is a larger number of students patronizing the various places since they won't be confined to their dorm rooms to drink illicitly.

However, the more conservative part of me thinks it would be a bad idea to let the age slide because it would merely mean that instead of 21-year-olds buying for under-age kids, it'd be the 18-year-olds buying for under-age kids. I've also seen the aftereffects of the ravages of alcoholism and how destructive it is on families. The question then becomes whether the illicitness of alcohol makes people alcoholic because they binged out on it in their youth or whether they'd have become alcoholic regardless of the age of legality.

After typing all that out, I still don't know how I'd vote on it.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

I definitely agree it should be up to the states, but as a state, I'd be very, very reluctant to bring the drinking age down overnight.

How would you do it? Presumably a new law would go into effect at midnight whenever it did happen, so any reduction would happen "overnight."

I know I'm being pedantic. Some study might make some sense, but we will never really know if it can be handled better today if no one is willing to try. A "drinking age" does make more sense to me than a bunch of "blue laws" limiting the days and times that you can buy it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

I think drunk driving is basically the same thing as firing a gun in public. Would you argue that person shouldn't be arrested if they didn't hit anyone? The person that drives drunk is endangering everyone around them the second they start that car.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

How would you do it? Presumably a new law would go into effect at midnight whenever it did happen, so any reduction would happen "overnight."

I know I'm being pedantic. Some study might make some sense, but we will never really know if it can be handled better today if no one is willing to try. A "drinking age" does make more sense to me than a bunch of "blue laws" limiting the days and times that you can buy it.

Like I said a few posts ago, you can do it gradually. 20 then 19, or maybe 19 to buy at liquor stores and 21 to buy at bars.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

The question then becomes whether the illicitness of alcohol makes people alcoholic because they binged out on it in their youth or whether they'd have become alcoholic regardless of the age of legality.

Indeed. Do you become an alcoholic simply because it is there, or is there some other fault in your brain that allows that addiction to form? I did my share of underage drinking in high school. A buddy and I always arranged for a driver that wasn't drinking, or a safe place to stay for the night (or both). I probably average 1 beer every 2 weeks or so today. Being able to get alcohol at a young age did not turn me into an alcoholic, or a drunk driver. In fact, I have never even had a traffic citation for anything (no speeding tickets, no parking tickets even).

[ShaneTheMaster]

The drinking age should be lowered to 18, but the age that you are able to get a driver's license should be raised to 21.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

You'd be surprised how functional alchoholics are when heavily intoxicated, at least on the surface. Some guys at .20 don't even slur their words, and they can certainly drive (though their relflexes, etc, are still compromised).

Keeping with the hypothetical, if an officer trailed anyone for 5-10 minutes they're bound to do something illegal. Everyone does. At that point (which in that case would take 2 seconds), the cop pulls the guy over and instead of a $25 fine for going outside the lines it's however many times that for being shitfaced, plus a reckless driving charge, also for being shitfaced.

The key difference, and I'll agree it's a lot of semantics, is that you have to do something or endanger someone else first. It doesn't matter if your BAC is .08 or .09 or .1. The law should allow a)for people to make their own judgments and b) hold them accountable for their actions.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think drunk driving is basically the same thing as firing a gun in public. Would you argue that person shouldn't be arrested if they didn't hit anyone? The person that drives drunk is endangering everyone around them the second they start that car.

That is exactly the way I feel about it. In this day, there is absolutely ZERO reason for anyone to drive when impaired. There are simply too many other options, assuming you had no control over where you got intoxicated in the first place.

[EagleFan]

Fuck those young punks!!! Keep it at 21, or raise it to 30!!!

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by ShaneTheMaster

The drinking age should be lowered to 18, but the age that you are able to get a driver's license should be raised to 21.

Solves the drunk driving problem, eh? Oh, but perhaps then we should fear hordes of drunk unlicensed drivers out on the road...

[molson]

It's also worth noting that in most states, you can drink if you're under-21, if it's done in private, and with your parents' consent.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

Are you serious?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think drunk driving is basically the same thing as firing a gun in public. Would you argue that person shouldn't be arrested if they didn't hit anyone? The person that drives drunk is endangering everyone around them the second they start that car.

No that person shouldn't be arrested. And maybe the drunk person is endangering everyone and maybe they aren't. How are they any different from the person who drives without sleep, while talking on the phone, while not paying attention, while listening to music or while petting their dog?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

The question then becomes whether the illicitness of alcohol makes people alcoholic because they binged out on it in their youth or whether they'd have become alcoholic regardless of the age of legality.

The potential for greater/earlier onset of alcholism is just one of the concerns.

Drunk driving is a big one. If kids can go out to bar and drink, more of them are going to drive back. More of them are also going to drive to liquor store to get more after they've already been drinking. The 21 limit keeps teen boozing RELATIVELY private, and safer. Most teens can drink if they want, but they have to sneak around, etc. That's a good thing. Then by the time they're 21, liquor isn't such a big deal anymore.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Keeping with the hypothetical, if an officer trailed anyone for 5-10 minutes they're bound to do something illegal. Everyone does. At that point (which in that case would take 2 seconds), the cop pulls the guy over and instead of a $25 fine for going outside the lines it's however many times that for being shitfaced, plus a reckless driving charge, also for being shitfaced.

The key difference, and I'll agree it's a lot of semantics, is that you have to do something or endanger someone else first. It doesn't matter if your BAC is .08 or .09 or .1. The law should allow a)for people to make their own judgments and b) hold them accountable for their actions.

Please tell that to someone whol has lost a loved one due to another person and their "error in judgement" of driving drunk...

I really want you to tell that to them after that shitfaced driver gets a slap on the wrist ticket for going outside the lines and then sent on his way.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

No that person shouldn't be arrested. And maybe the drunk person is endangering everyone and maybe they aren't. How are they any different from the person who drives without sleep, while talking on the phone, while not paying attention, while listening to music or while petting their dog?

petting their dog? talking? listening to music?

They are all causes of momentary lapses but there is a huge difference. They are temporary. Drunk is not something that you feel for a second and then it's gone.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think drunk driving is basically the same thing as firing a gun in public. Would you argue that person shouldn't be arrested if they didn't hit anyone?

I think a rocket launcher would be a more suitable comparison.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

That is exactly the way I feel about it. In this day, there is absolutely ZERO reason for anyone to drive when impaired. There are simply too many other options, assuming you had no control over where you got intoxicated in the first place.

The problem with this is that people don't know they are impaired. One of the problems of impaired judgement is that you can't judge your impairment. We've probably all had times where we thought we were perfectly fine to drive until something happened that we reacted to badly and realized we shouldn't be driving. Setting an arbitrary BAC level may not treat everyone equally with their level of ability, but it serves as a nice starting point to define impairment.

Note: I'm replying to Tekneek, but not necessarily directing this at him...just a convenient place to jump in.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The problem with this is that people don't know they are impaired. One of the problems of impaired judgement is that you can't judge your impairment. We've probably all had times where we thought we were perfectly fine to drive until something happened that we reacted to badly and realized we shouldn't be driving. Setting an arbitrary BAC level may not treat everyone equally with their level of ability, but it serves as a nice starting point to define impairment.

Note: I'm replying to Tekneek, but not necessarily directing this at him...just a convenient place to jump in.

I agree.

And I think this is the reason DUIs aren't punished more harshly in this country. It's a completley different class of criminal. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, with zero criminal record get a DUI. They come to court, have already enrolled in treatment, are extremely apologetic, take full responsibility for what they did, and need their vehicle, driver's license, and freedom to make a living for their family. I've seen why they get slaps on the wrists.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Please tell that to someone whol has lost a loved one due to another person and their "error in judgement" of driving drunk...

I really want you to tell that to them after that shitfaced driver gets a slap on the wrist ticket for going outside the lines and then sent on his way.

It's horrible, but no more horrible than losing someone to an auto accident of some other kind. My mother was nearly killed when someone egregiously ran a red light. That's different, how?

I'm not advocating going light on people who drink-drive, only that the laws banning it explicitly are stupid.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The problem with this is that people don't know they are impaired. One of the problems of impaired judgement is that you can't judge your impairment. We've probably all had times where we thought we were perfectly fine to drive until something happened that we reacted to badly and realized we shouldn't be driving. Setting an arbitrary BAC level may not treat everyone equally with their level of ability, but it serves as a nice starting point to define impairment.

Note: I'm replying to Tekneek, but not necessarily directing this at him...just a convenient place to jump in.

This is probably the best argument for this I've ever seen.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

It's horrible, but no more horrible than losing someone to an auto accident of some other kind. My mother was nearly killed when someone egregiously ran a red light. That's different, how?

I'm not advocating going light on people who drink-drive, only that the laws banning it explicitly are stupid.

I can see what Foo is arguing here.. Drunk Driving is a crime because it impairs your ability to drive. If you took 2 drivers that caused accidents, one a drunk driver and the other who decided to eat a bowl of cereal and wearing a pirate eye patch while driving, I'm sure the drunk driver would get the much stiffer penalty, but the cause was still the same, impaired ability to drive. Doesn't make much sense to me.

[DaddyTorgo]

how about car companies putting BAC-locks on the ignition systems. So you have to blow into the BAC sensor in order to get the car to start. If you are over the legal limit then the car won't start.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

how about car companies putting BAC-locks on the ignition systems. So you have to blow into the BAC sensor in order to get the car to start. If you are over the legal limit then the car won't start.

It's a nice idea, but what about people who get other people to blow on it, who would pass?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

It's a nice idea, but what about people who get other people to blow on it, who would pass?

I saw something like this on a news program recently. They got around this situation by making the person blow every 10-15 minutes to keep the car going. They never did explain what happened if people stopped blowing while the car was doing 60. I'm not sure how you would disable a car safely while it is going freeway speeds.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The problem with this is that people don't know they are impaired. One of the problems of impaired judgement is that you can't judge your impairment. We've probably all had times where we thought we were perfectly fine to drive until something happened that we reacted to badly and realized we shouldn't be driving. Setting an arbitrary BAC level may not treat everyone equally with their level of ability, but it serves as a nice starting point to define impairment.

Come on. They didn't get out of their car, trip on the curb, get up drunk, and then back in and drive away. They knew they had been drinking. If you've been putting the drinks down during the game and think you can just hop in and drive, you're an idiot and a danger to society. These people should know when they are likely to be impaired and plan ahead. It isn't really that hard. They need to put their "I'm the invincible asshole cool guy" attitude away for a little while and think about somebody else for a change. I'm not ashamed to admit that it is the fear of causing harm to other people that has always made me responsible when it came to drinking. A healthy dose of that would help a lot of irresponsible drivers in general, whether they're drinking or just a big prick.

I've never been an impaired driver, because I always have a plan. I understand I may be an exception, but I never accidentally get drunk. I know my limits and I don't even get close to pushing it. I never have and I never will.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

It's a nice idea, but what about people who get other people to blow on it, who would pass?

well that's where you assume that the sober person would say "no - let me drive" because you make the penalties for faking it be astronomical. what sober person is going to willingly enable someone to drive drunk?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I'm sure the drunk driver would get the much stiffer penalty, but the cause was still the same, impaired ability to drive. Doesn't make much sense to me.

That is something that does irritate me. A man ran a red light, while talking on a cellphone, and just about killed my stepfather. The hospital spent a lot of time trying to talk my mom into pulling the plug, which she didn't do and he is getting his life back together slowly. Still, the guy was not even given a ticket. No charges at all. The possibility of any charges apparently hinged on alcohol in his system, which wasn't there. My opinion was that if he had been drunk it would have at least made some sense. I'm almost of the belief that having all your faculties and doing something like this deserves even more punishment because you don't have any excuses.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Come on. They didn't get out of their car, trip on the curb, get up drunk, and then back in and drive away. They knew they had been drinking. If you've been putting the drinks down during the game and think you can just hop in and drive, you're an idiot and a danger to society. These people should know when they are likely to be impaired and plan ahead. It isn't really that hard. They need to put their "I'm the invincible asshole cool guy" attitude away for a little while and think about somebody else for a change. I'm not ashamed to admit that it is the fear of causing harm to other people that has always made me responsible when it came to drinking. A healthy dose of that would help a lot of irresponsible drivers in general, whether they're drinking or just a big prick.

I've never been an impaired driver, because I always have a plan. I understand I may be an exception, but I never accidentally get drunk. I know my limits and I don't even get close to pushing it. I never have and I never will.

The "I'm the invincible asshole cool guy" situation is easy to plan for. It is the in-between stuff that is hard. Say you are going out to see the game and you have one drink at the start of the game. You can probably drive at the end with a 0.0 BAC. What happens if you have 2 drinks? What about 3? Do you know exactly at what point you reach your limit? When you are on the bubble, you might not know that you didn't just walk to the bathroom on a straight line. Whatever little test you do might seem like it went well when it really didn't.

I personally try to be overly cautious in these situations. If I have the slightest hint that I might not be OK to drive, I give up the keys. Even that hasn't kept me from a situation where I decided later that I probably should have given up the keys. It isn't always being too macho that causes problems. Sometimes you think you are being smart and you still make a bad choice.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

well that's where you assume that the sober person would say "no - let me drive" because you make the penalties for faking it be astronomical. what sober person is going to willingly enable someone to drive drunk?

No reasonable person would, but somebody will do it. In a nation where some mothers have offered up their young daughters to sexual predators, you know that almost anything is possible (no matter how outlandish it may seem).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Sometimes you think you are being smart and you still make a bad choice.

You can never be too careful when it comes to this. Don't push your limits. There is way too much at risk to take a chance. When 'having a good time' puts somebody's life in danger, it's no longer a good time. A lot of people are not willing to put the concerns of others ahead of their own, even a tiny bit of the time.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

That is something that does irritate me. A man ran a red light, while talking on a cellphone, and just about killed my stepfather. The hospital spent a lot of time trying to talk my mom into pulling the plug, which she didn't do and he is getting his life back together slowly. Still, the guy was not even given a ticket. No charges at all. The possibility of any charges apparently hinged on alcohol in his system, which wasn't there. My opinion was that if he had been drunk it would have at least made some sense. I'm almost of the belief that having all your faculties and doing something like this deserves even more punishment because you don't have any excuses.

Well, there could be more laws (and some places are trying to pass them) about driving while talking on a cell phone, and I'd certainly support it. But let's get real. The reason drunk driving penalties aren't more stiff is because of the restaurant/bar industry. When they pushed to get rid of the Sunday ban on beer sales in Georgia, Sonny Perdue opposed it, citing his Christian faith. However, I notice his Christian faith did not compel him to ban beer sales at bars or restaurants on Sunday. And that's because the restaurant/bar lobby would go apeshit. So I guess he finds the restaurant/bar lobby to be more important than Jesus.

It's the same reason why there is a problem in passing the cell phone laws. The telecom lobby would go nuts if people couldn't talk on the phone while driving.

[MikeVic]

I'd go nuts if I couldn't talk on the phone while driving.

[Tekneek]

The cellphone part of the story is not the most important part. The most important part is where the police will forgive terrible accidents just because somebody was sober. If I really think about it, I can't understand how an otherwise sober person should get away with something. If you can't make good decisions when sober, aren't you actually a greater risk to everyone else?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

You can never be too careful when it comes to this. Don't push your limits. There is way too much at risk to take a chance. When 'having a good time' puts somebody's life in danger, it's no longer a good time. A lot of people are not willing to put the concerns of others ahead of their own, even a tiny bit of the time.

That all sounds great in theory, but reality isn't quite so neat. You have to know you are approaching your limit before you can push it. 'Having a good time' isn't a classification that can help you make a choice. Having a good time out at the bars on a Friday night...easy decision. Having a good time with a single beer during a football game...easy decision. Somewhere in-between it gets harder. Somewhere in-between you have to make a judgement.

[ShaneTheMaster]

I suppose that most people that are saying there is NEVER an excuse to drink and drive are probably married and/or have a significant other that either does not drink or did not go drinking with them that they can just either hand the keys to or just give a phone call to go pick them up. Very convenient. If I was not single, I would do that - it would be easy to not drink and drive.

But, from time to time, I will go have a few drinks or play cards or whatever, and have a few beers - and I will drive home - and I am fine. Unless your body can't handle alcohol well, It should be fine to drive home without having to worry about going to jail, but of course, it is not.

Having said that, there are clearly people who can't handle driving sober, much less after a few beers, because they are texting and playing with their phone. That is the group of people that should be penalized.

Also, it is rediculous that DWI offenders are being punished more than people who are arrested for attempted robbery, etc. People are put behind bars because they are dangerous to the general public. Would you rather wait at a bus stop next to a DWI offender or a convicted robber? The difference is INTENT. Of course, there are exceptions - if someone drinks 11 beers and drives down the wrong side of the road, that is different. But most DWI cases are not that crazy.

I am afraid that while MADD has good intentions, and they have every reason to be mad, they will continually push to have the freedoms of decent people revoked. I really think that MADD will one day want to outlaw bars. I mean, closing all bars will reduce drinking and driving. If MADD would propose this, would any lawmakers have the nuts to dispute them? Probably not, because it is not politically correct. Therein lies the problem.

Most of the time, when someone blows a .08, unless they have a history of drunk driving, they are not a threat to the general public, and should not be thrown in jail. But of course, the "holier than thou" sentiment would rebuke any in-depth arguments.

[Sun Tzu]

yes

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ShaneTheMaster

Also, it is rediculous that DWI offenders are being punished more than people who are arrested for attempted robbery, etc. People are put behind bars because they are dangerous to the general public. Would you rather wait at a bus stop next to a DWI offender or a convicted robber?

Well, I'd certainly rather be in the passenger seat with a convicted robber driving than with a drunk person.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

Making it easier to get introduces just as many bad practices. Chronic drinking is more dangerous than binging.

As I said before, I know many people above age who binge. It's not a habit just for minors. Saying that 'kids' won't binge shows that these people aren't responsible enough to moderate themselves.

I don't smoke weed or anything anymore but when I did, I didn't binge. It wasn't legal and most people i did things with didn't blow though their stash all at once.

As a reformed alcoholic, or at least a surviving one, I have to correct you on this point. Chronic drinking is not in fact more dangerous than binging. Over time the body adjusts and learns to cope with a steady flow of any chemical introduced to the system.

Binging however is generally not as often an occurance and produces far stronger reactions in the body. A binge drinker is far more prone to blackouts, alcohol poisoning due to the sheer amount of intake in a short period and a far stronger debilitating affect on reaction time and motor skills in general.

If we could eliminate one or the other, we certainly should eliminate binging. A Chronic drinker can be handled through therapy and support. A Binge drinker is a bomb waiting to explode on any given day.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well, I'd certainly rather be in the passenger seat with a convicted robber driving than with a drunk person.

I guess it depends on what is "drunk". If someone had 4 beers and you knew the person, would you really rather be in the car with a robber you didn't know?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The possibility of any charges apparently hinged on alcohol in his system, which wasn't there.

You got bad information. Running a red light is also illegal. It's at least an infraction, and could easily be charged as misdemeanor Careless Driving (or the equivalent) in any state. For officers not to charge someone like that at the scene means either they made a mistake, there was no evidence that the driver ran a red light, or it was clear that the driver wasn't really at fault.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I'd go nuts if I couldn't talk on the phone while driving.

And as long as you're using a hands-free device to do so you go right on ahead and do it. its the morons who hold their phone to their face with one hand and try driving with the other and do neither activity with any shred of skill that are the problematic ones.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm not sure using a hands free device makes talking on the phone while driving any safer.

What about talking to someone in the car?