NTSB convincing states to lower drunk driving minimum to one or two drinks

MassPrivateI

Earlier this month, Utah lawmakers passed HB155 which would make it illegal to have a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05%. A 0.05% BAC translates into only one or two alcoholic drinks!

“The proposal would mean that a 150-pound man could get a DUI after two beers, while a 120-pound woman could get one after a single drink…” 

“For several years, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has encouraged states to drop their blood-alcohol content levels to 0.05 or even lower.”

Since 2013, the NTSB has claimed that impairment begins after having one drink.

NTSB lies about drunk driving, claims its a national epidemic

In 2013, NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman lied about drunk driving, claiming it’s a national epidemic

“Most Americans think that we’ve solved the problem of impaired driving, but in fact, it’s still a national epidemic,” said  Hersman.

Watch the video below, as NTSB’s Vice Chairman Bella Dinh-Zarr claims that having one or two drinks is too much for anyone.

The NTSB claims, that people who’ve had one, two or three drinks (0.05-0.79% BAC) are seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash. At approximately one minute into the video the NTSB calls a “0.05 BAC a preventive measure.”

Rep. Gage Froerer warned, lowering the BAC to 0.05% will affect Americans “personal freedoms and rights.” Rep. Kelly Miles said, Americans shouldn’t “drink anything and drive.”

The NTSB has been trying since 2013 to force states into lowering their BAC levels to 0.05. (click here & here to find out more.)

Ask yourselves, if lowering the BAC to 0.05% is a “preventative measure” and not scientifically proven, why are they doing it?

Drunk and drugged driving is at its lowest EVER

Two years ago, I wrote an article revealing how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) admitted that drunk and drugged driving is on the decline.

A recent article in USA Today also revealed, there’s been a significant decrease in drunk and drugged driving…

“Alcohol use is also at its lowest level ever: 37.3% of 12th-graders said they have been drunk at least once, down from a high of 53.2% in 2001.”

If drunk driving is on the decline, then that means the NTSB has been lying to the public for years.

Breathalyzers are notoriously inaccurate

Earlier this month, I wrote an article about a million dollar breathalyzer that the FTC described as “deceptive and dangerous.” And this past December, a man was charged for DUI despite having a 0.00% BAC  In 2010 a Pennsylvania judge claimed the Intoxilyzer 5000EN was inaccurate and the state of  Maine was forced to replace them. A Google search for “inaccurate Breathalyzers” returned 64,00 hits.

Inaccurate Breathalyzers aren’t the only issue…

According to Statistic Brain.com 1.5 million Americans are arrested for DUI each year. The Fed’s, Police, MADD, and the NTSB don’t want the public to see any of the 170,000+ source codes that Breathalyzers use. 

For years, Breathalyzer companies have claimed that independent examination of their source code is a trade secret, and disclosing it would financially destroy them. You can’t make this crap up.

Breathalyzer companies claim. they have to keep their source codes a secret because of the “highly competitive commercial environment” in which they operate. (A Google search for “breathalyzer software codes are a secret” returned close to 1.5 million hits.)

What they’re really saying is, we don’t care that millions of Americans have been falsely arrested. All we care about is protecting our PROFITS!

The public is being deceived, lowering the BAC isn’t about safety. It’s about keeping DUI revenues flowing to state and corporate coffers.

http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2017/03/ntsb-convincing-states-to-lower-drunk.html

10 thoughts on “NTSB convincing states to lower drunk driving minimum to one or two drinks

  1. This time, I have to agree with NTSB. I’ve seen too many results of drinking and driving. Usually, these results are shoveled off of the road and put in plastic bags. The solution is simple. Just like a owning and carrying a gun, you must assume the responsibility for your actions. Just don’t drink and drive.

    1. Please tell me that you don’t actually believe this has anything to do with them having any concern for anyone’s safety. This is about nothing more than making everyone a criminal and revenue generation. They just package it as “public” safety. Same as “if it will just save one child…”

      At BAC levels that low, depending on the toiletries that you use in morning to get ready for your day, if you get pulled over on your way to work and forced to do a breathalyzer, there’s a good possibility you’ll test drunk! Look at the ingredients in the personal care products that you use. There is alcohol or glycol in almost all shampoos, toothpaste, soap, conditioner, deodorant/anti-perspirant and most definitely in mouthwash and perfume/cologne. I know for a fact thru a friend that if you have an ignition interlock device on your car, and you gargle with Listerine, you will be waiting for 45 minutes to an hour before you’ll be able to start your car. Also, (and I’m sorry but I don’t remember the brand now) there is a roll-on anti-perspirant that will cause the same result.

      I agree 100% that people should take responsibility for there actions but, as we all here are fond of pointing out, under the common law, you can’t be charged if there is no victim. If someone chooses to drink and drive and causes an accident (of any kind) by all means throw the book at them. But assigning arbitrary BAC levels to determine criminality is a violation of your rights.

      And I say this as a person who has lost multiple family members as well as very close friends to DUI accidents.

    2. That’s idiotic one, two or even three drinks doesn’t affect most people’s ability to drive. Assuming responsibility for one’s actions shouldn’t include Big Brother arresting everyone.

    3. Laws against drunk driving shouldn’t allow for the prosecution of a person simply for having a certain number of drinks. That’s nothing but an excuse to put more people behind bars, where they can serve as slave labor for the big corporations that own “our” so-called “representatives.”

      Some people can handle a far higher blood-alcohol level than others without impairment. Some people on the roads drive worse sober than others do when wasted. That makes the current one-size-fits-all laws unjust.

      The only people who should be pulled over are those who are visibly impaired, e.g., weaving back and forth. It shouldn’t matter how many drinks you’ve had or what your BAC is; the important thing is how safe your driving is. That can be observed by anyone.

    4. What are you doing here? This is NOT a site for totalitarian collectivists like you. You clearly do not know anything about this subject and are emoting from your “feelings”. What a bunch of PAP!

      The AMA was chartered to determine when someone is too impaired to drive back in the 1930s. They determined the level was .15, where it stood for decades, until the advent of cultural Marxism and the cackling of overly emotional women. It is now nothing but a system for mammon extraction and getting otherwise law-abiding, innocent people into their corrupt system. Breathalyzers are totally inaccurate, roadside tests are designed to be failed and the cops use them to grow ever more draconian. STFU.

  2. It’s all about the profits. Not enough $$$$$$ coming into the state coffers so lets change the laws even more so we can get those $$$$$. You see this where moving violation tickets have gone from $50 too $171 over the past 15 years.

  3. Gov’t agencies don’t “convince” states to do anything. They just threaten to withhold federal monies until the states comply. That’s how we got the .08 national BAC level and how we got mandatory car insurance. They told the states “you either put these laws in place or we won’t give you your Federal Highway Funds.”

  4. 0.05-0.79% BAC <- That spread is so big it makes the stat irrelevant. If they are going to ruin your life for .05, how many breathalysers are accurate to .001?

    One drink does not effect all people the same way. Instead of using a magic number to make their jobs easy for them, how about we get back to if you are actually impaired or not?

  5. “The proposal would mean that a 150-pound man could get a DUI after two beers, while a 120-pound woman could get one after a single drink…”

    Not the 3.2% beers in Utah.

    “Ask yourselves, if lowering the BAC to 0.05% is a “preventative measure” and not scientifically proven, why are they doing it?”

    For the same reason they do everything else… MAMMON EXTRACTION.

  6. Utah? Really? Gee I thought all bogus money-making legislation began in Californication? (With some from NY, of course)… I know, I know…blame it on Mormons! 😉

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*