Top | Register | Preferences | Suggest Discussion | Discussion Policy | Log In

Discussion group:  Denver's 7 EditorialsTop   Discussion group:  Denver's 7 Editorials Denver's 7 Editorials    Discussion Topic: Don't Let Coloradans Lose Federal Money That We Need For Our Roads Don't Let Coloradans Lose Federal Money That We Need For Our Roads

<< previous (newer) discussion

Moderated by dennews   Reply to this DiscussionAdd to this Discussion  
Don't Let Coloradans Lose Federal Money That We Need For Our Roads
T O P I C Discussion Started: 01-16-2001, 11:24 AM Add to the Discussion
New federal law wants every state to have an open-container law and set their blood-alcohol limits at .08. Colorado currently complies with neither. (Read Full Editorial)

If the standards aren't met by 2007, it could cost the state $50 million in federal highway construction money over the next seven years.

Should Colorado's reduce its blood-alcohol limit from .10 to .08? And does the state need an state open-container law?

View Messages: [newest first] | [oldest first]
Gunny1946 09-21-2006, 5:34 PM Add to the Discussion
Take this one down. It is moot. Colorado now has both.

rainman77 10-08-2003, 2:24 AM Add to the Discussion
That is Blackmail. Besides it is OUR state that give's the federal goverment our money first, only to have it returned back with 20 to 50 cents taken out of it. Tenth amendment.

If we had a dollar for every dollar we gave out, we would be better off. Do the math

Who is afraid of the big bad wolf?

sincerly, Rainman

1265hunter 11-19-2002, 8:05 PM Add to the Discussion
We need not to change a law that is effective in reducing drunk drivers for being on the road.As well as reducing the fatalities that happen each year.Thats why they made cabs and destingated drivers. Colorado roads are the worst of any state i've seen in a long time.

R.N.ARVADA 09-05-2001, 12:27 PM Add to the Discussion
I agree 100% with the two responses so far.

They both talked about constitutional rights.

My question is, What about out 4th admendment rights regarding Colorado's "HEAT IS ON" campaign?

This would be a popular dicussion.

lasker 02-08-2001, 2:39 PM Add to the Discussion
There are two issues here: 1. changing the DUI limit and 2. retain federal funds. Do we simply white wash the personal constitutional issues involved in enforcing DUI laws for money? That has been the unwaivering path taken in the past so why change now. I can give you a good reason: DUI enforcement has had little to no effect on the rate of drunk driving fatalities. The fatality rate attributed to drunk driving has been going down at around 2% per year (sometimes less, sometimes more) since the NHTSA started keeping statistics. The increases in enforcement and lowering BAC levels have had NO impact. Think about it, the vast majority of DUIs are against drivers that have not been in an accident, all they were guilty of was alcohol on their breath. While you can make a correlation between getting drunk and motor coordination skills, you can't make the same correlation with 0.10 BAC and an automobile accident. They don't go any where near hand-in-hand. After all, the NHTSA stats show that 80% of drivers involved 'alcohol-related' fatalities are below 0.10 BAC, and 75% are totally sober! So, setting limits to 0.08% BAC does absolutely nothing except violate more drivers constitutional rights. I say forget the federal money, not just with this issue, but with any issue.

s.layer 01-29-2001, 1:07 AM Add to the Discussion
Don't you just love it when the government holds the tax money paid by citizens hostage? The government isn't ordering Colorado to reduce the standard for legal intoxication. That would be a violation of states rights. Instead, they'll just with hold tax money already paid by Coloradan's until the state becomes reasonable. After all, Daddy - oops I mean government knows best. Why don't we use some common sense to deal with the problem of DWI? If we were serious about this social ill, then we would become more practical about enforcing drunk driving laws. How about permanent revocation of driving privaleges along with appropriate prison sentences upon the FIRST offense; not the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th offense. We have these problems with DUI because we are not serious about the punishment that these offenders so richly deserve. We also do not treat the consumption of alcohol in a mature manner in this country as a whole.

Truthfully and sincerely, Steven Layer

Page 1 of 1 << Prev Page | Next Page >>