this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2026
35 points (74.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

49032 readers
574 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aburrito@sh.itjust.works 81 points 1 week ago (5 children)

In many states, like NY anything above 0 is illegal. Above 0.08 is criminal.

4 12oz beers is NOT small, be responsible.

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The answer for why is MADD and the reason it's illegal to drive above zero is MADD. They lobby hard for zero tolerance whatsoever. They want the criminal limit to be zero as well. Once they get that they'll try to ban cars entirely.

BTW I don't drink so I don't necessarily care. My criticism is about the goalpost moving of a successful non profit after it gets what it wants. You change the goal to keep your org and funding. They'll never ever go "mission accomplished, let's wind this down"...

[–] aburrito@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is one of those “idk man I think it depends”. I think the average median person probably should not drive, let alone drink and operate 2 ton vehicles near where people walk. But the law is bs and clearly isn’t nearly effective enough for what the policy it sounds like they advertise for. But on the surface level I’m like 🤷‍♀️ maybe it should be lower, but everything related to the enforcement of the law is so fucked idek

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

My gripe is MADD's original sole goal was getting a legal limit for drunk driving and an appropriate consequence for it. They succeeded, and each time they succeed they change what their mission is. Here in Canada they're part of the reason liquor stores close so early or aren't open on weekends in different provinces.

Again, I don't drink so whatever, but my complaint is they just don't stop and go "ok we won let's shut it down" instead they change the goal and keep pushing harder. I think they might reach a crisis point if they manage to prohibit alcohol again, but I guess then they just start lobbying for harsher laws on other drugs.

[–] Bougie_Birdie@piefed.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Liquor stores being closed on the weekend always bothered me. It sounds like a minor inconvenience, but if you're a hardcore alcoholic then being cut off from your supply for a weekend can kill you.

It feels like a thorny thing too, because like, I get their mission. Drunk driving kills people, so campaigning to stop people from getting killed feels noble. But banning substances has been proven time and time again to cause more harm than good because if people can't get their fix safely, then they'll get it unsafely.

A bit of a tangent, but I think about people who campaign against needle exchange programs and injection sites. They probably believe they're doing good because it's very easy to see how drugs can ruin lives. I think it's also a natural but naive outlook to think that if your city is facing a drug problem then these programs can be seen as encouraging drug use.

But shutting down these programs doesn't fix the reasons why people struggle with addiction. A person will continue to get their fix, even if that means they have to share needles, even if it means injecting in a public bathroom or at the library. Shutting down those programs makes the drug problems more visible, more dangerous, and can lead to a public health crisis. Not to mention being away from medical staff makes overdoses deadlier.

Back to booze, you can look at the Temperance movement and the Prohibition era as a fine example of when things go too far. There you had people who thought they were doing the right thing - but their actions indirectly (and sometimes directly) lead to more deaths.

Do I think MADD is going down the same road? Today, probably not. But if they keep shifting the goalposts, then who knows where their future leads?

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah I agree completely, and I also agree with MADDs original mission: make tangible consequences for driving drunk.

They achieved it, and like you say having stores closed on a weekend means an alcoholic might turn to isopropyl alcohol, washing alcohol, hand sanitizer .etc it isn't going to make them stop... If anything it shifts the burden onto our already overtaxed healthcare system as alcoholics destroy their bodies even more.

Edit: it also turns out most provinces have moved away from doing this, since most of them closed on at least Sunday.

[–] aburrito@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

Thanks for more of the background esp with Canada. Yeah fuck them

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

The mission was never close to accomplished, and more people are driving high on pot.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

change the goal to keep your org and funding

This right here. The anti-smoking groups dried up as soon as they got everything they wanted and more, it's a cautionary tale for other "public safety" activist groups. Dog catching the car and all that.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Why does even-ness matter? Just because our number system is decimal doesn't mean nature fits into that pattern nicely.

at 0.08 you can be measurably tested to have worse reaction capability, so that's where they set the limit.

4 beers at 12 oz isn't exactly 0.08, that's just approximately what it takes in the average person. Some people will be more, some less. Time and other factors affect it too.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It shouldn't be 0.0%, but 0.08% is quite generous. At 0.02%, it is clearly detectable with equipment but you aren't likely to notice. Some people also naturally have a constant BAC in the 0.01% range. At 0.05%, you definitely feel it and are twice as likely to cause an accident than sober.

4 beers in an hour is a significant amount. People who drink that much and drive are not hardasses. They are murderers.

Get off the road.

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (5 children)

It should most definitely NOT be .00. That would lead to massive abuse by the police as having a sip of cold medicine could land you a dui.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 21 points 1 week ago (7 children)

The safe amount of alcohol science recommend for an adult is zero.

Alcohol is one of the few substances for which these is proven evidence that any quantity is bad and will cause progressive and irreversible damage to you.

I do drink albeit not much, like a few times a year, so I am not against alcohol at all, it's your body your choice.

But given the above, I am only happy if the tolerance on driving under any alcohol influence at all is punished

[–] VanRado@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is an answer to a question OP didn't ask. They were asking for a descriptive answer to the driving limit, not a normative opinion of what you think the limit should be.

Also your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. (I could be wrong; but it really doesn't matter anyway considering the first paragraph of my response)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Karmanopoly@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Mother Against Drunk Driving decided all of it.

Nobody can defend drunk driving, but the fact you give up your rights during a stop should make you angry.

If you get charged with any other crime you are allowed to talk to a lawyer except in drunk driving. You are tried and convicted on the side of the road and the evidence they use to convict you (your breath) isn't preserved.. it just blows away in the wind.

Nobody should be drunk driving but we still need to change the way we handle suspected drunk driver's

[–] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that if they find a person drunk they have to take that person to a hospital to get a blood test and accurately gauge the alcohol percentage, the test also stands as proof.

[–] Karmanopoly@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

If you were accused of murdering and taken to the hospital for a blood test with a lawyer present people would lose their minds

But suspected drunk drivers it happens all the time without a lawyer present

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

How many other crimes are directly defined with a time-sensitive impairment?

If they allowed you to both call a lawyer and wait for them to arrive you could arrange for your lawyer to be a) 2+hrs away, b)alseep or c)any other time delaying tactic.

I agree I don't like the status quo, but if you have a reasonable alternative that still allows them to catch people who are drunk driving, I'm all ears.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's hard to say there was one specific act that caused it because each state has its own legal limit laws, but

From before 2000 to 2004 Mothers Against Drunk Driving protested, rallied, and lobbied to decrease the limit from between 0.1 to 0.15 down to 0.08 and federal congress passed an act to withhold 10% of transportation funding from any state which refused to comply.

The idea behind the movement is this: if you drank any alcohol, you should strongly consider not driving at all. "Buzzed driving is drunk driving". Generally if people aren't pressured as such then they will judge for themselves whether they think they're safe to drive, and drunks are horrible judges.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (4 children)

When I was a kid it was 0.10%. And I think it was pretty well attested by a lot of different studies that that was too high, so MADD succeeded in lobbying to get it dropped lower.

And you think 4 beers is "small" for the purposes of driving? I know some people have pretty strong tolerances, but there are definitely people I know who shouldn't be driving after two. Maybe even one. Remember, you don't have to be completely sloshed to be a danger to others. You just have to be a little bit slower, a little bit less observant, a little bit less in control of your muscles, a little bit more inclined to take unnecessary risks. Your body just has to respond a little bit differently than you're used to. You just need to be a little bit more likely to nod off.

[–] zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

If 4 beers produces 0.08% (I have no idea if this is accurate), then it should probably be lowered by at least half as driving after 4 beers seems like a quite a bad idea.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] square@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It was .10 pretty much everywhere when I was a kid, .08 became a thing little by little during the 90s, I think. MADD, mothers against drunk driving, is the reason behind this and many of the things surrounding drunk driving some find too restrictive or punitive. They were a very effective lobbying group.

[–] Patnou@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Even though their founder is or was a drunk and caught dwi after dwi while heading MADD. Kind of seems the irony speaks for itself and that no one did their background check.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What is the entire post, honestly?

Were you actually trying to get an answer to the question you originally posted? Or do you have some bizarre pro-dui agenda to push.

This whole post reads like someone who is upset that got caught driving at .09.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

IIRC, it used to be 0.10, but was lowered to 0.08 because some studies (and maybe some advocacy groups) found out that there was significant impairment at 0.08 BAC.

The number really shouldn't be round. It should be the number where 99.999% of people are not too impaired to drive a car.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Driving simulation studies show impairment far below 0.08.

0.08 is pretty fucking drunk.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

TBF, I think most drivers are impaired at 0.00.

It's been really bad on the roads lately.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The US also doesn't label alcohol content effectively - % alone is not helpful.

In Australia for example, all booze containers tell you how many "standard drinks" they contain. 1 standard drink is the average amount of alcohol a body can process in an hour. If you have no more than 1-2 standard drinks in you, you should still pass a breathalyzer, depending on weight/gender.

A ~5% beer can is ~1.5 standard drinks. So if you drank 4x beers over the last 3 hours, best spend another hour drinking water before you drive:

4 beers x 1.5 = 6 standard drinks. - 3 hours = 3 standard drinks

[–] qupada@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago

Even what is called "1 standard drink" isn't standardised across countries though.

For you, and also us in NZ it's 10g of ethanol (approximately 12ml), in the UK it's 8g. The US does in fact have a standard measure too, but 14g (and I don't know enough to know how widely it's actually used).

So as well as the standard drinks per bottle, the rule-of-thumb has to differ between countries too.

[–] Highlow@piefed.social 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Is it really? People get popped for 0.00 and the cops just say they must be on drugs. After spending thousands in lawyer and court costs it gets dropped but you already went through the same (or worse) bullshit than if you were actually shitfaced.

Meanwhile cops drive drunk all the time.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Yep had uncle who was a cop. Rode with him once he bought pack of beer and pop one open on the way home. I asked what would happen if he got pulled over? He show his badge. Fucker wasn't even in his justification. Guess being a cop gave him immunity. That was in the 90's.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] darreninthenet@piefed.social 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Some countries take it further and anything above a tiny amount (like 0.02) will get you a criminal record... although usually at such small amounts it's just a fine and/or points on your licence, using bans and prison sentences for higher levels (like the US levels you describe).

This to me is the right approach - it's long been proven that even regular drinkers suffer an impact on reaction times and anticipation with even a small amount of alcohol, so it really should be zero tolerance. I can't think of any other situation where you'd be allowed to control a two ton piece of metal at 60+ mph around other people, houses, cars etc without having proper control.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's pretty wild really. In my country, it's pretty "normal" to drink 2 beers and then drive home. However, if I drink a sip of beer before work, I'd be immediately fired, because it'd be unsafe for me to have any kind of alcohol in my blood.

So we acknowledge that even tiny amounts of alcohol can impair you to the point of being a danger, unless you're driving a 2 ton heavy machine at 130 km/h on your way home...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] farmgineer@nord.pub 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'd rather it be zero. Walk, public transit, or taxi your way to drinks. Stay in a hotel.

I say this as someone who grew up driving home from the club and such when I most likely should not have been. I know a lot of people who got OMVI/DUI/DWI/whateverYourJurisdictionCallsIt and nearly lost my bandmate.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Get ready to face DUI charges when you take cough medicine, eat some overripe fruit, or have some yogurt, among other things. Trace amounts of alcohol exist in a number of foods, so you could easily fail a 0.0 test by simply eating breakfast.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I recently tried to plan a night out in "the city" and was looking for a hotel since I would like to have a few drinks. I can't believe how stupid prices are.

A shitty motel is like $400 a night, so you would have to hire a cab already to drive you to a cheaper hotel like 15-20 minutes away.

Nicer hotels are going like $600-$800 a night.

How on earth does anyone afford a vacation for prices like that?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

2 reasons, remembered from a lawyers lecture on the subject at uni, years ago, in the UK.

  1. Some people produce small amounts of alcohol in their gut. It's generally not much (more becomes auto brewery syndrome) but not zero. This can blip the test up slightly, even when they haven't drunk.

  2. The awkward fact that a small amount of alcohol actually improves driving. It's somewhere between 1/4 and 3/4 pint of beer. It's also the reason alcohol is considered a performance enhancing drug in some olympic sports.

The limit is set high enough that there is no arguing these points in a court. It also covers the residual alcohol in people's systems the morning after. It's well into the point where all but the heaviest alcoholic will definitely be impaired. That lets them use blood alcohol as a proxy for impaired driving due to alcohol.

On a side note. I know someone who blew red on the breathalyser. He knew something was wrong, since he has been teetotal for 20 years. He got arrested, only for the blood test to show 0.0. The police were quite confused, but let him go. It turned out, he had (unthinkingly) eaten a liqueur chocolate before being pulled over. It was enough to mess up the breathalyser.

load more comments
view more: next ›