Do you support changing the legal limit of intoxication

[Zyphlin]

Currently intoxication under the law is defined as .08 blood alcohol level. Due to some recent occurences I've begun to wonder if this should be changed.

On one hand, DUI's seem to be continually increasing in this country. Should we lower the definition of intoxication to something closer to .06 or .04? This way even a little alcohol is likely to put you over the legal limit of intoxication and thus people are more deterred from diving under any circumstances.

On the flip side, alcohol affects everyone seemingly at different rates. Would you instead be willing to change the definition to intoxication to where between .08 and say .12 the officer has discretion to consider you not-intoxicated due to a variety of tests?

Finally, do you think blood alcohol level should be used to determine "drunk in public" offenses, and do you think the definition of intoxication for those situations should be higher...say something like .16 or similar. Since its rather easy not to be "drunk" to an obnoxious level it seems making it illegal to be in public with the current legal limit counter productive.

What are your thoughts, do you think it would be helpful to change the definition of intoxication under the law?

 

[MaggieD]

Currently intoxication under the law is defined as .08 blood alcohol level. Due to some recent occurences I've begun to wonder if this should be changed.

On one hand, DUI's seem to be continually increasing in this country. Should we lower the definition of intoxication to something closer to .06 or .04? This way even a little alcohol is likely to put you over the legal limit of intoxication and thus people are more deterred from diving under any circumstances.

On the flip side, alcohol affects everyone seemingly at different rates. Would you instead be willing to change the definition to intoxication to where between .08 and say .12 the officer has discretion to consider you not-intoxicated due to a variety of tests?

Finally, do you think blood alcohol level should be used to determine "drunk in public" offenses, and do you think the definition of intoxication for those situations should be higher...say something like .16 or similar. Since its rather easy not to be "drunk" to an obnoxious level it seems making it illegal to be in public with the current legal limit counter productive.

What are your thoughts, do you think it would be helpful to change the definition of intoxication under the law?

I wouldn't mind a scientific and medical review of BAC levels. I don't think a DUI should be given at an officer's discretion, however. I don't think that's fair. A one-size-fits-all BAC level isn't perfect, but I think it's the best way to assert DUI or DWI since the penalties are so fierce.

Edit: If this is true, I would not change it:

With each drink consumed, a person’s blood alcohol concentration increases. Although outward appearances vary, virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and on-road research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drivers, are significantly impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, lane changing, judgment and divided attention. Decrements in performance for drivers at .08 BAC are on the order of 40-60% worse than when they are at .00 BAC. Research findings suggest that the most crucial aspect of impairment is the reduction in the ability to handle several tasks at once. This skill is precisely what driving a motor vehicle requires.

http://www.1800duilaws.com/dui-articles/what_is_08_bac.asp

I do know that Giant Noodle is now your biggest fan....;-)

 

[Cameron]

Currently intoxication under the law is defined as .08 blood alcohol level. Due to some recent occurences I've begun to wonder if this should be changed.

On one hand, DUI's seem to be continually increasing in this country. Should we lower the definition of intoxication to something closer to .06 or .04? This way even a little alcohol is likely to put you over the legal limit of intoxication and thus people are more deterred from diving under any circumstances.

Hmm . . . I guess I can't answer this question because I don't really know what .08 is and how drunk one actually must be to hit that mark. I definitely don't think the limit should be so low that people effectively can't drink at all when they drive somewhere for dinner. But at least in my own experience, I wouldn't feel comfortable driving after three drinks or so.

On the flip side, alcohol affects everyone seemingly at different rates. Would you instead be willing to change the definition to intoxication to where between .08 and say .12 the officer has discretion to consider you not-intoxicated due to a variety of tests?

No. I think it's important to consider in setting the limit that alcohol affects people at different rates, but I don't think giving officers that kind of discretion is a good idea.

Finally, do you think blood alcohol level should be used to determine "drunk in public" offenses, and do you think the definition of intoxication for those situations should be higher...say something like .16 or similar. Since its rather easy not to be "drunk" to an obnoxious level it seems making it illegal to be in public with the current legal limit counter productive.

I think as a general matter it makes sense that the level of intoxication should be higher for someone to be arrested simply for being out in public.

 

[Redress]

Hmm . . . I guess I can't answer this question because I don't really know what .08 is and how drunk one actually must be to hit that mark. I definitely don't think the limit should be so low that people effectively can't drink at all when they drive somewhere for dinner. But at least in my own experience, I wouldn't feel comfortable driving after three drinks or so.

Blood Alcohol Content Calculator - The Police Notebook

This might help. .08 is just over 2 beers in a short period of time, and just over 3 beers over an hour.

 

[MaggieD]

Blood Alcohol Content Calculator - The Police Notebook

This might help. .08 is just over 2 beers in a short period of time, and just over 3 beers over an hour.

I don't think that helps. In fact, I think it blurs the issue. The point isn't how much alcohol it takes to get to .08 -- the point is how much alcohol it takes to be impaired.

virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and on-road research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drivers, are significantly impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, lane changing, judgment and divided attention. Decrements in performance for drivers at .08 BAC are on the order of 40-60% worse than when they are at .00 BAC. Research findings suggest that the most crucial aspect of impairment is the reduction in the ability to handle several tasks at once. This skill is precisely what driving a motor vehicle requires.

 

[Redress]

I don't think that helps. In fact, I think it blurs the issue. The point isn't how much alcohol it takes to get to .08 -- the point is how much alcohol it takes to be impaired.

I don't argue the point you make, but was trying to give a concrete illustration to answer the question I posted. Most people can't relate to .08 BAC, but know what 3 beers in an hour makes them feel like. Yes, .08 will effect you, whether you know it or not and that is why I don't think changing the law is a good idea or needed. We have to set an arbitrary limit somewhere, and .08 seems like a good place. You can have a couple beers over dinner and be fine, but once it starts to impair you, it's time to draw the line.

 

[Cameron]

Blood Alcohol Content Calculator - The Police Notebook

This might help. .08 is just over 2 beers in a short period of time, and just over 3 beers over an hour.

That is helpful, thank you. According to this, I think the current limit is on the generous side of acceptable. I wouldn't be too upset if it moved down to .07, or maybe even .06, but I don't think it should go any lower than that, and really I wouldn't advocate changing it at all.

 

[roguenuke]

The research does suggest that .08 is a pretty good BAC to set the DUI charge at. And, I'd say that most policemen who would use discretion for those that are over this amount but appear to be able to drive, do so already.

Now, I don't agree with laws that charge a person with a DUI if they are in an accident but have a blood alcohol level less than .08 unless there is some sort of proof that the person actually was impaired and/or driving erratically prior to the accident. I don't think that it is fair to say that someone with a BAC of .02 or .03 who gets hit by a car head on should be charged with a DUI. A person who was extremely tired or a brand new driver would never get charged with anything in such a case, so why should the person who has a legal BAC, even to drive, be charged? I realize that nothing is absolute, but it really isn't possible to know if that small effect on judgement at those low BACs actually was the cause of the accident or not. And DUIs are serious.

As for being drunk in public, I don't really think this should be judged by BAC, but rather behavior. And, if there is a BAC limit that must be placed on it, it certainly should be a lot higher than .08.

 

[earthworm]

If the police are intelligent, sensitive, well trained, then, yes, they should have more descrection in these matters..
IMO, they are the ones who should have a strong voice in this.
And this is from an old drunk...lol....sober, 99.9% for 40 years.
The "other" vote for me as well.

 

[Cephus]

Personally, I think you should restrict driving if there is *ANY* level of measurable drugs or alcohol in the system, if they blow anything above 0.0, fine them and above a certain limit, maybe 0.6 or 0.8, arrest them.

 

[American]

Personally, I think you should restrict driving if there is *ANY* level of measurable drugs or alcohol in the system, if they blow anything above 0.0, fine them and above a certain limit, maybe 0.6 or 0.8, arrest them.

That's plainly overkill, we still have liberties in this country.

 

[Cephus]

That's plainly overkill, we still have liberties in this country.

You still have responsibilities as well. Driving is not a right, never has been, never will be, it is a privilege. You can drink all you want, you just can't get behind the wheel of a car, just like you can fire your firearm all you want, you just can't do it into a crowd. There are legal restrictions on how you can do things, like it or not. Once someone is impaired, they lose the privilege of driving a car. If people knew that they could be fined, even for being under the legal limit, more people would think twice about getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking.

 

[American]

You still have responsibilities as well. Driving is not a right, never has been, never will be, it is a privilege. You can drink all you want, you just can't get behind the wheel of a car, just like you can fire your firearm all you want, you just can't do it into a crowd. There are legal restrictions on how you can do things, like it or not. Once someone is impaired, they lose the privilege of driving a car. If people knew that they could be fined, even for being under the legal limit, more people would think twice about getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking.

I hope your perfect my friend, because even a Puritan can make a mistake.

 

[Ikari]

maybe 0.6 or 0.8, arrest them.

You won't have to arrest someone with a 0.6 BAC....they'll be dead.

 

[Ikari]

As to the topic. I think that it should all be raised. 0.08 is very low, and actually DWAI kicks in at 0.05. I also disagree with public drunkenness laws. These are arbitrarily applied laws, not uniformly enforced. Essentially if someone is being a nuisance or something, you have something more to charge them on. But if they're doing something wrong, then they're doing something wrong and there can be intervention (like fighting, or property destruction, etc.). If someone is just drunk walking around, I don't see there being any legitimate means to punish them.

But as for people thinking drunk driving is oh so horrible and we have to have the punishments we have, how about other forms of distracted driving? Texting while driving is worse than drinking and driving, cellphones and driving in general are on the same level. Applying makeup, messing with the radio, etc. all produce effects on our ability to drive and endanger others. Should all those things have the same punishments as DUI?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

it went from .10 to .08 for money collecting issues.

 

[Zyphlin]

it went from .10 to .08 for money collecting issues.

So does that mena you think it should remain at .08, raise it back to .10, or lower it to .06 for even more money?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

So does that mena you think it should remain at .08, raise it back to .10, or lower it to .06 for even more money?

I think .10 is more than adequate. However, if you can't handle yourself at .08, and that is the case with some folks, the officer still should as they do now even if you blow a .06 to charge you. video evidence should be required.

 

[Ikari]

I think .10 is more than adequate. However, if you can't handle yourself at .08, and that is the case with some folks, the officer still should as they do now even if you blow a .06 to charge you. video evidence should be required.

This is reasonable. Reckless driving is reckless driving, and I think in the end when it comes to drunk driving or any form of distracted driving; this is the functional effect we are looking for. Perhaps we don't need all these other excessive laws when we already have reckless driving laws in place. But as it stands, I do think it should go back to .10. I also think we should get rid of DUI check points. I don't see how it's right to pull people over and question them when they have done nothing wrong. INstead they should patrol and look for signs, such as speeding and weaving and it should ALL be backed up by video evidence. Otherwise the cop can just pull you over anyway and make something up later.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The BAC limit for drunk driving should be raised back to 0.10, but the tolerance for public intoxication or "drunk and disorderly" behavior also needs to be lowered considerably.

 

[Cephus]

I hope your perfect my friend, because even a Puritan can make a mistake.

Considering the fact that I haven't had a drop of alcohol in over 20 years, yes, I am.

 

[Cephus]

You won't have to arrest someone with a 0.6 BAC....they'll be dead.

Great, that's all we need, zombie drunk drivers!