If you think the rule should be that only a .00000 bac is acceptable, I say argue for that. But being against any alcohol in a driver's bloodstream is not a good reason to support a .08 rule that is enforced by inaccurate equipment. The result will be that you have people who are in fact following the law, and who intend to follow the law, end up getting the new scarlet letters on their rapsheets.
Just have to be a bit pedantic today, but there are people who will register positive amounts of alcohol even if they haven't had a drop for months.
I'm almost the definition of a lightweight - I drink, on average, about four drinks a
year. I feel the effects of even one drink fairly heavily.
Still, 15 minutes to a half hour later and I'm fine.
The impairment an average person has after one drink* is generally so low that it's swamped by other differences like have they taken any cold medication, did they get a good nights sleep, are they worrying about a test, did they get into a fight with family/significant other, etc...
Having a solid level is good for criminal court systems - otherwise you can run into problems like with the cop who 20% of his arrests blew .000 - but he arrested them for DUI anyways(He'd just say that it was 'illegal drugs'). A majority of his cases ended up being thrown out or failing. He ended up suspended and resigning. What he used to do would be to follow people who left a bar/party and pop them for DUI - no matter what. I could of stopped at a bar to pick something up or talk to a friend(not drinking a drop), then leave, and he'd decide to arrest me for DUI while I'm in the parking lot.
It shouldn't be based purely on the officer's word. I know the BAC isn't perfect, but at least it can be measured.
Heck, my grandfather has occasionally had fun with the cops, he's handicapped and they've tried to get him for DUI a couple times as due to his handicaps he has no chance of passing a DUI test(he can barely walk as it is), and can't blow hard enough for the breath test. So they haul him in for a blood test - all the medical personnel in the county know him by name, and he knows them.
*I'd prefer this to be adjusted to body weight and sex, but ah well.
At this point, enforcement is so screwed up that people who are actually trying to sleep it off in their car can be arrested for DUI without even the engine running.
Truth.
If DUI were really about public safety, you would see cops hanging out at bars and giving voluntary breathalyser tests to people as they leave.
Actually, free rides home would be even better. Heck, there's bars that'll stick a mini-motorcycle in your trunk, have an employee drive you home, then use the motorcycle to get back to the bar.
Personally, I'd almost argue for taking a cab to the bar - that way you aren't tempted to drive home.
Right after this happened, for about six months, I made a knee jerk reaction. DUI penalties were all too lenient all of a sudden. The BAC should be lowered so ridiculously low the only way people could drink would be at home or if they had someone else drive them. The truth is though, it's not right to rake a whole bunch of other people over the coals just to get revenge on this piece of human filth. Come to think of it, even if such an effort to change the laws did succeed, it wouldn't even affect him, so the whole thing is asinine.
I've read somewhere that the vast majority of DUI related accidents have people far above .10, much less .08 or below. Part of the reason most states set it to that level is that studies couldn't find a statistically significant increase in accidents with BACs below that. IE they can't even be sure that it increases the risk of accidents. People get into accidents even stone cold sober. Much like how lung cancer happens even when people don't smoke, so you can't blame every case of a smoker getting lung cancer on the fact that they smoke.
