The .08 drinking and driving limit

[LSN80]

As we all know(at least, I hope so), the legal limit for driving with alcohol in one's system is .08. At one time, the actual limit for drinking and driving was .10 in many states, but was lowered in 1992 due to millions in lost wages, medical expenses, funeral costs, and insurance payouts due to injuries and deaths occuring due to alocohol related deaths just for those under the legal limit.

I know most of us are responsible, mature adults who wouldn't DREAM of driving with any alcohol in our systems, let alone at over the legal limit. To me, it's simply testing fate. All of us have a different tolerance for alcohol. For example, while I may be a habitual drinker who can create the illusion of driving safely at twice the legal limit, you may be unable to drive "safely" after one drink, even if you're far under the legal limit.

I haven't drank in six years, but while in graduate school, I drank heavily 5 nights a week. A week before graduating, some friends and I went to our usual spot, and I drank even more heavily then normal. I had built up quite the tolerance, and after receiving a call from a friend to meet her elsewhere, I stopped drinking for an hour, then attempted to drive to meet her. My vision blurry, my senses partially disabled, I swerved all over the road for about half a mile, until I was pulled over by cops. Although I was ostensibly drunk, I blew a .07, meaning I was under the legal limit. Though I was in no shape to drive, a hazard to others, they let me go. I could have killed someone half a mile later(I chose not to drive further and was picked up by a friend), but because I was within legal limits, I was allowed to drive further had I chose to.

So my question/point is this: Is there a valid argument to be made for banning people from driving with any alcohol in their system whatsoever? It's a much simpler solution, in my eyes. As I pointed out earlier, laws were changed in 1992 because of the millions in damages and lost wages paid out just due to "accidents" related to alcohol pertaining to those under the legal limits. There are some countries who already adopt the policy that driving with any alocohol in one's system is illegal, and I wonder if that's a policy that should be adopted worldwide. The pros vastly outweigh the cons in any aspect. It's much easier to simply get a designated driver then to tempt fate. .08 is such an ambiguous limit, and it's nearly impossible for any of us to tell what our BAL is when we get behind the wheel.

Wouldn't it be much simpler for states and countries to adopt a no tolerance(no alcohol in the system) policy when it comes to driving?

What are the pros and cons?

Do you have any personal experiences with drinking and driving? Any close calls, or run-ins with the law?

Any other thoughts on this topic are more then welcome and encouraged.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Wouldn't it be much simpler for states and countries to adopt a no tolerance(no alcohol in the system) policy when it comes to driving?

Simpler?.....yes, but probably too strict. Not only that people of different body sizes and "built-up tolerance" have different capacities to handle their booze, but I can't see busting a person for alcohol who had a glass of sherry 2 hours before getting behind the wheel and got stopped for speeding. (Ticket him for going too fast, of course, but don't cite him for having .0005 alcohol in his system).

I think the police officer has to have the power to determine whether to take the driver off the road. I'm uncomfortable with the incident you describe involving yourself; you knew the cop was correct in pulling you over, but since you blew less than .08, he let you get behind the wheel again. You were wise enough to call a friend, but not everyone would be, that's for sure. Yet, the law as written says the police have to let the guy go if he's below .08? I think the cop should have the discretion of stopping a person from driving if he finds their ability to drive has been impaired, even if he doesn't arrest them.

I recognize that leaving it to the cop's discretion is subject to.....well, the cop. They're individuals and they're not always going to be fair and equitable. For the most part, though, I think they would be and should serve as the last line between the rights of the driver in question.....and the rights of all the other drivers on the road that might be affected by the guy who's below the legal limit, yet plainly incapable of driving safely.

Then again, as someone who doesn't drive, I suppose all this is easy for me to say.

 

[ABMorales787]

I've had the "pleasure" of driving drunk, having a drunk drive for you and driving sober with a bunch of drunks before I simply said "fuck alcohol" all together. Personally, subjecting anyone potentially inebriated to a Field Sobriety Test to make sure they have some control is far more effective than them luckily blowing a 0.79 on the toximeter and then having "a tree jump out on them" right after.

 

[This Is My Name Thank You]

I have driven under many drugs. It was alcohol, weed, pills, mushrooms, k-pins and many others. It wasn't fun. It was the thought of waking up in the morning and going "how'd I get here?" Then get out of my room and stroll to the window to see if my car was parked in the driveway. It was scary thoughts. I am grateful I didn't hurt or kill anyone or myself.

My father used to drive under the influence a lot too. It was thoughts of am I going to die. Knowing the knowledge I know now it makes me sick. I personally believe that driving drunk/buzzed is something that should be taken seriously. It isn't cool for anyone to step behind the wheel even at a .08 level. To me the thing that should be is it should be like .06 or .05. I know crazy. It would save so many more lives as alcohol effects people differently. The only thing is, you are not going to stop anyone from driving under the influence. It is a sad thing, it really is.

 

[Slash-LN]

I've driven drunk a couple of times because I was the least drunk. Even if it wasn't very far. (To the store and back without a lot of traffic.) Luckily I made it there and back okay and never got pulled over. I was okay with it but now that I'm older I wouldn't do it. I don't drink anymore anyway.

I've been in the car with my brother after drinking and he's pretty much the most amazing driver ever. I felt totally safe with him. He didn't swerve or driver too fast/slow or anything.

I'm okay with people not being arrested for the 0.08 limit but I think the cops should make a judgement call. I used to work 3rd shift at a hotel and the cops here would bring people in to get a room if they deemed them a threat to drive. I know that isn't always an option though.

 

[Tastycles]

The difficulty in my mind isn't so much with there being a limit, it's that the differences in humans mean that alcohol consumption is different. Someone my size might be able to have two or three pints of beer and still be under the limit, while my 7 stone ex-girlfriend would have probably been over the limit after a half. By having a percentage limit, you're already introducing a confusion into the situation.

However, zero tolerance is not the answer, because there's lots of ways you could get an infinitesimal level of alcohol into the system that would cause you to fail a drink driving test, but why not have gradients in there? If you're up to 0.01, fine, that can be a misunderstanding. If you're between 0.01 and 0.08 make it an offence like speeding - not a serious misdemeanour, but something you might get points on your licence for, or whatever the equivalent to that in America is. Above that, you are knowingly taking a risk that should never be taken, and you should lose your licence. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Snitsky4GM]

I dabbled a little bit in the Criminal Justice program for about a year and a half while taking some courses at a community college and the measurement of .08 is pretty much where the no tolerance policy begins. An officer can cite someone with a DUI even if the suspect "blows" a .03, the officer just needs to be able properly articulate in their report as well as in court that the person was under the influence of a substance and unable to properly control their vehicle. If the officer can do that then it doesn't matter if the suspect's lawyer tries to pull the card that their client was below the legal limit.

Some people can drive really well even with a ton of alcohol in their system. The instructor for my criminal procedure class was a recent Illinois State Patrol retiree and he pulled a woman over who blew over .2 (for some reason .25 or .23 is sticking out in my mind). He didn't pull her over because she was swerving all over the road like one would expect for someone with that high of a BAC, he pulled her over because she was driving 20 mph over the speed limit. Her speech wasn't slurred and she passed the white line field sobriety test. The woman was what some people would classify as a functioning alcoholic and even though she passed the motor skills test she failed the eye test miserably.