State Senate Passes Tougher DUI Laws

[nathanm]

Actually there is scientific basis for .08.  Motor skills and judgement are impaired at even lower levels.

There is not a significant impairment (more than driving home at the end of a boring work day, anyway) at .08. It's purely revenue generation. However, as you note, different levels of blood alcohol affect each individual in a widely varying manner. Yet another reason .08 as an absolute standard makes no sense.

They should be able to throw you in the clink and take away your license for impaired driving with any amount of alcohol or even no alcohol in your system. And it should be up to them to prove in a court of law that you were actually dangerously impaired. Let's not forget that kids caught with any detectable alcohol in their bloodstream are treated as if they were drunk as a skunk behind the wheel. That's just messed up.

Yeah, it sucks that being a police officer is hard work. That doesn't mean that we should take away people's liberty just to make their job easier.

[Conan71]

There is not a significant impairment (more than driving home at the end of a boring work day, anyway) at .08. It's purely revenue generation. However, as you note, different levels of blood alcohol affect each individual in a widely varying manner. Yet another reason .08 as an absolute standard makes no sense.

They should be able to throw you in the clink and take away your license for impaired driving with any amount of alcohol or even no alcohol in your system. And it should be up to them to prove in a court of law that you were actually dangerously impaired. Let's not forget that kids caught with any detectable alcohol in their bloodstream are treated as if they were drunk as a skunk behind the wheel. That's just messed up.

Yeah, it sucks that being a police officer is hard work. That doesn't mean that we should take away people's liberty just to make their job easier.

This is a topic I unfortunately know far too much about from seeking out too many answers after my brother was killed by someone else's carelessness.  One of the few areas I consider myself an expert.  .08 isn't arbitrary.  It may not seem fair to some people, but it's not an arbitrary figure.

The reason the law is written the way it is is to react to those who experience more impairment at lower BAC.  Don't even go there on "liberty".  How much liberty does the victim of a drunk driver now enjoy?

[Red Arrow]

You'd have to call the cop's mother something nasty for them to take you downtown for something like that though.

Don't bet your driver's license on it.

[Red Arrow]

This is a topic I unfortunately know far too much about from seeking out too many answers after my brother was killed by someone else's carelessness.  One of the few areas I consider myself an expert.  .08 isn't arbitrary.  It may not seem fair to some people, but it's not an arbitrary figure.

The reason the law is written the way it is is to react to those who experience more impairment at lower BAC.  Don't even go there on "liberty".  How much liberty does the victim of a drunk driver now enjoy?

Any number is arbitrary since alcohol affects us all differently.  Got some statistics that show that .08 is a better number that .10, .09, .07, .06....?  You have my sympathy for your brother but aside from prohibiting any alcohol level at all, any number will be arbitrary.  I believe I have heard that .02 is or at least was the number for airline pilots. 

[Red Arrow]

There is massively overwhelming evidence and experience and education and discourse in our society about the effects of driving impaired - whether 0.08 or 0.1, such that when one does drive impaired, yes, it is with intent.  One does know.  And one does intend.

What is it that you don't understand about the word "impaired"?  One more time, no excuse, 100% preventable, but I disagree with "intent".

[Breadburner]

Money grab.....

[Conan71]

Any number is arbitrary since alcohol affects us all differently.  Got some statistics that show that .08 is a better number that .10, .09, .07, .06....?  You have my sympathy for your brother but aside from prohibiting any alcohol level at all, any number will be arbitrary.  I believe I have heard that .02 is or at least was the number for airline pilots. 

Apparently you missed the point in my prior posts.  .08 was designed to protect against the lowest common denominator.  You'd be far more likely to be killed by some cheerleader from Union HS who just had her first three beers than you would by me after three beers.

.08 was designated after years of research.  I'll gladly post stats when I'm in my office tomorrow.

[Red Arrow]

Apparently you missed the point in my prior posts.  .08 was designed to protect against the lowest common denominator.  You'd be far more likely to be killed by some cheerleader from Union HS who just had her first three beers than you would by me after three beers.

.08 was designated after years of research.  I'll gladly post stats when I'm in my office tomorrow.

I didn't miss your point.  That 105 lb cheer leader with 3 (real) beers would probably be over .08.  It happens a lot quicker than many think.  If you are going for lowest common denominator, you will probably have to go lower than .08.  I remember my grandmother who hardly ever drank, got silly after one drink.  And that's my point, an arbitrary number is not going to protect the innocent unless that number is 0.00.

[Hoss]

I didn't miss your point.  That 105 lb cheer leader with 3 (real) beers would probably be over .08.  It happens a lot quicker than many think.  If you are going for lowest common denominator, you will probably have to go lower than .08.  I remember my grandmother who hardly ever drank, got silly after one drink.  And that's my point, an arbitrary number is not going to protect the innocent unless that number is 0.00.

Here's something funny.  Some friends of mine tried a test some time back, with a breathalyzer and a Friday night we had nothing better planned.

I sat down and started drinking beers.  After about two hours I had a little over a pitcher of beer (32 oz typically, and it was typical Oklahoma 3.2 or less coming from the draught).  As soon as I realized I'd finished a pitcher, I blew into the breathalyzer.

It registered a .03.

The same friend of mine, similar build, maybe 20 lbs lighter than me, had about the same amount.  He registered a .10, and I knew he was impaired.  I felt a little buzzed, but all I could manage was a .03.   We measured three times, I always blew .03, he blew .10, .10, .09.

Now, for disclosures sake, the breathalyzer was one you could find on any sundries website, but the mfg claimed it was accurate.  It wasn't cheap either for a handheld version ($75).

I'm just stating that if the same technology is used in the field units, there can be a HUGE discrepancy from one person to the next.  I felt pretty buzzed, enough so that I knew I shouldn't be driving.  None of us did, save for one, who was the DD.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You want studies?  Ok, here is some stuff to stew on.
What it boils down to is that a typical 150 lb male with two drinks per hour will "typically" be at .04.  And exhibit noticeable symptoms of impairment.  I am at 200+, and don't drink very often at all - almost never.  And two drinks in an hour is very noticeable to me.  I guess if I drank 3 or 4 drinks a day, I might feel like I could "handle my liquor" - even though I really couldn't.

So the law already "spots" you a 50% edge when drinking by going to the .08 level.  You really ARE starting to be affected at half that.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa25.htm

And to add to the illumination of 'urban myths', the most pervasive on the topic is that a fat guy like me can "handle my booze" better than a little girl, may not be all that valid.  It is more about absorption - goes to blood alcohol level - rather than metabolism - how long you are impaired.  Metabolism is very slow compared to absorption.  Hoss, your story illustrates this clearly.  The two of you are very different in metabolism rate, even though weights are not that much different.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa35.htm

The denial in this thread is reminiscent of discussions about smoking, with smokers denying that smoking causes second hand effects.  

Bottom line;  0.08 gives EVERYONE plenty of room to catch a buzz without getting tagged.  It is NOT arbitrary, or capricious and IS backed by plenty of research.

And it is definitely intent.

[Red Arrow]

And it is definitely intent.

We can quibble forever about numbers.

I have still never met anyone who said "I intend to kill someone on the way home tonight."  They have always said something along the line of "I can handle it."

[heironymouspasparagus]

Exactly.  The same thing.

There is no relevant quibble about numbers that I (or likely most here) can contribute to.  There is massive information available that takes all the quibble out of it.

[Red Arrow]

Exactly.  The same thing.

There is no relevant quibble about numbers that I (or likely most here) can contribute to.  There is massive information available that takes all the quibble out of it.

OK, post them.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Just did a little while ago.  Check the 9:18 pm post.

[custosnox]

And it is definitely intent.

When someone gets behind the wheel and believs they are fine to drive, even if an outside person can clearly tell they are not, that is obviously not intent, since they intend to drive fine.  Saying that driving impaired in such a situation is intent is like saying all these idiots out on the road that can't drive yet think they can and get into wrecks everyday do so with intent simply because they lack any real driving skill. 

in·tent    /ɪnˈtɛnt/ 
[in-tent]
 
–noun
1. something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.
2. the act or fact of intending, as to do something: criminal intent.
3. Law . the state of a person's mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object.
4. meaning or significance.