The American Spectator

Tyrone| 5.12.10 @ 6:30AM

This article is long overdue and makes great sense for me. Thank you!

This phenomenon is also the result of an over lawyered society and the accompanying social services- judicial industrial complex drumming up new business, all with your tax dollars. Every one of these new DWI convicts needs a lawyer and of course rehab and counseling which requires jobs and tax dollars for the legions of graduates who failed to learn a real subject in college and went into psychology and social work in order to live out their fantasies of controlling others lives.

I have grown weary of all the insufferable busybodies in America that drew inspiration from our treasured Sixties era left wing baby boomers to "make a difference". I hope all of these dying hippes and crusaders for the public health and safety are abused by the generation X and Y kids who must take care of them in the old age homes after they have gone childless and bankrupted the nation for their own entitlements and left nothing for succeeding generations but high taxes and a sclerotic, moribund economy due to all of the unpaid obligations the Baby boomers have foisted on everyone else.

The worst part is the "Do as I say and not as I did attitude. I was there. Most of these MADD types were out drinking and driving with abandon when they were young. Now that they have children, its wet blanket time for everyone!

Paula Taylor| 5.12.10 @ 10:02AM

Leave it up to the Far-Right to attack-- in a typical knee-jerk reaction-- Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

I, a liberal Democrat, do not want anyone who has consumed one beer--yes, I said ONE beer--to get behind the wheel. Why? Because just one beer will diminish their judgment and reaction time.

And I thank God for MADD, and I support them each year with a generous contribution.

Otis, my man!| 5.12.10 @ 10:16AM

Paula,

I'll bet I drive better drunk than you drive sober.

You are the Carrie Nation type MADD person the author is referring to.

Cheers!

derekcrane| 5.12.10 @ 10:20AM

And you, as a liberal Democrat, would be aghast that we jail the repeat offenders who are the real problem on the road. Habitual drunk drivers whose BAC regularly exceeds .10 should be permanently removed and given a safe haven in some remote jail. The light and moderate drinkers are not the problem.

Aquanomics| 5.12.10 @ 10:35AM

I'll drink to that! Lib Dem Paula will be the one talking on her cell; or texting, listening to the radio, chatting heatedly with her fellow liberal car companions, maybe even applying makeup on the commute.

In short, engaging in the myriad distracting, yet sober, activities drivers (sadly) engage in.

Paula, please put both hands on the wheel, turn off the radio, drop the cell, zip your lips and drive away from here.

KC| 5.13.10 @ 1:10PM

I just joined D. A. M. M....Drunks Against Mad Mothers. Thanks Paula for talking my into it.

jcoff| 5.12.10 @ 10:26AM

Hey Paula? I bet you drive while talking on your cell phone. I bet you drive while texting on your cell phone. I bet you fiddle with the radio while you are driving. You are a multi-tasker remember! My advice to you is to SHUT YOUR FKing PIE HOLE. What a poor excuse for a vage

WJ| 5.12.10 @ 10:30AM

Where is your objective (I said objective) evidence that this "impairment" after one beer leads to a greater number of accidents??

PT, you just asserting this as fact does NOT make it so.

And if ANY diminishment of judgment and/or reaction time is to be the criteria, I propose outlawing ALL cell phones in cars, all children, all radios and CD players, all other passengers, because these items lead to a reduction (even if it is the most miniscule that is possibly measured by human timing) in judgment and reaction time!

Eric Cartman| 5.12.10 @ 10:50AM

Can't ya just hear the high-pitch whine coming from Paula's blowhole?

Paula Taylor: Proud to be the Nanny, Democrat fussbudget. The Modern Day Carrie Nation! The Liberal tek, tsker, waging her bony finger at you for having a beer with your dinner and driving home - or even having a nice evening out with your wife. Maybe a glass of wine or margarita during appetizers. She will see you across the room and become Super Liberal Ahole! Scolding you for your fried calamari, measuring the salt on your chips, and exhaling the Super Liberal Gasp for having a beer or two on your first date; "Don't you know calamari is fattening and the SALT! You should be ashamed! Haven't you heard what Our Dear Leader, The Magnificent Obama , is trying to do with health and health care?"

You: Doesn't he smoke?

Paula: Shut up! You Nazi! Glenn Beck Nazi! And you are drinking a BEER? I suppose you drove here?

You: Didn't Obama have a Beer Summit?

Paula: DOUBLE SHUT UP! He's the Dear Leader! You Nazi! You Rush Limbaugh Nazi! He has every right to have a beer, trying to mend fences with a racist cop and the Greatest Back Professor Ever, Ever. But you are drinking and then driving home two hours later after eating all that greasy, salty food.

You: But, the professor screamed racism where there wasn't any and caused a big fuss. Then they drank a beer without eating anything and sent on their way. So weren't they drunk and driving home? And should the President run the country after having beer? Isn't that more dangerous?

Paula: SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! You Right Wing Hater! Bush lied and people died! Bush drove drunk, too! No one should ever drink anything ever and drive ANYWHERE! Millions of children are killed every year by people driving after one beer! But I forgot! You Right Wing Nazis don't care about children and are only out for Big Alcohol! But we will soon run the entire government and will be voting out EVERY Republican!

You: But 't you Liberals are losing you asses in every election so far. Don't ya think people are sick of aholes like you? And you already do run the entire government - so why don't you just outlaw driving after even 1 beer?

Paula: I see I cannot have a civil conversation with you. Good-day, Sir. You have given me a headache. I need my Medical Marijuana. I must leave now. The marijuana place closes in 20 minutes and if I leave now, with traffic, I'll just be able to drive there with minutes to spare. Let's go, kids. Mommy needs her medicine.

Paula| 5.12.10 @ 11:23AM

The reaction and judgement time argument is silly. What is important is whether taking one drink or three increases the liklihood of accidents. If it does then the debate can be had on whether decreasing the threshold is an appopriate method to decrease accident rates.

As far as MADD goes they are a perfect example of a good idea gone bad. They paint anyone who disagrees with them even slightly as being in favor of drunk driving and responsible for dead people. There are always trade offs; I could decrease accidents by outlawing driving for other than work purposes the question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. And yes, one life is not worth curtailing the freedoms of 300 million.

GW| 5.12.10 @ 3:20PM

Paula, I don't want you driving period. As a woman, you should leave driving to men who are much more rational and skilled. Silly female, driving's for men!

GW| 5.12.10 @ 3:22PM

My above post was directed to Paula Taylor. I'm not against women driving, but wanted to retort in a sarcastic way. Of course I failed to read Paula (no last name)'s post which was very rational and thought out and assumed it was Ms. Taylor's response.

Houston Rao| 5.12.10 @ 11:41AM

Paula, by the same token, anyone who is taking any number of prescription or OTC drugs should also not be behind any wheel - this includes not just regular drivers but also train operators, bus drivers, crane operators.... you get the picture.

After all, it does say on my package of Benadryl, this medication may make you drowsy. Catch a cold? Drink your syrup and call a cab.

Eric Cartman| 5.12.10 @ 12:59PM

I was pulled over and charged with "impaired driving" because I took a muscle relaxer 3 - 4 hours prior due to a bad back caused by a car accident a couple of months before: a driver who was speeding hit me from behind while I was stopped.

Anyway, I was coming home from my physical therapy session when he pulled me over - the cop said I strayed into the other lane and that's why he pulled me over. Could be, but there was no one on the road but him and I. He then asked if I had taken any medications when it was clear I hadn't been drinking. I was stupid and told the truth (this was 1998 in Upper Michigan). I won't tell the truth again, that's for sure. Cost me over $1,500 bucks, all said and done.

Paula, you say that MADD is a perfect example of a good idea gone bad. It went bad due to scumbag politicians - who do you think controls these things when the get started? These laws become $$$ cash machines, not problem solvers. I bet if you did some research, speeding is a bigger problem and causes more accidents.

Eric Cartman| 5.12.10 @ 1:22PM

Interesting. See charts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision

Forever Marine| 5.12.10 @ 1:01PM

Paula, I'll bet you're the one applying mascara or talking on her cell phone as I see you in my rear view mirror and try to get away from you. You are a consistent, typical liberal, ie. "if I don't like it, ban it, I'm a vegetarian so ban meat, I think that TV show is too right wing so ban it"

Liberty and freedom mean nothing to liberals.

Paula Taylor| 5.12.10 @ 2:13PM

Alcohol is a government-sanctioned recreational drug that is a huge social problem, especially with young people. How many young people have lost their lives and killed others after consuming alcohol?

My twenty-one-year-old son (a nondrinker) drank one beer and became intoxicated. Young people, unaccustomed to alcohol, are affected far more so with one drink than older, more experienced drinkers.

Bruce| 5.12.10 @ 2:28PM

If your dear son is [allegedly] a "non drinker" - what the hell was he doing drinking a beer, moron? You consider a 21 year old a "young person", do you? In my day a 21 year old was a MAN, responsible for himself and his own actions, and he took that responsibility seriously.

I would propose your sons problem reflects more on your parenting skills - or lack of them - then it does a problem with rational adults having a glass of wine of a beer with their dinner. If you or your sonny-boy can't handle a drink now and then - don't drink - but don't dare tell others they can't because you don't like it.

Fascist.

Eric Cartman| 5.12.10 @ 3:05PM

Well said! Bravo!

GW| 5.12.10 @ 3:24PM

"government-sanctioned"?

Since when do we view rights/freedoms as coming from the government?

Eric Cartman| 5.12.10 @ 3:46PM

GW, you have to remember that Paula is Carrie Nation's doppelgänger. She wants prohibition back to guard her little boy from alcohol, so she believes that all rights come from Obama. I know, it was a rhetorical question.

Nick| 5.12.10 @ 3:44PM

Paula Taylor: Halliburton! Halliburton! Try to argue with that, you right-wing nazis!

Margie| 5.12.10 @ 4:54PM

Even Jesus himself, my Lord Jesus Christ, drank wine and afterwards rode a donkey into the gates of Jerusalem.

He didn't fall off the donkey, did he? I don't recall him falling off the donkey in any story in the B.I.B.L.E. (yes, that's the book for me, I stand alone on the Word of God the . . ."

Following my savior's example, I will drink all the wine (and beer . . . if I feel like it) I want, and nobody better take the keys to my car.

And don't you fret, Paula Taylor, 'cause "God is my Co-pilot!" Once saved, always saved. Hallelujah!

Pogo| 5.12.10 @ 9:54PM

Having just finished reading Margie's post and those above it, I conclude that this blog has a lot of crackpots "expressing their opinions."

Amusing, to say the least, to log on to Am Spec every now and then to see what the loonies have to say.
In all fariness, though, a few of the posts (just a few) are intelligent responses.

garydeeb| 5.13.10 @ 1:44PM

Dear POGO,
Please return to the sex ads on Craig's List and let the rest of us wallow in our oh-so-loony conservatism. See you in November.

Citizen Jerry| 5.12.10 @ 5:16PM

No whiskey ... just sour.

Confused| 5.12.10 @ 5:26PM

Paula,

How come sober people have 95% of the accidents and kill 10 times more people than the drunks?

If anyone cares to parse the stats on fatal accidents you'll find that nearly all fatalities have two causes - failure to wear a seatbelt and/or overcorrecting steering - alcohol is not the factor you believe it to be.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 5:35PM

Confused,
Do you just make statistics up? Sober people do not kill anywhere near 10 times more people than drunks. It is about twice as many.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/.....cohol.aspx

Schnauzer Chef| 5.12.10 @ 5:28PM

Paula is the sort who created neighborhood watch to legitimize peeping and gossip. I'm afraid the nanny-ites will not go quietly on their way, their vicious talions will have to be ripped out of the American Body - this will be painful for all - but my great-grand children might reemerge in the light of Founder's Freedom - we lost it for them.

Matt Devine| 5.13.10 @ 6:30AM

I, a conservative Repulican, couldn't agree with Paula more ! Most European countries have a .04 threshold. Rightfully so.

C.B.| 5.13.10 @ 9:23PM

This is a typical knee jerk reaction from a typical "Liberal Democrat".

MattZ| 5.13.10 @ 11:32PM

That sounds a bit self-righteous. One drink is fine. The law should be based on preventing impaired-driving accidents. If putting it the limit at .08 stops people from hitting .10 (like how 55 keeps you from going 65 on the road,) then great, keep it as the law even if .08 isn't unsafe. Just make sure to enforce it like speeding, and leave some wiggle room if nobody's at risk at .08/.09, since a DWI is a serious charge.
MZ

Jim Janiszewski| 5.14.10 @ 10:10AM

I, as a conservative republican, do not want to see one dollar of my hard earned tax money sent down a rat hole which is commonly referred to as redistributive justice. You put a gun to my head and take my treasure to give to someone else who hasn't earned it then you want to dictate to me exactly how to live my life? Last I looked we still live in the United States and not Red China.

Alfred Bellows| 5.20.10 @ 3:40PM

I can just see Paula Taylor weaving down the road with a cell phone glued to her ear, complaining about drivers drinking one beer.

Super Spinach| 7.19.10 @ 11:16PM

Paula,

What does being a liberal have to do with the DUI industry? Which you apparently support?

I am a far-left, moonbat liberal. And I agree with everything that the author said about MADD and their neo-temperance methods. I suppose that I could try and help you see where you are wrong. But that would be a waste of time. So, go on with your bad self. Piss your money away. Because YOU are the one who Darwin warned us about. The one who is stupid enough to walk among us.

Totally Agree| 5.14.10 @ 2:47AM

I love this website! MADD is all about the $$$$ they are not a NON-PROFIT organization! They care about one thing and one thing only...

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 7:00AM

Mr. Peters,
You write both this -
"Push them a bit and proponents will say you're impaired at .08 in terms of a medically observable decline in reaction times -- and that's true, as far as it goes. But this slight reduction in reaction times has not been shown to correlate with a higher accident rate.

Proponents merely assert that it does, with no facts (such as a greater number of car wrecks) to back it up. "

and this -
"If anything, most people with minor amounts of alcohol in their systems drive more carefully, both to compensate and out of fear of being involved in an accident."

While I understand what you are getting at with this article and am largely in agreement how is your argument any different than MADD's? While you might have evidence available to back up your claims you present none. If you have knowledge of studies backing your claim that having a .08 BAC does not increase the liklihood of having a car accident please do share.

2Anglico| 5.12.10 @ 9:04AM

If there WAS evidence that .08 increases accidents, you can bet your last dollar that MADD would use those stats. Therein lies the proof.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 10:12AM

That is an awful argument. MADD could easily counter "If Mr. Peters had evidence .08 did not increase accidents he would use them."

It took me 3 seconds of googling to find stats that imply a .08 BAC DOES increase the liklihood of having an accident significantly.

http://www.druglibrary.org/sch...../s15p1.htm

MADD has no need to provide statistics regarding an .08 BAC because it is already the law of the land. If there are statistics infering that there is no statistical increase in accidents with an .08 BAC when compared with a .10 BAC then those seeking to raise the threshold back to .10 should provide them. Saying they exist is not enough.

2Anglico| 5.12.10 @ 12:09PM

When all of the REAL drunks are off the road, then you can preach about .08 or .798 or whatever. This is just like red light cameras, MONEY.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 12:28PM

2Anglico,
So we should not get people who commit assault off the streets till we capture all the murderers? How about leaving those who commit sexualy assaults until we get all the rapists?

I showed you evidence that .08 BAC thresholds lower accident rates. I am agnostic on the situation; I have no doubt there is increased liklihood of accidents at every increased BAC level, the question should be how significant is it? I have never been one who says "If it saves on life it is worth it".

Conflating something a .08 BAC threshold with traffic light cameras is just bizarre to me. What exactly is the connection?

J.P. Travis| 5.12.10 @ 2:28PM

How exactly do you propose that somebody prove that .08 does NOT do something? Your request is not logical. MADD is the one making the plea for lower limits, they should provide the proof that lower amounts of alcohol create accidents.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 2:53PM

JP,
First there are statistics that indicate that a BAC of .08 does increase traffic accidents. You can argue with them, there are a number of confounds, but they do exist.

Second - no where did I imply that MADD should not provide evidence that a lower BAC would decrease traffic accidents in order to lower the legal BAC threshold.

Third - I asked MR. Peters to cite the statistics he claimed existed proving that a BAC of .08 does not cause greater traffic accident rates. Anyone can claim statistics exist, doing so is meaningless without a way to check the claim.

Fourth - My request is completely logical : The BAC threshold for the country is already .08. Although Peters does not advocate, explicitly, a change back to .10 he does call the law "objectively unreasonable ". Part of the rationale he uses to demonstrate that unreasonableness are statistics he alludes to and does not provide. Asking him to provide them is logical and reasonable. Perhaps he has data I lack and having access to that data might persuade me to his argument.

I am assuming you meant lower amounts of alcohol deter accidents not create accidents.

Confused| 5.12.10 @ 5:36PM

Once again you need to parse the stats. Great effort has been made to use the term alcohol-related as opposed to alcohol caused. That's where most of MADD's bogus stats come from.

For example, if you've had a beer and are driving (legally) down a highway when a stone cold sober person runs a stop sign and pulls out in front of you the accident will be ruled alcohol-related even though no alcohol was present in the driver at fault.

That is how justification for .08 and other lower levels are dishonestly manufactured.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 7:16PM

Confused,
You know that there is no way to parse the numbers. And it does not matter whether the BAC in question is .08 or .18.

However, a legally intoxed driver is involved - whether s/he is the cause of the accident or not -in approximately 1/3 the driving fatalities in the US every year. I doubt very much whether 1/3 the miles driven involve drivers who are legally intoxed.
And yes, there are stats for that.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/.....cohol.aspx

Eddie| 5.12.10 @ 7:30AM

Having been in law enforcement for almost 30 years, I have mixed reviews of this article. I've seen some people who were at .08 that we would have guessed easily would have blown a .15 or better. On the other end of the scales, we've seen .25 BA that you'd swear hadn't had more than one beer. The bottom line is that impaired at any degree while driving a motor vehicle is putting the driver and the public at risk. Cup holders weren't placed in cars to hold beer bottles or cocktail glasses. As far as the staement that MADD members and others once drank and drove vehicles, I agree. I did too. Then this wonderful thing called "growing up" happened along with sensibility and caring for our kids. I'm proud to have a grown daughter who may take a sip of wine occasionally but has never been behind the wheel of a car after she did. She was raised that way. I challenge anyone who thinks drunk or impaired driving doesn't sometimes have tragic results to ask to ride along with your local police. If you are unlucky enough to be called to a fatal accident caused by alcohol or drugs, you'll become a believer. Law enforcement cannot judge who is able to drive at whatever BA content. But we can set a lower limit that just may save one of your or my loved one's lives one day.

crosshairs| 5.12.10 @ 8:07AM

But where does it end? Consider the law of diminishing returns. While driving, we are all subjected to distractions such as noises, movement, music, talk, cars and trucks hurtling at you,etc. and an argument could be made that each one of these poses a risk that has the potential to cause an accident. The point is that we do not live in a totally risk free world and, yes, alcohol and drugs can cause fatal accidents. You could draw the conclusion that driving after only sleeping 6 hours the night before is riskier than driving after sleeping 8 hours. So should we pass a law? Yes,we should take reasonable precautions, but as this article points out, .10 is reasonable (as backed by statistics), .08 is not. Simple.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 8:28AM

Crosshairs,
No, this article does not back up any claims with statistics. Now they may or may not exist but Mr. Peters did not supply any such statistics.

JP| 5.12.10 @ 8:50AM

Tom you are confusing debating points. By logic, if a group lobbies for a reduction in the BAC levels, it is up to said group to prove that lowering it will save lives and reduce accidents. It is not up to the skeptics, for they are not the ones lobbying for a change in law. One does not have to defend a negative proposition in terms of evidence; that is why in our legal system a defendent is not required to utter a word in his defence. The onus falls on the prosecution - in this case MADD.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 10:17AM

JP,
I agree with you. The group seeking to change the law should be the one providing proof that the law as currently written is ineffective. However, Mr. Peters is contending that the lower BAC, .08, has not statistical effect on fatalities when compared to a BAC of .10. I see no reason to take his word for it since it is very easy to link to a study that infers that.

MADD certainly should need to demonstrate that further lowering of BAC thresholds would have a statistical effect on fatalities. If there is no such evidence then the threshold should not be changed. However, the burden is on Mr Peters to substantiate his claims that a .08 BAC has no effect on fatalities.

Curly Smith| 5.12.10 @ 8:32AM

"I challenge anyone who thinks drunk or impaired driving doesn't sometimes have tragic results"

The question is whether it "sometimes" has tragic results, it's whether lowering the BAC level results in any statistically significant lessening of those tragic results. What BAC level correlates to a driver grooving on their tunes? Or talking, hands-free or otherwise, on the cell phone? Or talking to a passenger? Or, grabbing a microphone to call-in the license plate of a speeding car?

If the law is based on things that happen "sometimes" rather than on those of statistical significance then we'll soon see people cited for "driving while smoking" and "driving while chewing gum".

Appleby| 5.13.10 @ 2:08PM

Sometimes having children in your vehicle has tragic results, especially when you turn around to slap them and run over a bicycle or a Smart Car with your giant SUV.

Sometimes playing ear-shattering music in a Boom Car can have tragic results, as when you cannot hear an oncoming fire engine or freight train.

Sometimes sitting double-parked in your car with the engine running, putting on makeup and singing along with your iPod, can have tragic consequences, when your car is rear-ended by a cube van -- or a baby on the sidewalk gets an asthma attack from the exaust fumes your idling engine emits.

Sometimes any and everything you do can have tragic consequences.

Life is like that.

Cope.

Ned| 5.12.10 @ 10:53AM

Just as an aside, but it's wonderfully ironic that the very first person to be arrested under the new .08 DUI law here in the Seattle area, at about 12:01 AM New Year's Eve (a few years ago) was... wait for it... a cop. He and two buddies - all cops - were going 80 in a 45 when they hit a Ford Expedition in the little Japanese tin can they were driving...

Bruce| 5.12.10 @ 2:38PM

As another retired cop of similar time, I completely agree. I once collared a guy who blew a .36 over an hour after his arrest who was as competent a driver as most people I see out there these days, if not more so. On the other hand I collared a woman who blew a .06 who was barely able to stand. She of course was released - the other spent the night in jail, had his license revoked, and served 30 days. Not to suggest that with that level he should have been released, but the entire BAC argument is dependent on so many more factors than simply the amount of alcohol, one ingests it makes no sense.

I'm also sure my brother officer has seen drivers with absolutely no alcohol in their system that should be banned from driving forever based merely on their skills - or lack thereof. That would include what we used to call "driver inattention" stops in the old days - ranging from spending more time looking at a passenger than the road, driving with their dog on their lap, shaving, applying makeup, eating while holding the wheel with their knees, and now extended to talking on the cell, texting, etc.

J.P. Travis| 5.14.10 @ 11:13AM

"The bottom line is that impaired at any degree while driving a motor vehicle is putting the driver and the public at risk."

How is that the bottom line? That's the kind of simplistic thinking that is under debate here. "Impaired" is a conveniently vague word that MADD and other self-righteouos prigs can use as a weapon to reinstae Prohibition. Does half a beer put the public at risk? Quarter of a beer? If some scientist somewhere measures a miniscule change in reaction time from one DROP of beer, does that mean the public is at risk?

SC Mike| 5.12.10 @ 7:59AM

Most drivers are impaired as they careen down the road talking on their cell phones while sipping their favorite traveling beverage, hot brewed or cold fountain. They don’t use their turn signals, can’t stay in one lane, tailgate, run red lights, and change lanes oblivious to what the drivers around them are doing.

Responsible drivers today need a stiff shot before entering the fray we call “traffic.”

MADD went mad long ago.

Sue| 5.12.10 @ 8:17AM

Sleepy, putting on makeup, frost covering the windows, reaching on the passenger side floor, drinking any liquid and spilling it, oud music, smoking, on and on.

There are many distractions and impairments that equal or exceed the current legal limit of alcohol. Road rage is deliberate.

We don't pass laws on what actually happens anymore, but on what might happen.

In the pursuit of the perfect man, most of what we do in this thing called life are potential threats to either ourselves or others; something as simple as gossip or bullying can result in a ruined life.

And where exactly is the proof that second hand smoke kills, and why do private property owners (businesses) have to ban smoking?

I'm so tired of the social police.

John Navratil| 5.12.10 @ 8:56AM

In Texas, having a BAC in excess of the limit is an irrebuttable presumption of guilt. There is no field test or video tape which can be used to suggest the level of impairment is acceptable.

When the BAC limit was lowered to .08 the argument was than some people couldn't handle the higher limit. My question, at that time, was why was .08 considered irrebuttable?

It is a bitter irony that the generation which broke all the rules is now the most intolerant one in history.

Don| 5.12.10 @ 9:02AM

It is no longer about keeping drunks off the road. It is all about money and power. In West Virginia you must attend a class operated by a contractor. If they learn that you have a good insurance plan, like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, that covers the cost of your class, you will be required to take additional classes ad infinitum up to the limits of your coverage. It is a racket.

Dan Hirsch| 5.12.10 @ 9:16AM

OK, a BAC limit of 0.0001%, keeps us all "safe" from people without halitosis, it also nicely boosts the legal business and local government revenues. Too bad about you losing your job and your insurance over a DWESSI conviction.
(...While Ever So Slightly Impaired)

Why don't we all grow up and start telling these people, "NO."

They are not helping anyone but their own pet organization - i.e. this is for the preservation of jobs for MADD's staff. They won't want to hear it, but listen to them. They got .10, then they got .08, now they're talking about .04. .02 is next followed by .010, .008, .006.

Prohibition here we come! It doesn't take a genius to see the trend!

Trading safety for security yields neither.

Don't tread on me...

John Navratil| 5.12.10 @ 9:37AM

The founder of MADD, Candace Lightener, quit the group just a few years after she founded it claiming that it had become prohibitionist. She claimed she founded to fight drunk driving, not alcohol.

In Australia, a few months ago, there was a dust-up over the appointment (election ?) of a judge who had been previously convicted of their equivalent of DUI. The limit in Australia is .04. Those guys think nothing of closing a road a diverting every driver into an adjacent parking lot and testing each one. The ad says "No rules, just right!" I'd say "No rights, just rules".

Sean| 5.12.10 @ 9:31AM

This is all just a money making racket. Let's see who makes money in this scheme if you had two drinks and get caught for going 6 miles over the speed limit. Tow truck drivers and impound, as they will have your car towed even if it is legally parked when you pull over. Bail bonds men, police, lawyers, judges, jailers, counselors, probation officers, insurance companies, and the state.

Shamus| 5.12.10 @ 9:35AM

One thing you can count on is that the greedy creeps in government will always be coming up with new ways to take your money. Virginia charges drivers up to $3000 for simple traffic violations. If the government ever makes it so expensive to drive that people have to give up their cars, then government will make you buy a special passport so that you can ride the bus.

Visionary| 5.12.10 @ 10:20AM

As I see it, and I am a visionary, the danger in driving is not alcohol, cell phones, or other distractions. It's speed. If we were all driving slow enough that collisions didn't cause injury or death, or even damage, then "whoopsie, no big deal" right? Simple. We change all the speed limits to 5 mph and even the legally blind will be able to drive. Told ya I am a visionary.

Shamus| 5.12.10 @ 10:39AM

Yes, and the path to full employment is to outlaw farm equipment.

Thomas| 5.12.10 @ 10:24AM

There is a glaring oversight in this article. That is the fact that in every state in the Union, no driver may be stopped for unlawful blood alcohol level. It is always for demonstrable driving impairment. Unlawful blood alcohol level charges are secondary charges that are filed after a driver has been arrested for DWI and, in cases where no personal injury accident is involved, after the driver consents to the test [I am aware of all of the logical reasons why an impaired person can not knowledgeably consent to anything]. While blood alcohol level is used as evidence of impairment due to alcohol, it is not used as a basis for the initial traffic stop and a driver with a BAL lower than .08 can still be convicted of DWI, and they are, regularly. In fact, in some instances, impaired drivers have a 0.00 BAL. This is because they are under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. And they are still convicted of DWI. The problem with attempting to argue against a lower BAL standard is that there is no really objective way to do it. A person's reaction to alcohol and their amount of impairment due to its ingestion are highly subjective and can vary considerably from person to person. For this reason it is hard to justify any BAL above 0.00 as being acceptable.

Blood alcohol level is largely irrelevant to the discussion of DWI. It doesn't really matter what levels are established as being unlawful, the courts have ruled time and time again that arbitrary blood, breath and urine testing can not be done. There has to be probable cause to believe that the person is intoxicated [and in most states it requires the person to be under arrest for DWI before it can be administered] and then it is still voluntary, except under court order or in the case of an accident involving death or serious bodily injury.

MADD is a group of zealots on a mission to make the world safe by eliminating alcohol and drug use while driving. While this is a noble cause, it is ultimately doomed to failure. No matter what is done, people will continue to use drugs and they will continue to drive motor vehicles while impaired. No one in their right mind would argue with the wisdom of " If You Drink, Don't Drive". But, believing themselves unimpaired, they still do. Even though the whole point of ingesting the alcohol, or other drug, is to become impaired.

So, a statutory BAC level is largely meaningless, unless you are drinking and driving and either kill someone in a crash or consent to be tested.

John Navratil| 5.12.10 @ 10:45AM

Thomas,

It is a truism to state that no one can be stopped based on BAC. Obviously you cannot know BAC until you test. However your arguments that people must demonstrate impairment in order to be stopped has a "post hoc" flavor to it. Couple that with the "no refusal" policy we have in Texas - blood WILL be drawn if you refuse a breathalyzer - and the fact that a person can be arrested on suspicion of impairment even if the BAC is below .08 and you have all the ingredients for official oppression.

Your statements that compliance is voluntary and that BAC levels are largely meaningless are incorrect.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 10:53AM

Police officers often stop a vehicle for minor traffic infractions at which point contact with the driver leads to arrest on DUI charges. It can have nothing to do with the original stop.

Petronius| 5.12.10 @ 10:29AM

As if the sobriety details aren't enough. Some states have choke points stopping people to check that their kids are strapped into their seats to the satisfaction of child safety advocates who are doing it, not the cops. I got stopped at one of these intercepts in Ohio because I drive a minivan. The snot with her hand in front of my face asked, "where are your kids?" I retorted, "I don't have any, and what's it to ya? Now get the hell outa my way!" There should be a bounty on these intrusive bastards. As to the drinking chokes hereabouts, we have one police dept. that sets up outside their jurisdiction in other counties and the dirty deal is that the fines are doubled so both municipal governments get your money.
Off the Prigs!!!

Sort of Drunk| 5.12.10 @ 10:33AM

The statistics don't tell much in this argument. For example, if you are sitting stopped at a red light and are rear ended and the officer smells alcohol on your breath and gives you a breathalyzer and you blow a .04, guess what in many states ALCOHOL RELATED even though it had nothing to do with the accident.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 10:56AM

Yours is an excellent point. But if such policies existed prior to lowering the BAC thresholds decreases in fatalities, if shown, would infer some sort of correlation between BAC levels and traffic accidents.

Appleby| 5.13.10 @ 2:15PM

Correlation is not causation.

If the next ten accident reports indicate there were children in the car, can you logically infer that children cause accidents?

Tom| 5.13.10 @ 7:47PM

Appleby,
Notice my choice of words, I said infer correlation. I never said it proved anything. The number of confounds when assessing the utility of changes in the drinking laws - 21 year old drinking age or lower BAC thresholds - are enormous. Increased public awareness of the problem, increased patrols and enforcement probably account for some part of decreased alcohol related fatalities.

A sample size of 10 is meaningless when we are discussing traffic statistics in the 10's of thousands.

I can logically infer alcohol has a causitive effect on traffic accidents because there is a mechanism that is obvious: Alcohol impacts reaction time, vision, and judgement. If in your example children were disportionally involved in traffic accidents then yes we probably should try to find out the mechanism involved. But because it happened 10 times in a row probably would be meaningless in any statistical analysis.

Derek Leaberry| 5.12.10 @ 10:46AM

Great article. Mothers Against Drunk Driving are modern day Carry Nations, joyless and scolding, two of the worst aspects that often afflcits the fair sex.

What I would add is that, to appease the MADD-intimidated politicians, the coppers go on these drunk driving campaigns that are little more than posturing schemes. If the police really wanted to arrest a lot of drunks, they would stop every car coming from an NFL football on Sunday and Monday nights, which in themselves are really four hour plus drinking binges built around football for tens of thousands of fans. Of course, the result would be a massive traffic jam after every NFL game, a crush at the local police headquarters booking department, and a furious National Football League syndicate.

John Navratil| 5.12.10 @ 11:01AM

In Houston, the beer stops at the seventh inning of a baseball game (I don't know what the rule is for football.) Those extra innings can be awfully dry for the non-designated-driver.

Derek Leaberry| 5.12.10 @ 12:23PM

I am sympathetic to your plight. Show me a man who doesn't have a few beers at a sporting event and I'll someone I don't want to go to a ballgame with. My point is that selective police crackdowns on people with alcohol in their system is pretty much phony from a safety point-of-view and totally political in nature. If safety was the police's top priority, they would station roadblocks at sporting events and outside bars at two in the morning.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 12:31PM

I have never seen a roadblock but it is hard to find a bar on long island that does not have a cop car near it at 0400 at least sometimes. Cops know it is often an easy DUI collar.

John Navratil| 5.12.10 @ 12:38PM

Absolutely! It begs the question of whether a working stiff closing the bars at 2AM produces the same message as a family man "cuffed and stuffed" on his way home from dinner.

russel| 5.12.10 @ 10:59AM

Precisely and three cheers for an acknowledgement that is way overdue . Having suffered through the Ca. legal system , it borders on Stasi regulation and enforcement . Drugs could be found on every street corner in ample amounts , and most everyone did them , Cocaine the choice of the professionals . But DO NOT drink . Get caught and you will spend so much money you could have purchased three , four kilo's of choice blow from the corner salesman . Second one ? . Go to an honor farm and hoe beets for four months . Over the limit third time around ? . Go to prison . A legislator once said " They're taking away alcohol drop by drop " - exactly . Here in the wild west state of Wyo . , Granny can't have her glass of wine in the back of a motor home now . Yep , their mission just keeps rolling along .

jeff| 5.12.10 @ 11:18AM

Like most causes this one has gone overboard. It is tricky to argue and not come across as defending drunk driving, but sanity and common sense should enter into the arguement. Someone getting stopped, cuffed, arrested and forced to attend AA meetings after having a single glass of wine is just stupid. Meanwhile it is all at the cost of thousands and potential job loss. Focusing on the actual drunks and keeping them off the road is time much better spent. Quite often I see a news article about some tragic death caused by a drunk driver and in the vast majority of those cases the drunk has already been convicted multiple times yet is still driving.

Cpm| 5.12.10 @ 11:24AM

Just another in a long line of organizations that, having achieved their goals, now is in business to perpetuate itself after outliving it's usefulness.

Tim| 5.12.10 @ 11:45AM

Seconded. Consider the meaning, or non meaning of this PSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfVJ0CNVnMM

Dustoff| 5.12.10 @ 11:50AM

I work as aParamedic. I've seen a ton of car crashes with drugs, booze and you name it.
Yet I find it funny that the dem's are pushing to make POT legal. Just what we need, stoned drivers on the road. And yes I've seen them too.

I feel MADD has lost it's way.

Houston Rao| 5.12.10 @ 11:56AM

One misses the bigger picture here. It is driving while impaired or intoxicated that should be a crime, whether such impairment comes about by alcohol, Valium or ganja. The tests should be about testing one's reaction times and ability to discern rather than the amount of alcohol or weed in their blood. Some people are capable of being fine with 4 shots of neat vodka while others are impaired on cough medicine.

What the cops should be doing is spending time on the streets looking for signs of impaired driving and testing them, using an objective impairment test, not BALs.

This would keep the truly impaired off the streets and allow others more capable and responsible to live their lives.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 12:33PM

I agree in an ideal world actual impairment would be the best test. However, I would not trust cops to administer them. I know too many instances of cops letting other cops off for driving drunk before their commands became more forceful in how the law was applied.

Bruce| 5.12.10 @ 6:59PM

Actually, Tom, in my days on the streets it was not at all uncommon for cops with common sense to either drive them home, or taking their keys, getting them in the back seat to sleep it off, then droping by at the end of the tour and giving them their keys back after assuring they were okay to drive. Not all cops are automatons only looking to make late night collars to get overtime. And roadblocks, btw, are not individual cops ideas - they come down as an order from headquarters.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 7:22PM

Bruce,
I know individual officers do not have the authority to establish roadblocks. And frankly I think they are, except in extreme circumstances, a waste of time.

When I was 19 I had a good friend die. I got totally smashed, was pulled over and when the cop interviewed me he ended up driving me home. Whether what he did was good police work or not I do not know but I appreciated it.

A few years ago a Nassau PD officer let a NYC officer after a traffic stop for erratic driving. The city cop was let go; he ended up t-boning a limo 2 or 3 miles down the road. At least on long island cops tend not to cut breaks to each other with DUIs.

Tyrone| 5.13.10 @ 1:21AM

I experienced this too. It used to be common for the police to make you pour out your beer if they caught you drinking and driving. We would complain as kids, but it was far better than a DWI. Back then you could drink at 18.

This was how it usually was before MADD and the rest of the busy body women crusader crowd arrived on the scene and the state figured out it make money and hire lots of social workers and psychologists to counsel all of these errant drunk drivers. We have politicized most crime in america to the point where police are no longer allowed to make sensible on the spot decisions to assist people short of arrest using professional judgment. This discussion is a part of that much larger problem that has become the reason we have a nation where the average citizen commits three felonies a day. We are all just waiting to be snatched out of line and thrown in jail by the state whenever it gets a mind to go on one crusade or another.

George S| 5.12.10 @ 12:13PM

I am starting my own lobby. I put forth that when you reach the age of 70, your ability to handle a motor vehicle decreases exponentially with each succeeding year. As proof, I cite studies (wait, there are none -- why's that?) that compare the reaction time of 20 year-olds at various BAC levels with those of stone cold sober 80-year olds. Based on the fact that as ones reflexes, physical abilities and eyesight deteriorate with age at the same (or faster) rate than BAC, my modest proposal is that seniors get tested every year after the age of 70 to determine if they are able to operate a motor vehicle safely. Of course AARP won't mind!

DUI's are politics, pure and simple. If they weren't, the state would have to offer proof in court that your particular BAC at time of arrest made you -- and only you -- incapacitated.

Also, has anyone studies whether deaths attributed to BAC were unavoidable in the first place? Of course not.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 12:41PM

George,
"Also, has anyone studies whether deaths attributed to BAC were unavoidable in the first place? Of course not."

Almost every accident is avoidable by one party or the other. Beyond that such a study would be enormously complex, costly, and offer very little in the understanding of how alcohol influences accident rates.

The questions should be do lower BAC thresholds show a statistically significant reduction in accident rates and whether such a reduction in rates warrant a lessening of our freedom?

The freedom to drink and then drive SHOULD be limited because the potential impact is beyond what you may do to yourself.

PolishKnight| 5.12.10 @ 12:59PM

The correlation between minor BAC and accidents reminds me of the statistical joke about how ice cream consumption is correlated with burglary rates. In the summer, when it's hot and people eat more ice cream, burglar rates skyrocket as people leave their windows open.

Accident rates may peak in the evening time overall having nothing to do with minor drinking. In addition, restaurant and bar parking may also see higher accident rates as compared to other locales.

The issue should be driving ability and overall behavior and have police screen for that, directly, rather than other false metrics including speeding. Aggressive driving (along with stragglers in the passing lane) and drivers who fail to use their signals (or refuse to yeild to those who use theirs) really are overdue for some warnings and tickets.

JP| 5.12.10 @ 1:41PM

I think the Germans have one of the best solutions. They have a BAC much like our older ones (0.10); they also have some of the fastest speed limits in the world (namely the long autobahn straightaways -no speed limits for many stretches); also teens at the age of 16 can legally drink alcohol. But here are some prohibitions:

1)Everyone must enroll at some time in officially sanctioned drivers education before they can get licensed. This runs about $2000 per student. For that reason (among many), younger Germans do not get thier licenses until they are between 19-21. If they live in the urban areas they just take public transportation.

2)Operating an auto in Germany is quite expensive -including insurance.

3)They still have vehicle inspections (the dreaded TUV inspections). There are no clunkers on the road there.

4)Thier laws concerning DWIs are quite strict. There are is no quicker way to losing your license for life than getting a DWI or 2. If alcohol was involved in accidents it's even worse.

MADD on the other hand is essientially attempting prohibition by other means. Lowering the BOC is just making more criminals, as well as putting the screws to restaurants and bars. The German way may not be perfect, but it is more effective than what MADD does.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 7:30PM

The BAC for Germany is .05 not .10. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/ou.....tt221.html

Don| 5.12.10 @ 2:02PM

The speed limit is 55, how fast do you drive?
the limit is one beer, how many do you fear?
Look baby, you wanna get high on dope that's your business, you drive like that you should go to prison

Brian Reilly| 5.12.10 @ 2:06PM

A goal of the MADD/Law enforcement/trial attorney/auto insurance company nexus is to raise money from fines, court assigned MADD administered "sobriety" sensitivity courses, court fines, vehicle impound and forfeiture fees, attorney fees, and incredible insurance rate increases. Follow the money. A DUI in most of America will cost the driver $15K, minimum. It will also move some poor schmucks into driving without insurance, effectively socializing the risk.

Stipulated that I am not in favor of drunk driving, merely convinced that raising money is a lot more important to these groups than road safety.

russel| 5.12.10 @ 4:33PM

That's it Brian , follow the Ka-ching . They all found a $$ machine that pays out every minute.

J.P. Travis| 5.12.10 @ 2:32PM

Good job, Mr. Peters. The self-righteous henpeckers of the left will never leave us alone unless we fight back.

GW| 5.12.10 @ 3:34PM

I think the gist of this article is the author's concern of neo-Prohibition nanny-staters. Overall though, I found the article a bit lacking. You become impaired after the first sip of alcohol. Someone with a BAC of .02 has a slower reaction time than someone with a BAC of 0. So the question is where do we draw the line? Statistically, most drunks w/ a BAC even of .18 or higher will drive home safely. Many won't get caught and arrested. But at what point do we draw the line? My main argument would be about federalism if writing an article on the subject. What gives the Federal Government the right to tell states what BAC level they must set the standards at? This should be left to the states.

Tom| 5.12.10 @ 7:32PM

GW,
I really agree with your point on why this is a federal and not state matter. Of course the hammer the feds used to push the states to lower their BAC thresholds was highway money. I do not know why it was legal, then again in the strictest sense it probably wasn't, but they did get away with it.

Nick| 5.12.10 @ 4:19PM

As Mr. Navratil mentioned above, the founder of MADD quit the group five years after she created it.

MADD is no different than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpy-sharpton. The "problem" can never be "solved", or else they are out of a job. MADD will continue to look for dragons to slay, just as Sharpton stirs up racial animosity to get people to give him money.

Also, why hasn't MADD done anything about repeat offenders? Haven't we all seen stories on the news about the drunk driver who has 10, 15, 20 prior convictions for DUI? What happened to 3 strikes and your out?

This proves MADD isn't serious about stopping drunk driving. Multiple offenders should face serious jail time and have their vehicle confiscated. That would bring DUI fatalities down significantly.

Instead, MADD is wasting time and money trying to lower the "legal" limit. If drunks are in jail, they can't be ticketed. And, if we solve the drunk driving problem, then the people at MADD would have to find real jobs.

I wonder what the president of MADD makes yearly?

Campy| 5.12.10 @ 6:43PM

Pay goes up, even as revenues fall.

http://www.rgj.com/article/201.....get-raises

Nick| 5.12.10 @ 7:11PM

Thanks for the link, Campy!

$250,000 a year! Just like a union chief.
Not bad work, if you can get it.

I bet he also travels a lot. For the charity, of course. What a scam!

Campy| 5.12.10 @ 10:15PM

Small pittance, Nick, for a man as wonderfully relentless on Fushia-head as you are. Gives a whole new meaning to powder-blue balls, doesn't it?

Campy| 5.12.10 @ 10:17PM

Meant fuchsia.

Nick| 5.12.10 @ 11:19PM

Campy,

Oh that, I consider that fun!
Tormenting liberals is a guilty pleasure.

St. Thor| 5.12.10 @ 4:27PM

It is time to start a counter organization--DAMM--Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

Derek Leaberry| 5.12.10 @ 4:54PM

I think my parish priest is a member of DAMM. It must be a good organization.

Pat| 5.12.10 @ 5:53PM

Zod-Natif, our first ambassador from the inter-galactic empire, Shambala, has made the same points in numerous letters to his home planet. Americans, for the most part, are basically insane he reports - we're not even worth the high cost of those alien abductions.

We want drunks off the road, we say that to feel good about ourselves. We then take a drink to feel even better about ourselves - we're addicted to feeling good about ourselves so we constantly say and do many contradictory things dependent on our moods and the phases of the moon.

We propose legalizing marijuana, then we run ads on the dangers of smoking cigarettes. Like cigarettes, smoking marijuana will give you lung cancer along with a nice buzz. But the point about marijuana addresses our civil liberties - smoking a regular cigarette involves a risk of lung cancer, but by risking only garden variety lung cancer there is no victory for our civil rights - so we somehow see the two issue in a completely different light.

We don't legally prohibit alcohol, the government needs the taxes, same for cigarettes and their tax contributions. We do prohibit killing little kids while we're too drunk to see the dashboard - so we find we must compromise. At times, we speak up to keep kids safe from drunk drivers, five minutes later we speak up for civil liberties to allow drivers, and kids, to toke up when the need arises.

Zod has formed AFSA, Aliens For Sane Americans, send $5 and your name and address to Zod-Natif, care of the Shambala Consulate. Proudly display your AFSA sticker, it could get you a free abduction, with or without probing depending on the size of your contribution.

Nick| 5.12.10 @ 6:16PM

Wasn't Zod the murderous general from Krypton who Superman had to take of?

I don't want to contribute to a murdering tyrant with super powers, Pat.

Nick| 5.12.10 @ 6:17PM

That should be: Superman had to take CARE of?

Pat| 5.12.10 @ 6:24PM

Nick, they're not related but share a similar name. Zod-Natif is left-tentacled, Zod of Superman was right handed. Like you, I'm also against drunk drivers and murdering tyrants.

Nick| 5.12.10 @ 11:20PM

Pat,

Yes, but are you against murdering drivers and drunk tyrants?

Campy| 5.12.10 @ 10:12PM

How 'bout 'doing your nails' as a friend has told me? Talking nail polish, of course.

Nathan Bickel| 5.13.10 @ 12:48AM

It is very disgusting to have a group of emotional women attempt to start Prohibition over again. The limit of .10 BAC was good enough. Now, MADD has been successful in messing with that, bringing it down to .08.

Further frustrating are the dumbo politicians who listen to these crazed women. When I think of their intrusive organization, I truly think of them, as actually "mad." My brother was accustomed to say that people get angry; dogs get mad. Well....I have to put these sorry bunch of women in the same class as "mad" dogs........

If MADD members desire not to enjoy some adult beverages -- that's fine. But to impose their maddening agenda upon the rest of the country -- their quest, then, becomes a misplaced gallantry of bigotry and shortsightedness. Shame on them!

I realize that there are people killed by drunk drivers. People are also killed by prescription drugs. I don't see a restrictive campaigning crusade to limit prescription drugs for people who benefit from them........

DriveDrunkSkrewMADD| 5.13.10 @ 1:17AM

MADD sux... they're nothing now but ANOTHER lobbying organization... In honor of the BULL - EXHAUST being exuded by MADD, I will DRIVE DRUNK this weekend...
NO... I've NEVER been arrested for DWI...
NO... I don't hate cops...
I hate MADD...

Capt G| 5.13.10 @ 2:45AM

Speed doesn't kill. If anything, speed differential between vehicles kills. The roads with the highest sustained speeds, the interstates, are also the safest per mile driven.

Ignored is the fact that driving, sober or otherwise, continues to get safer all the time. If it were ever a serious problem, now or in the past, people would have been worried about driving at all. While they might exist, I know of no one that does not drive for fear of the drunks. That being said, driving is a risky business, like all of life. And speaking of life, you've a greater chance of being aborted before you can enjoy life than you do being killed in an automobile. I get a little mad about that.

solo| 5.13.10 @ 10:46AM

I have a question:

Should the BAC be lowered to a "zero tolerance" level, would we not have to outlaw the sale of alcohol in restaurants and sports bars?

BernardL| 5.13.10 @ 12:58PM

Making it harder for people to get behind the wheel of a car after drinking is not prohibition. How does the motto 'If you drink don't drive' equate with prohibition? I doubt there is a person alive unable to say their lives were changed due to a drunk driver maiming or killing someone they knew. I know I can't. I drink but I don't drive when I do. It's not hard at all. Have a designated driver, take public transit, get a taxi, walk, or stay the hell home. Now we want the excuse to be 'Well, I was only slightly impaired'... oh barf!

Capt G| 5.14.10 @ 9:34PM

Actually you would be more accurate to say that there isn't a person alive whom has not been affected by a serious automobile accident. Obviously, the problem is with the automobile and it is it whose use should be constrained. Then people who do not keep alcohol in their homes could ride their horse twenty miles to their nearest restaurant for a glass of wine with their dinner. And we'd address the majority of accidents which do not involve alcohol as well.

And Bernie, this just in, most Americans live in areas without taxi service, public transportation, reasonable walking distance to restaurants, or employ chauffeurs. And most Americans also drink and drive responsibly. If impairment were the issue, a goodly portion of drivers would not qualify to even apply for a license. Check with your DMV on "driving for the legally blind"; they'll have a brochure for you on how to acquire a license with that "impaired" condition.

Anonymous| 5.13.10 @ 1:34PM

I'm a member of DAMM-- Drinkers Against Mad Mothers! (Everyone but them is-- re-affirm your membership and freedom today!)

Smorgasbord| 5.13.10 @ 6:54PM

Eric,
One TV station did a study a long time ago where they asked for volunteers to drive in a parking lot with small street cones and see how they do.

They all drove through the course OK at first. Then they all had one beer. Some of the drivers started hitting the cones. They had another beer and drove again. More drivers started hitting cones.

This showed that some drives are impaired after just ONE beer. I am a retired truck driver and our limit is 0.04.

One insurance group did a study and figured out that 10% of the accidents could have been prevented if the driver had an extra 1/10 of a second to avoid it. They based it on the accidents where the driver ALMOST missed the other vehicle by swerving but didn't quite make it. The higher the alcohol content in the blood, the slower the reaction time. The slower the reaction time, the more likely you are to have an accident.

You are scaring me when it sounds like you want to have a few beers or glasses of wine before driving. Try going without a drink for a week and see if you can make it. You sound like you might have a drinking problem if you want to have a few drinks before you drive.

Capt G| 5.14.10 @ 9:41PM

90% of pregnancies could probably be prevented under the same standard. Under health care reform one might expect to see further insurance studies detailing the exact tenth's of seconds involved.

If reaction time is the crucial issue, we can easily achieve a magnitude of improvement far greater by issuing licenses only to those under the age of thirty.

Brian| 5.13.10 @ 8:52PM

Makes ya wanna become a member of D.A.M.M. It is outta hand these new thresholds. MADD elects judges though.

Solo| 5.14.10 @ 11:13AM

If reaction times are the standard that you are trying to achieve, then let us test based upon reaction times--not BAC.

My reaction times 'stoned-cold drunk' might be twice as good as are those of someone else when 'stoned-cold sober'--particularly those of "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" members driving while yakking on their cell phones.

Fungoking| 5.14.10 @ 2:58PM

I kept waiting for an important fact to be mentioned in the article. The standard of reasonable doubt for a breathalyzer is .02, meaning that if you were at .09 in a .08 state you could not be charged. In the .10 days you could register at .11 and would after the .02 reasonable doubt is subtracted you are at .09 and not guilty. By lowering to .08 now the .10 (which the author admits shouldn’t be driving) can finally be charged. Either the author didn’t know that and should refrain from writing without doing some research or did know and was dishonest.

scythe| 5.14.10 @ 9:57PM

Bet MADD was started by a "mom" who lost their child to a drunk driver. Predictably this is another personal/psychological/pain event that can only achieve "closure" through even harsher punishments and political power.

8fdj| 7.1.10 @ 2:49AM

beijing massage

San Diego DUI Lawyer| 12.17.10 @ 2:46PM

It all depends on the person whom they are checking. If someone's BAC is .04 and they are swerving like crazy and endangering others on the road, then that is cause to pull someone over. I personally feel WAY over the comfortable "I can dive" stage while I am still under the legal limit. Maybe some reform could help, but it should be based on the individual, in my opinion.