NTSB recommends cutting DUI threshold to .05

I'm trying to think if there are any other such laws like that. Some judges say that the reading of the Miranda rights are kind of like that - they aren't necessarily required by the Constitution, but the Supreme Court imposes them as a prophylactic measure to make sure that everyone is on the correct side of the Bill of Rights. That's an odd analogy, but it's one that jumps to mind, in a really different context.

 

No, that one works. Yet that is a restraint on government, not the individual.

 

Yeah, that's why it's not exactly the same. Hmmmm ... I guess here the government would never admit that's the reason, but I think it's a big part of it.

 

Probably the closest thing I can come up with are laws regarding insider trading. These tend to be awfully, awfully difficult to prove (if I understand correctly), so we necessarily make the penalties rather draconion, relative to the actual infraction. There's a video I watched in an MBA class in which Giuliani (then a federal prosecutor) said something to the effect of "The way these laws are set up, if you make a mistake, you're going to get fined ... if you meant to make that mistake, you're going to jail."

 

No. You can drink to your heart's content. Drink until you fall into a coma. There is no law stopping you from doing so.

 

Wisconsin would secede if there were a ban on being drunk.

 

Aren't speed limit and drinking age laws sort of like this?

Speed limit is 55MPH, but they don't really enforce it unless you are going 10MPH over the limit, and the real reason is to keep you from going 75MPH or more. (The higher speed limits sort of negate this effect.)

Similarly, a drinking age of 21 is often spoken about in terms of keeping 16-year-olds from drinking, not stopping 20-year-olds.

Personally, I don't like any of it.

It reminds me of when someone tells you a wedding starts 30 minutes before it actually does, because the don't want folks to be late. Well, I'm never late. Tell me what time I'm supposed to be there, and I'll be there. Don't treat me like an idiot just because some other folks are idiots.

 

But aside from Dick's point (which is a good one), there is plenty of evidence that .07 is impairment and that it can cause accidents. What's your evidence that it isn't?

Only rationale I hear for keeping the level where it is is so bars and restaurants can keep making money.

 

To expand on my point about the jails, since so many American citizens find themselves on the wrong side of them, I would happily accept a .05 DUI threshold in exchange for a legalization (with similar and appropriate penalties for "UI" infractions) of most recreational drugs.

That said, we would have to be prepared for the possibility that a .05 legal limit isn't going to change people's behavior and decision-making any more than .08 does. And then what? Throw more people in jail? Where? How? Who's going to pay for all that crime & punishment?

 

Public intox?

 

I thought it was interesting that MADD had not endorsed lowering the BAC to .05. Seems odd it wouldn't be right out front supporting such a proposal.

 

I'm just taking a guess here, but I would wager that of all the people in America who eventually land in jail because of habitual DUI offenses, not a one of them does so with anything under a .12 BAC. They aren't the folks whose behavior will be changed in the first place. So I think it's highly unlikely that putting .05-.07 into play is going to create a wealth more repeat offenders. If someone gets nabbed at .06 once, it's going to sting enough that they won't do that again.

That said, there is probably some room to make it a lesser violation, more like a ginormous speeding ticket.