Why drive at all then?  Because you take a chance at hurting or killing someone every time you get behind the wheel even if you've never had a drop to drink in your life.  FWIW, assuming you are relatively normal, you'd have to weigh less than 120lbs for two 12oz regular beers in an hour to put you over .04 BAC.

You don't understand how the laws of a civilized society work.

Laws limit the behavior of both the government and the citizens, in order to protect the rights of the citizens.

Some laws are written to protect individuals.

Some laws are written to protect the rights of society as a whole.

You cannot have rights as a person with out both types of laws.



why is drunk driving illegal?

here's why -

suppose a guy goes out every day drunk driving.

for one year he causes no accidents and then he finally causes an accident and kills someone.

why did the accident happen?

because the drunk driver's luck finally ran out and the random circumstances all lined up for an accident.

for 365 days prior to the accident, everyone else was put in the position of having to depend on the drunk guy's luck to not be killed by him.

for those 365 days, even though no accident occurred, everyone else's safety was diminished because some fuckface decided to drive drunk

our society has decided that we do not want to be subjected to this

the drunk is making all the rest of us depend on his luck in order for us to not be killed by him and he has no right to subject the rest of us to that


an analogy would be if I decided to live in the apartment above yours and my hobby was making gigantic bombs that would kill you if I screwed up

do you have to live your life waiting for me to screw up and kill us both?

why would I have the right to subject you to that?

there would be a death penalty for me if I screwed up because I would die too

does the fact that I would get the death penalty eliminate the fact that I violated your rights by making you live in constant risk of death below a amateur hobby bomb factory?

You could move away from the bomb factory apartment but you cannot stop using the public roads


drunk drivers violate your rights by making you depend on their dumb luck to keep from getting killed.

it's not fair for them to subject you to that.


also, it can be easily scientifically proved that drunk drivers are responsible for a tens of thousands of deaths each year

so it's not like they are subjecting us to a pretend danger

The thought process here amazes me. If someone introduced a bill to limit mag capacity on an AR to 60 rounds, people would be talking about government overreach and murmuring about insurrection.  These same people are advocating destroying (or ending, in a few cases) peoples lives because they had a few beers after work. Doesn't matter if the guy could land a 747 while crocheting a sweater with a BAC of .08, let's throw his ass in jail, gouge out his eyes, and kill his first born for good measure. In other news, they would have been for Prohibition, and they think the War on Drugs is actually working. Onward, Christian Soldiers!

 

Don't drink and drive.



It's really not that difficult, once you grow up.

anyway, to answer the OP,

changing the DUI criteria from an objective test (BAC) to a subjective evaluation like figuring out relative alcohol tolerance would be unworkable

Drunk driving punishment is not the same as a mag capacity LOL.  

 

Driving drunk is more like shooting a gun into a populated area.  This argument about people who can function with a high BAC is like saying if someone is a good shot while drunk they should still be allowed to shoot a gun into a neighborhood as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or damage property.  Of course they shouldn't, because it's fucking dangerous and UNNECESSARY.  Call a cab.  Call your spouse, kids, friends, anybody.  How's this, call a fucking stranger or someone that doesn't even like you and tell them "hey I need a ride or I'm going to drive home drunk" and I bet dollars to donuts someone would be happy to give you a ride because just about everybody except dumbass drunks realizes that driving drunk (yes, even a little bit drunk) is goddamn stage 5 retarded.  

Do you know why there is a limit in the first place?

Drunks and thier lawyers demanded it. Now they bitch about it being used.

I have an awesome idea, let's apply tjis line of thinking to self defense.  The worst the attack the less self defense you are allowed to have.
When you get into Hannibal Lecter territory you are left with a spork.

This. So true.

You are absolutely crazy for using that analogy. Owning an AR15 mag is inanimate, and totally safe. It is NOT reckless or dangerous whatsoever. Driving a vehicle under the influence IS reckless, and selfish. The act alone has a high potential to get someone killed. That emoticon you used should be our looks to you, Christian Soldier.

Let me make it simple.

Owning a AR mag is equal to drinking some beers while sitting on your couch

Emptying that mag into a apartment complex is equal to drunk driving.

You have to have a standard, a verifiable pass/fail that can be understood by all. Without that standard, there is no quantifiable method of applying the law equally to all persons.



m



 

Your analogy makes no sense. I fail to see how being a fucktard and letting bullets fly everywhere even compares to driving over the .08 BAC limit. One is dumb as fuck and intentionally negligent (even malicious) while the other is only negligent if you let it be. Someone with a BAC content of .09 can easily still drive safely yet due to DUI laws get screwed over. Spinning in circles in town firing off your rifle is like drinking a 1/5th of Jim Beam and jumping in a Mustang and challenging someone to a race on the freeway. That's different then having two beers and knowing you're in control of your actions, yet "legally" you're drunk.

I guess laws restricting the carry of firearms are okay too because guns are tools designed to kill or maim and letting someone with no training carry them around increases the chances of harming an innocent. That's your logic. Sure carrying a firearm has a lot more legitimacy than drinking and driving, but you get my point. Freedom isn't always pretty. A free society puts the duty of responsibility on the individual and assumes they can be responsible without depending on the .gov to regulate themselves. I think drunk driving is idiotic and I would never do it myself. But allowing the government to set some arbitrary BAC standard is also stupid when a) you can't even have a set "drunk" limit because everyone has a different limit , and b) it should be your own responsibility to regulate yourself and not fuck up.

They're both dumb as fuck and intentionally negligent (even malicious).


According to MADD 28 people die every day from drunk drivers.  Only degenerate asshole seflish fuckfaces drive drunk.  Period.

If there's a reliable, scientific way of doing it then absolutely.  I'm a big guy, I could probably operate a car safely at 0.08 if I had to.  A 100 pound girl who never drinks might be unsafe at 0.05.  I get the appeal of a bright line cutoff, but if they could reliably index it to actual level of intoxication that would be better.

That isn't how BAC works.

BAC is a percentage, not a volume.

I think evidence of intoxication should be require prior to pulling someone over for dui/dwi.  Dash mounted camera are diet cheap nowadays, video is uploadable, and they have night vision capability. There is very little reason why it would be impracticable to require video evidence in conjunction with an arrest.

Otherwise, I think we should just admit that most dwi/dui is a convoluted revenue generation scheme, and simply give out very high dollar tickets.

I don't think anyone here is advocating that driving after downing a fifth of Jack and swerving all over the road should be legal.  I have a problem with people getting DUIs from sleeping it off in their car, or having four beers and getting pulled over for a minor moving violation just because you're out past midnight.

I get your point, but your 'math' is wrong. See the post below yours.

There are two things at play in the DD laws: 1) BAC is measurable. 2) BAC is supportive of zero thinking--aka "zero tolerance", or a tolerance of zero + 0.08% BAC in this case.  Judgement on the spot REQUIRES thinking.  Judgement introduces subjectivity and subjectivity is anathematic to ZT's comforting objectivity.  Subjectivity could possibly reveal some race and or gender can 'hold their liquor' better than others. This is why thinking is racist while zero thinking isn't racist.

See?

The thing to do in this case is to act such that a situation cannot develop where contact with The Man is complicated by the odor of alcohol about.  

This is the answer to it all.
A BAC might be a blunt tool, and only get Alcohol  but a correct level may cover everyone within two standard deviations of the mean.

A subjective test, such as observed behaviour, might capture a wider level of driving incompetence.
But it is unworkable. These tests rely on the tester as much as the tested. If the tester is not exactly the same, then the results are skewed.
But tester being the same, I don't only mean the same person, but if they are tired, had a bad day, or had a good day. Different locations, different lighting, different circumstances (Outside at night, vs. Outside a Gym at 11am)

With how cheap Uber has gotten, there's not a whole lot of excuses for drunk driving nowadays-if you can afford to drink in bars, you can afford an Uber ride home.

You are right to a certain extent.  The "BAC over X" laws do make it easier on the states to prove violation of the statute.  Of course, I can't think of anything easier for John Q Public to avoid a conviction on since John is in complete control over what goes into his body and then what his body goes into so....

But it isn't one size fits all.  The state can always opt to prove actual impairment regardless of what the BAC shows.  And, as others have stated, you usually don't get to the BAC test unless there was already some indication or proof of impairment which gave the LEO a reason (and justification) to pull the person over in the first place.

This is one of those issues where the theoretical impact of the "injustice" is definitely more theoretical than actual.

Tolerance would be a subjective measure.  If you fail any or all of the tests, obviously you don't have the tolerance you think.

Test should be passed or failed based upon ability, not BAC.
As others have posted, however, a quick and easy subjective, yet standardized test would be nearly impossible to administer.

I've seen folks who choose to screw around with everything in the car BUT the wheel and the front windshield who drive way worse sober than most drunks who actually possess skill at driving.

STILL don't consider it worth risking my livelihood over, though.
I haven't hung out at bars in over a decade, so no skin in the game, lots cheaper at the house, and plenty of room for friends on the couch.

Why we choose to treat texting behind the wheel as a lesser offense is baffling.

 
I'll give you an example.  

I was just at a wedding where there was approximately 200 people.  The reception was out at a farm in the country about three miles away from a town of 1,500 people with no taxi service.

They had a DJ and a bar and almost everyone was drinking.  When the reception ended, there were three options: drive home, get a ride from someone sober(almost impossible), or sleep in your vehicle.

I'll let you guess how many people drove home after drinking that night.  I'm not condoning it, but there is a big problem with finding a sober ride home in rural America.

I'm still waiting on an explanation as to why LE doesn't simply set up a block from the bar, rather than at "random" checkpoints, if there's any real interest in solving the "problem".

I know why, just want to hear it.

It's called reckless driving in many jurisdictions.

And it is measured by the actual impairment standard some in this thread champion.  An old person incapable of driving absolutely can be charged every time they get behind the wheel and are observed doing something improper.

What you are dealing with is prosecutorial discretion meted out at the street level.  The officer decides to call a relative rather than issue a citation, usually with a warning to the family member that the keys need to be taken away from grandpa or there will be charged next time...possibly also against the caretaker if there is one.

This seems pretty unthoughtful to me, of the Bridal party.
When I had a wedding which was on a Farm, I put on buses to and from the event. Back into the city. Then people could find their own way home from a sensible and convenient location.

IMO BAC is good enough until something better and cheaper comes along.

But I also think that to set the BAC  lower then what science tells us is safe is predatory and serves only to raise revenue.

The last time we did one we set big tents and had cots for people who needed to sleep it off.

Lots of special snowflakes who thought they had great tolerance to alcohol that killed someone while driving under the influence too.

I think what the Captain really means is,

"Amateur drunks should not allowed to drive, but professional drunks are OK".

"I'm a better bowler after a few beers so logically I'm a better driver, too."

 
I watched a cop let one of those functionally drunk old folks drive off when she hit my car and did $1800 in damage.  Thank God she had insurance.

Impaired is impaired, I don't care if you're .04 or .4. I dont care what your BAC is. I think putting a illegal # on BAC is retarded.

If you are driving like a drunk....who gives a shit what your "tolerance" is.....you are still driving a drunk. If you then get pulled over and blow over the legal limit.....why should you be let off easier because you have more of a tolerance? You were still driving like a drunk....and you were drunk.

A right that is consistently subject to things like Implied Consent?

Get your feet to walking.  You still have the right to free travel even if you can't legally drive a car.

No.

No. If you are caught and convicted of DUI, your precious little car should be seized and destroyed and your driver's license permanently suspended. I hate drunks.

Driving on public (state owned) roads is 100% a privilege.  NOT a right.  

 

Nope, because even though a long term alcohol may look and act "normal" they are still impaired by the alcohol in a way that makes driving dangerous.

J-

An average of 31 people are murdered daily by people with guns. Should we ban guns? Of course not. But I can quote special interest groups too citing "facts" that support such an idea. I'm not defending drunk drivers. If I was, I would be advocating for them to escape criminal prosecution, which I'm obviously not. I hate dumbasses who get shit faced and end up killing someone with their vehicle. They deserve to suffer the harsh consequences that result when taking a life (prison, death penally, whatever state law says). What I'm doing is criticizing overreaching .gov involvement which does jack shit to stop actual drunk driving deaths. The MADD and .gov statistics are skewed to fit a narrative that demands zero tolerance. You're failing to see the wider implications of giving .gov more regulating and policing power and instead falling back on emotional arguments.

Johnny Alcoholic isn't going to stop drinking and driving if he gets a DUI or three. Just like if you ban guns people will still get shot by sickos and criminals. DUI/DWI laws are incredibly restrictive (zero tolerance). Drinking and driving has basically been banned completely. Yet you just posted a statistic admitting a troubling amount of people are still killed by drunk drivers every day. So you just proved my point banning the act doesn't solve the problem. But hey let's just pass a fuck load more laws anyways so we've got everything covered by the nanny state. Why allow people to practice self responsibility when .gov does it for you, right? We don't need to teach values in the community anymore when we can just set up police checkpoints everywhere. Sometimes the hypocrisy that comes from the mouths of some folks on this forum amazes me.

I know personally 2 people who go DUI's and refuse to drink and drive anymore.


And the legal limit isn't zero, so your post makes no sense because we haven't "banned the act"

.08 BAC is a very low threshold. I also know of a lot of places where if you're caught driving below .08 they won't even let you drive home. It's ridiculously restricted, which is as good as an outright ban to me. I guess we shouldn't call the 1994 AWB a "gun ban" because technically we were allowed 10 round mags and neutered rifles still. Weak comeback.

Implying that Implied Consent is a Minnesota only thing

Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

If you only got pulled over for a busted tail light, and can pass field sobriety, you should have nothing to worry about right?

I mean, the only way you'd end up getting hung out to dry would be if you were TOO IMPAIRED to perform SIMPLE TESTS. If you're too impaired to perform those simple tests, why the fuck are you driving again?

So yeah. Simple answer to this one: Don't. Drink. And. Drive.

I've never really understood how that's a hard concept for people to grasp...

It's your time we're on if you want to refuse because no matter what you're going to jail while we figure it out.

Exactly how much sense would it make to refuse the SFST and then blow after getting arrested? I had literally zero people attempt that.  

So yeah, implied consent.

Nice strawman.

10/10

I understand the outrage over drunk drivers, But I too am amazed how it is a hot button issue, that makes people abandon cognitive thought.

But not the same outrage for tired drivers  "AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that drowsy drivers are responsible for one in six — or 17 percent - of fatal car accidents"
Driving Tired

follow the money. Once you figure out the replies vs what these people do for a living then youll notice a pattern

Only read the first page so far but it appears more than a few people need to review their state's laws on DUI with respect to "under the influence" vs 0.04/0.08 level prima fascia limits.

Weapons grade derp here and I don't know where to begin to dismantle your logicbomb of fail.

First and foremost, drunks and their lawyers came up with the arbitrary BAC. Not the government.

You're saying that knowingly impairing yourself and then getting behind the wheel is not malicious? Are you serious right now?

Soooooooo at .09 you're good to drive? Fucking prove it. In fact, take ten random people, get them to .09 and show me that *ONE* of them is good to drive. I'll wager that you'll find it a challenge to get one in a hundred.

FYI: the standard to which DUI is criminal is "Impaired." If you're at .04 and a lightweight, and you're drunk as fuck, you're going to jail for DUI. Deal with it. I know, "Wahhh wahhh, but I was under .08!" Don't matter. The legal standard is what it is.

So you're saying that telling retards that they shouldn't be drinking, i.e. impairing themselves, before hopping into what is a 2000 pound weapon while not having the ability to correctly drive it, is a lack of "Muh Freedomz!?!" Most people are simply not safe to drive with a BAC of .08. Hell, most people aren't safe to drive at .05.

It is just as dangerous to regular people as you shooting your gun in a populated area. At least with shooting your gun, people can see you and hear you and know to get out of the way. While you're driving drunk, you're under the radar until you screw up.

How about just not drinking and getting behind the wheel? Insane concept, I know.



This was a particularly spectacular failtrophy. So large in fact I have to address it alone.

You fucking dare equate carrying a gun with you driving drunk? Please explain to me how you carrying a pistol is anywhere remotely comparable to someone knowingly driving a car impaired. Is the act of carrying a gun an impairing event to you? Do you get drunk and stupid with power? Are you personally more likely to negatively affect public safety while carrying a gun or driving a car drunk?