CVC 23140(a) Reads something to the effect of "It is an infraction for any person under tho age of 21 to drive while having a BAC of .05% or more."

Is it too restrictive to make driving with a .05% BAC  "illegal" for 16 -20 yo drivers?  It's not a boookable offense, its an infraction, like a speeding ticket.

Stoopid.  You can't even legally drink if you are under 21, so what's the point of setting a limit?


.04% is okay?  Uh, you were drinking illegally

I would say that since the legal drinking age is  21, no it isn't to restrictive.

It's dumb, it's ALREADY ILLEGAL! They just want another offense they can tack a fine on to boost revenue!

S.O.

if you think that is restrictive, come to Arkansas...  

.02 BAC here underage will get you a DUI, first offense you lose you license 90 days, @ $500 fine, have to attend an approved alcohol education program and/or an alcoholism treatment program before you are eligible to have your license reinstated...

so no, I don't think that what you laid out is too restrictive...  it is not nearly restrictive enough...

I thought absolute sobriety was already the law.

Quoted: I would say that since the legal drinking age is  21, no it isn't to restrictive.

This is the standard answer to this type question, but in a lot of  places (GA for instance) it is LEGAL for someone under 21 to drink, so long as the alcohol was provided by and consummed under the supervision of their legal guardian.   On special occasions my father would buy me a drink.

Is an 18 year old's driving any more impaired by alcohol?  Drunk driving laws are about the affects of alcohol on one's ability to drive a car.  The legality of the consumption shouldn't be a consideration.

In some areas the illegal level of alcohol for someone under 21 is BAC >.02.

This is really irritating, because there are several ways for a minor to legally achieve this BAC level.  If the consummption is legal, then the legality of the resulting condition shouldn't be age dependent.

Cabby

Quoted: if you think that is restrictive, come to Arkansas...   .02 BAC here underage will get you a DUI, first offense you lose you license 90 days, @ $500 fine, have to attend an approved alcohol education program and/or an alcoholism treatment program before you are eligible to have your license reinstated... so no, I don't think that what you laid out is too restrictive...  it is not nearly restrictive enough...

same in oklahoma

Quoted: Quoted: if you think that is restrictive, come to Arkansas...   .02 BAC here underage will get you a DUI, first offense you lose you license 90 days, @ $500 fine, have to attend an approved alcohol education program and/or an alcoholism treatment program before you are eligible to have your license reinstated... so no, I don't think that what you laid out is too restrictive...  it is not nearly restrictive enough... same in oklahoma

Same in Michigan. I think the statute here states "no measurable alcohol" outside of what can be caused by medicines or religious ceremonies.

Ohio also .02

It is certainly legal for a minor to drink alcohol if a parent provides it to them in the home. I am talking about a glass of wine at dinner, not a keg party.

Some households permit this.

Under these circumstances, the law is idiotic.

I tend to agree... BUT, just a few sips of wine could inadvertently push a kid over such a ridiculously low limit and they most certainly not be impaired in any fashion.

Quoted: Stoopid.  You can't even legally drink if you are under 21, so what's the point of setting a limit? .04% is okay?  Uh, you were drinking illegally

Yes, you can legally drink under age 21. Your parents are allowed to provide you with alcohol. As is your doctor.

Besides that, the 21 age is BS.

I was allowed to drink from the time I was, maybe, 14yo. Not that there was a lower limit in my family. It was nothing for me to knock back a beer at family gatherings every hour or 2 when I was 15.

I am by no means alcoholic.

In Arkansas its .02 and the charge is "DUI" whereas an adult is .08 and a "DWI"......

Being 20 myself. I do drink.  I never drive after.  Even if I take one sip of something. I don't think a new law is needed, one exsist currently.  

In PA i believe it's already .02 for drivers under 21, but i could be wrong.

I think anything >0.00 should be considered DUI if they are under 21.  

When you talk about underage drinking and driving, there are two issues that coincide: underage drinking and driving while impaired.
ANYONE who is over the age of 10 should be charged with a DWI for driving with a BAC over .08, or when they are "impaired".
I kind of think that if you are of draft-able age, you should be held to the same standards, and receive the saem privileges, as an adult. I say "kind of think" because I could be persuaded that actual service should be the bright line.
Nevertheless, in most states, below a certain age, you can't drive below a certain age with any alcohol in your sytem.
The federal government requires states to adhere to some standards regarding impairment while driving, and witholds highway (?) funding if the states balk.

Which, I'll admit, raises the issue of "creeping federalism"...

As to teenage drinking being already illegal, Texas law distinguishes "Minor in Possession" from "DUI", and while both are "fine-only", both merit "detention", and IIRC, the various penalties that the magistrate can impose differ by statute.
I was fortunate enough to be taught by a father that alcohol should ideally be used in moderation, but never, in his own words, "to act a g****m fool"
I also beleive that any impairment while driving, whether because of drug or alcohol use, mental impairment, cell-phone use, CD changing, kid-spanking, or whatever, should have some kind of consequences.
Exactly WHAT those consequences should BE should be judged by the circumstances.
And, needless to say, how much you want the government to intrude...

wouldn't the libertarians argue that drunk-driving is a victimless crime

Quoted: wouldn't the libertarians argue that drunk-driving is a victimless crime

No because when they have a wreck with someone else that interferes with that persons rights.

.01% is unlawful in Washington for minors. Avoid cold or cough medecines

In Maryland, if it doesnt read 0.00% and you're under 21, you're going to the pokey.  

Kharn

Quoted: It is certainly legal for a minor to drink alcohol if a parent provides it to them in the home. I am talking about a glass of wine at dinner, not a keg party. Some households permit this. Under these circumstances, the law is idiotic.

Will the average American male or female blow a .05 BAC with a glass of wine or a beer?

I might be wrong but I am pretty sure a similir law is already on the books here in FL. Diffrence is I think the cut off is .02%

echo6

Quoted: I tend to agree... BUT, just a few sips of wine could inadvertently push a kid over such a ridiculously low limit and they most certainly not be impaired in any fashion.

Just a few sips will put spomeone over a .05% BAC?  Maybe a 90 pound female with an empty stomach.

Quoted: Quoted: wouldn't the libertarians argue that drunk-driving is a victimless crime No because when they have a wreck with someone else that interferes with that persons rights.

That is a separate crime.  Wouldn't driving drunk without crashing be a "victimless crime?" why don't we just criminalize it only when there is a crash?

Quoted: It's dumb, it's ALREADY ILLEGAL! They just want another offense they can tack a fine on to boost revenue! S.O.

+1



There are too many laws on the books that are ONLY there to produce revenue.

Gee . In Alaska if you are under 21 and blow a .01% you can lose your license even if you are just standing on the side of the road .