by b_b

Firstly, I have had two family members killed in drunk driving auto accidents; I know how this issue effects people. But come-the-fuck-on. Here is a great example of why not to pass this law, quoting from this article:

All the states moved to the 0.08 standard after a federal law was passed in 2000 to withhold highway money from states that did not comply. That change has helped to reduce accidents caused by drunken driving. Deaths from alcohol-impaired driving has declined from about 21,000 deaths in 1982 to nearly 10,000 in 2011. But the current standard still allows impaired drivers to take to the road.

Uh, what? They tout a lay passed in 2000, then correlate it to the decline in deaths throughout the 80s and 90s. 0.08 is not really intoxicated. Anecdotally, all the people I've know who have had dd accidents have involved drivers who were wasted--*fucking wasted*. Local governments already use the 0.08 law to harass people and create revenue. Law enforcement would love nothing more than to have more reason to fuck with citizens and shore up some revenue; let's not let them. I want to know where the evidence is (empirical evidence collected from real drivers; not laboratory simulations that measure minute differences in reaction time under controlled conditions) that there is a difference in functionality between 0.05 and 0.08 BAC. I don't buy it for a second, and shame on the Times.