When I was growing up in my state it was.15 which is reasonable, you’re pretty impaired at that level. It was changed to .10 later then .08 with the nationwide mandate. .08 is already pretty ridiculous, I liken it to the 55 mph speed limit, it brings in a lot of revenue but does nothing for safety. Never underestimate the willingness of housewives to vote for anything when a politician wails “it’s for the children”. At .05 you’re not impaired in any way. If you have an accident it’s got some other reason than the drinking, correlation does not equal causation. It’s an idea only a leftist nanny state totalitarian would support. It’s a terrible idea but people are sheep and it’ll probably pass.
I'd agree with about all of that.
"Impaired" driving, "drunk" driving, "buzzed" driving, et al, should be subject to severe penalty no doubt about it. But I'd like to see the numbers supporting 0.05 as the break point. I don't get "impaired" and drive. Matter of fact my average consumption level is low; maybe 2 or 3 beers or glasses of wine a week at the most. Liquor is a rarity though a few times a year a wee dram of Scotch or Irish does speak to me. I just don't keep it on hand. But on the fairly rare occasion when wife and I splurge and have a nice steak dinner, upscale Italian of something similar I very well may have 2 glasses of wine. Now state, don't tell me I just lost my ability to drive safely or that I'm endangering others on the road. In that scenario if I'm at 0.05 then that is an undue burden on my freedom to choose and is no increased risk to the public.
Even worse is the limitation on concealed carry. Here in NC if a CCW holder can be shown to have had
any recent alcohol consumption while carrying concealed it's a state crime. Give me a break. Just because I may have had a beer at a friends house I'm suddenly a danger to society? Why should this not be based on real impairment rather than a yes/no question? Freedoms are much easier to lose than to regain.
You get deferred adjudication predicated on complying with a "system" that's run by organizations with a financial interest in keeping you in the system because you are their revenue source.
How about the insurance lobby? Let's say just hypothetically you get a DUI for being at 0.052 Are you really a high risk driver at that point of just subject to much higher insurance rates. If that's the only violation indicating your increased risk you're a good client to have. More revenue for no real increased risk. And like I said, I'd just like to see proof that 0.05 is a valid reference point.
