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.
They're trying sleight of hand with the data, and who knows for what reason. Maybe to look 'responsible'. Maybe some editor has an agenda. Maybe one of their sponsors has an agenda. This is nothing but a money grab for various organizations, all in the name of public safety. I'm fed up.
If they were really concerned about traffic deaths, they'd do something that would reduce traffic, like build and fund public transportation. Instead, they just want to punish anyone who drinks. This has become a teetotalist movement, and no one seems willing to speak out against it.
I found a website that shows that dd deaths have decreased since 2000, but they seem to follow the same trajectory as before the law was passed, which leads me to believe that education about drunk driving and tougher enforcement of laws that already exist is probably more to credit than the tougher standard.