Blood alcohol

Blood alcohol
Let the states decide what DUI limits are best

Sept. 28, 2000

"Don’t drink and drive" is a very good admonition, but in the law it has never meant exactly that. Federal limits, imposed by the states under the threat of receiving reduced federal largess, certainly permit some drinking before driving. The 0.10 blood alcohol content, which is the threshold for driving under the influence, is estimated to be met by a 170-pound man by drinking approximately six beers in two hours; for a 120 pound woman, it’s three beers. Those estimates are just that; physical size and body chemistry play roles.

Driving while ability impaired, with its lesser penalties, is half that level or 0.05 in Colorado, which provides room for probably a couple beers.

Congress is debating, almost as we speak, the pros and cons of reducing the 0.10 DUI level to 0.08. There are opponents.

Not only are opponents of the lower threshold from the bar and beverage-serving restaurant business – that’s not surprising – but from a couple other positions as well. One group sees the change as a renewed assertion of federal control over what ought to be a state decision. (This is Rep. Scott McInnis’ position.) Another sees this is as a step in the direction of eventually reinstating the unworkable Prohibition of the 1920s.

How will the federal government get its way? The way it has in the past, by controlling access to the purse. States will have three years to adopt the reduced alcohol content level or face a progressively larger reduction in their federal highway funding.

That backhanded technique of imposing mandates causes other critics of federal power to howl foul.

Whatever the alcohol level that applies, we think a good argument can be made for targeting particular groups of drivers who drink for more severe penalties. Repeat offenders probably have an addiction problem and shouldn’t be able to drive. Youth, under 21, should be dealt with harshly to nip that misbehavior in the bud.

Then, overlay these issues with the claim that law enforcement only stops a small percentage, perhaps fewer than 10 percent, of drivers those skills have been reduced by alcohol.

Do solutions exist elsewhere on the planet? No. In the rest of the world people may drink but they don’t drive; they’d love to, particularly sober, but the economic gap between the few haves and the many have-nots makes that difficult or impossible. The United States is truly the land of the automobile.

In addition, in some European countries drinking and driving is dealt with very harshly. Alcohol may be easily available at meals and social settings in and out of the home for all ages, but drinking drivers pay a stiff price in costs and length of loss of license.

We come down on the side of the status quo: Hold at 0.10 and let the states, as they wish, shape enforcement and penalties appropriate to their circumstances. Salt Lake City is not New Orleans.