The Debate About Blood Alcohol Level

As the endless debate goes on about which blood alcohol level we should use to determine when people are legally drunk, one has to wonder what all the parties’ agendas really are in the game. I can’t imagine that anyone is in favor of carnage and death on the highways generated by alcohol consumption, so why are there even two sides to the discussion? There has to be some other reason. Can it be that this is another example where one side of the position believes that a tightening of a regulation that did not get the results we all hoped for will solve the problem, while the other side argues just because they are against more regulations in general?

With the regulations currently at .1% and the problem drivers at double that blood alcohol level and more, will lowering the limit to .08% do anything to get the problems off the road? I hope so, but from a common sense and historical perspective, I am afraid it will not. Let’s not forget that in the past, the limit was .15% and we lowered it to .1%, but the thing that made the biggest dent in the number of drunk drivers was the rigorous enforcement of the drunk driving law. The change in the limit did not curtail as many of the serious and dangerous drunk drivers as anyone had hoped, and that is why we are sitting here today pondering how to get better results.

One has to ask if it is logical to think that the proposed 20% reduction in the allowable blood alcohol level will appreciably reduce the problem. The change will make legally drunk drivers out of anyone weighing 100 lbs. who has a drink and drives soon after. That will pretty much discriminate against the smaller females, it seems. Will the change in the limit stop the people of all sizes who are currently driving appreciably above .1%—like at .2% or .25%? You be the judge.

There is a second issue regarding agendas in the matter. Regardless of your opinion on the "right" blood alcohol level, how is it that we allow our federal government to put a gun to our heads at the state level, saying that if we do not put in a lower state blood alcohol level, they will not give us back our money (in the form of highway construction and maintenance dollars) that we paid in federal taxes? We should be trying to run Senators Dodd and Lieberman along with our six Representatives out of the state (we’re going to run one out, no matter what) for allowing this to happen to us. This ridiculous set of circumstances, which is called "bullying" in other social circles, came out of their governing bodies—and I do not recall a single one of them really protesting this scenario. If the federal government wants to set a national blood alcohol level, the U.S. Congress should get at it and do it, and when the President signs it, that will be the end of the issue on the state level. If the federal governing bodies do not want to do it or think they do not have the authority to do it, they should not be playing the game of "gun to your head" and threatening to rob us of our own tax money. We did not get a fair shake from our federal Congressional members on this matter, and it is in our interest to point that out to all of them when the opportunity presents itself.

In the meantime, think over the driving impaired problem and the practical, effective solutions—and then let your opinion be heard. Driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol needs to be further curtailed.