[mrh86]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the 80 pound cheerleader will reach 0.08 much faster than the 300 pound slob. So what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]


I personally dont know anywhere near enough about studies of BAC to have an opinion re: 0.08 vs 0.1,0.12, etc, but I think the following it pretty clearly true:

There will be variation within the population as to how coherent they are 0.08 (ie. not the variation in amount of alcohol needed to hit 0.08, but ability to function at 0.08). Even if only 5% of the population becomes dangerous at 0.08, its probably more than enough of a % to make a strong case for the law of 0.08.


The problem here, is that the people in like the top 10% of the population are going be like "OMG WTF IM FINE AT 0.08," and you may very well be able to drive safely at 0.12, but a nationwide law of 0.12 might let a good chunk of people drive legally at a dangerous level. Assuming we all agree that an individualized BAC legal limit is just too difficult, there doesnt seem to be a lot of other great options here. There are probably some 13 year olds out there who are physically/mentally able to drive well, but the law doesnt care about them; it cares about all the ones that cant when it sets the arbitrary cutoff.


Obv all numbers in the post are pulled out of my ass to explain the concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point explains why we have a set limit of 0.08 for a DUI. The police have a skewed perception of what drunk is, and the offenders have an oppositely skewed perception. This is why there are lesser penalties for being impaired at < 0.08. I am just one of those people that believes that the limit should be greater than 0.08.

And I don't care if this has been discussed ad nauseum. I'm not reading through the entire thread. I have a hangover and I want to be oppressive.