[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
A DUI is a DUI whether it was at .05 or .20; an officer decided he was incapable of driving a vehicle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this type of mentality is why drunk driving laws are so messed up to begin with. First of all, these numbers are somewhat nebulous concepts to begin with. Without testing a persons blood (even that is not fool proof), it is very difficult to determine "how drunk" a person is. The fact that we have a strict cutoff point for DWI's is ridiculous (ie .07 you can drive 70 MPh in the rain with a baby in the back, .08 you are the scum of the earth). Breathalyzers are probably the most inaccurate devices in popular use next to oven thermometers. It is very hard to find data on these things (by design I suspect) but a single reading on a breathalyser could have an error bar of +-.03. These readings are practically useless. I think you are right to say that it is very much the officer's call on alot of cases, and this would probably be the most accurate way to determine if a person deserves a DWI in a vacuum. I just don't think police are smart enough/well trained enough/make enough money to be given this much power.

Equating a .05 to a .2 is just retarded. First off how much more likely do you think a person with a .2 is than a .05 to hurt somebody? I would guess (no data though) that you would need less than 100 cases of a person driving with a .2 to show that they are much much worse than a sober person. For .05 I am honestly not sure if you could show it with 10k cases, especially when you factor in the fact that a certain percentage of .05 are really around .03. Coupled with the fact that sober driving itself is somewhat unstudied, (ie how much more likely is the worst sober driver to hurt somebody then the best). If anybody has any data on this I would love to see it and if I am wrong I will gladly change my tune.

That said, I agree that people driving drunk is a problem and something that should be punished. I wish we had better technology so that we could stop people from driving drunk. Maybe something like everybody would have to scan their ID to start a car. Then I would totally support really harsh penalties, like get caught once you can't drive for a year, twice you can't ever drive again. Though the accuracy issues would still be a problem, I would sleep much better at night knowing that your ability to drive is all that is at stake and not your freedom. Cases where people are hurt /killed would still be tough to decide punishment though. I would also would be terrified of giving the government that much power so I am not sure if it is practical even in the future.

[Highjack] Has anybody been able to buy a breathalyser that wasn't a complete piece of [censored]? I, like alot of people in their early 20s, have friends who drive when I think they shouldn't. I have bought 3 breathalyzers each one more expensive then the last and they have all sucked. I would pretty much spend any amount to get one so I could convince my friends to take a cab or wait a few hours. Granted they often lead to retarded higher BAC prop betting but that is safer then driving drunk IMO.

As for OP, I really think it sucks that you have to spend 2 years in jail. If their was some way in which you could be free and we could assure that you wouldn't drive drunk I would support that 100% (couldn't we use house arrest for this?????). I don't really know much about life inside so I can't really help you with that. That book that was suggested before seems like a good idea. I hope things aren't too bad for you in jail and I hope you can get things back to normal when you get out.