should drinking while driving be legal?

[bedstuy]

No way.

It's not necessarily much more dangerous to drink a beer while driving than it is to drink a cup of coffee.  But, the type of person who drinks a beer while driving is an alcoholic who drives drunk and would be above .08 if you pulled them over some other time.

[bedstuy]

But, the type of person who drinks a beer while driving is an alcoholic who drives drunk and would be above .08 if you pulled them over some other time.

If this person is an alcoholic, .08 isn't necessarily a good indicator that they are too inhibited to drive in the first place.

I don't see your point.  If you have a great tolerance and could drive safely at .08, you're still breaking the law at .08.

[bedstuy]

But, the type of person who drinks a beer while driving is an alcoholic who drives drunk and would be above .08 if you pulled them over some other time.

If this person is an alcoholic, .08 isn't necessarily a good indicator that they are too inhibited to drive in the first place.

I don't see your point.  If you have a great tolerance and could drive safely at .08, you're still breaking the law at .08.

yessir, he's arguing at minimum that hard BAC reading should not be the lone barometer in handing out charges for drunk driving.

That's ridiculous.  If you have .08 BAC, you are impaired as a driver.  At below .08 BAC, you're impaired.  Some people are more or less impaired, sure, but you have to draw the line somewhere. 

The larger point is there is no legitimate interest in driving while intoxicated.  It's extremely dangerous and puts other people's lives in danger.  10,000 people a year and killed because of drunk driving.  Whatever tiny unfairness is born by only somewhat impaired drivers is nothing compared to the public safety interest here. 

[bedstuy]

That's ridiculous.  If you have .08 BAC, you are impaired as a driver.  At below .08 BAC, you're impaired.  Some people are more or less impaired, sure, but you have to draw the line somewhere. 

a chronic alcoholic -- ie, someone who drinks himself to .2-.4 BAC regularly for decades on end, is certainly not impaired at .08, and in fact is probably better suited to drive at .08 than he would be at 0 and in the throes of withdrawal, shakes, delirium tremens, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that all depends where your sympathies lie my man.  the DUI industry has given rise to a few destructive and distinct effects: erosion of the 4th amendment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz , Thurgood coming down on the correct side of a 4th amendment issue, as usual), cultural deification of law enforcement, and the treatment-industrial complex slush fund.  naturally I hate all of these things more than I hate people who drive while drinking or drunk.

Our drunk driving laws should be designed to promote public safety, not to enable alcoholics.  If you can't drive safely sober, there's an easy solution.  Don't drive. 

And yes, my sympathies lie with preventing injuries and deaths from drunk driving.  Besides, the 4th Amendment issue is completely orthogonal to the issue of where the BAC limit should be.