If the US government allows a person to be at .0799 and drive. Do you think DWI/DUI laws are to make money for the government. The law should be .00 not .08 if the Government wants us to be safe. Its all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
2007-09-12 18:55:59 · 12 answers · asked by _+_ 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
In California, there are two DUI charges. 23152(a) vc and 23152(b) vc. The (a) count is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and the (b) count is driving with more that .08. The latter is that all we have to prove is that he was 1, driving and 2, had more that .08 in his system. That's it. It is a violation as a matter of law. The (a) is for a person, drunk but not at the .08 stage, but staggers, slurs and cannot drive a car like an ordinary prudent person. It is not all about the money. The law use to be at .15, the .10. Personally, .06 would make me happy. In time, all in good time.
2007-09-12 19:13:06 · answer #1 · answered by Songbyrd JPA ✡ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Zero would be better, it's what everyone wants on the government side. The problem is the alcohol industry is a HUGE lobby. Think about how much they spend and make at superbowl time.
A large number of groups want the limit to be .00, cab companies, law enforcement, MADD, SADD, DADD, all those groups. But the fact of the matter is that the liquor industry is so powerful and has so much money that they will get their way. It was a massive fight to get the limit from .10 to .08 back a few years ago.
Also the Ohio revised code for murder is two paragraphs, for DUI it is 3 sections totaling 23 pages. So it isn't like it is being done for money as there are so many loop holes written into the law to make sure that people can get away without having to pay.
2007-09-13 05:13:55 · answer #2 · answered by Officer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I just want to say something to the people who keep saying the government shouldnt regulate responsibility and individuals should be responsible for their own actions....
If some guy came into a mall waving a loaded gun around and acting piss drunk, should the police just say "oh well he should have been responsible for himself" and not do anything about it? NO. When you get behind the wheel after drinking, you are gaining control of a LETHAL WEAPON with limited inhibitions and lowered reaction time. The level is set there because that is where the government thinks a person is no longer reasonably able to control their own vehicle, where the reaction time slows on an average person. Like others have said, if you are driving erratically and blow something lower than a .08, you will still be held responsible. If it is set at .00, many people who are fully functioning could be cited at traffic stops where they test everyone. They put it at a limit so they can catch those who are actually inhibited.
And this has nothing to do with prohibition or personal responsibility. If it were up to me, anyone given a DUI would automatically get a suspended license.
2007-09-12 21:24:34 · answer #3 · answered by sami_sam 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No the law is fine as it is. In actual fact, many jurisdictions have a practical limit of .005 which nets a temporary suspension. This allows a person to have a drink with dinner and drive home no problem. Nobody is drunk with that. However, if you are pulled over in DC at 10 pm and asked if you have had a drink today, and you say no you had one at noon (10 hours earlier), you will be charged with DUI despite the fact there is no alcohol in your system. That is, of course, ridiculous.
2007-09-12 19:02:34 · answer #4 · answered by Fred C 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The law is based on the drivers' level of "impairment." At .0399 or whatever the driver is not impaired so they are doing nothing wrong. Obviously it is silly to say .08 is wrong, and .0799 is fine... but you have to set the limit somewhere. .03 (or the equivalent of 1 beer for an average sized male) should not be against the law. A person with that BAC is fully capable of driving normal.
2007-09-12 19:06:47 · answer #5 · answered by robertcroach@sbcglobal.net 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Society doesn't allow it hence the 0.0799 or whatever. That equates to about half a beer within 30 minutes of the test.
2007-09-13 04:10:39 · answer #6 · answered by dude0795 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
your statement is not true. You can still be sited for driving impared even if you blow under thelegal limit. If the state can prove you we too impared to safely operate the vehicle then they can charge you.
If you blow a .05 and are falling down you will be arrested and charged
2007-09-12 19:02:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i stay and have a tendency bar on a island interior the Caribbean the place there is a minimum of the effect of alcohol utilising rules and oddly sufficient my island in no way has decrease than the effect of alcohol utilising injuries you state element-rs think of you reside in a unfastened society? i think of no longer!
2016-10-04 11:57:27 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should the government have to legislate responsibility?
2007-09-12 19:02:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You make a good point.
Although this girl I know blew a .06 and she got arrested.
And yes, EVERYTHING is all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
2007-09-12 19:05:17 · answer #10 · answered by MoMoney23 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋