Science group calls for Zero DUIs
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:14 am
(nah, forget those other items that can erode sobriety)The NAS (National Academies of Sciences) report suggests that policy approaches expand dramatically from their present focus, preventing drunk driving, "to also encompass reducing drinking to the point of impairment"—the latter, in other words, targeting all drunkenness.
Getting to zero, in the report's estimation, means a host of nefarious, neo-Prohibitionist approaches to alcohol regulation, including "lowering state per se laws for alcohol-impaired driving to 0.05% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) [from 0.08%, the law today in most states], preventing illegal alcohol sales to... already-intoxicated adults, strengthening regulation of alcohol marketing, and implementing policies to reduce the physical availability of alcohol." It also calls for stepped-up sobriety checkpoints, which can be constitutionally questionable.
The means the report recommends to achieve its unrealistic goals are both obnoxious and intrusive.
SNIP
Some members of law enforcement have voiced support for the NAS report's recommendations, particularly for reducing the blood-alcohol threshold to 0.05%.
"I would agree with it," an Ohio sheriff, Larry Mincks, told the local Marietta Times, speaking of the report. "Any amount of alcohol can affect you. I'm a believer in no drinking and driving whatsoever."
Bar owners disagree.
"I think it's going back to the days of the prohibition," said Mary Eddy, a Marietta tavern owner.
Even some law-enforcement officials are skeptical.
"I'm not sure lowering the limit is an effective way to lower deaths from alcohol-related accidents," said Marietta Police Chief Rodney Hupp.
"If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving more consistently," wrote former Reason editor Radley Balko in an excellent 2011 article. "It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage."
There's an "opioid crisis" going on, but let's focus on alkohol (lyrics).
Would Hupp enforce it, while disagreeing with it? Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate.
When it can be arbitrarily determined at what level people are impaired, the State, having done away with Liberty, can move the benchmark as they see fit.
Same with taxes, right? If an entity can demand 20% of income, what stops it from taking 75% or more?
I thought the scientific community rejected puritanical standards? Sounds so judgemental. Where's the tolerance, Mr and Mrs Enlightened science person?