NTSB recommends BAC of .05

[Berkut]

I would not mind the idea of a graduated penalty structure - something like over .8 is DUI, but over .5 is just "driving while influenced" or something.

[Barrister]

So Ulmont - is your thinking that we should prosecute offences where a drunk has caused an accident, but not where they have gotten home safely?

Is that an honestly held belief, or some weird straw man / devil's advocate type position?

[merithyn]

Won't someone think of the Children?!

I try, but then I think of their backtalk, their clothes, their poor study habits, etc. and it makes me need a drink. This really is a catch 22.

Amen, bruddah!

[Barrister]

We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive". 

Why?

Because in 2010 1,082 Canadians were killed by drunk drivers.  63,821 Canadians were injured by drunk drivers.

http://www.madd.ca/madd2/en/impaired_driving/impaired_driving_statistics.html

Those people were presumably drinking more than one or two drinks. If you want to hammer people that drive while seriously impaired, I'm with you. I'm just not convinced there is an epidemic of serious accident and injury caused by people who have had minimal alcohol intake (which would be impacted by the prohibition you want to move toward).

Do you not see why restricting people from drinking 'moderate' amounts of alcohol, which in this case is roughly 3-5 drinks, and then driving, would also help us discourage people from drinking larger amounts of alcohol and driving?

[crazy canuck]

Havent read the thread but here is some data from a recent change in BC from .08 to .05

Two years after B.C. introduced Canada's toughest provincial impaired driving law, an estimated 104 lives have been saved and impaired driving has dropped significantly.

At an event today to mark the National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims and Mothers Against Drunk Driving's 25th annual Project Red Ribbon, Justice Minister and Attorney General Shirley Bond announced preliminary road-crash fatality data for the two years ending Sept. 30, 2012, and the results of a recent driver impairment survey.

Since the September 2010 launch of the immediate roadside prohibition (IRP) program, the number of alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths has decreased to an average of 62 a year. This represents a 46 per cent decrease from the average of 114 in each of the previous five years. This success well exceeds government's goal, set in 2010 in honour of impaired driving victim Alexa Middelaer, to reduce alcohol-impaired driving fatalities by 35 per cent by the end of 2013.

Government also released today an independently conducted survey of drivers in Abbotsford, Kelowna, Prince George, Saanich and Vancouver. It took place in June 2010 and June 2012 as part of an evaluation of the impact of B.C.'s IRP legislation. The 2012 Roadside Alcohol and Drug Survey found 44 per cent fewer drivers had a blood-alcohol content (BAC) 0.05 per cent and over - and nearly 60 per cent fewer drivers were at or over the Criminal Code threshold of 0.08 per cent. The results also showed that levels of drinking and driving were the lowest recorded in the history of seven similar surveys conducted since 1995.

[The Minsky Moment]

How is the risk defined on a time scale?  Are you at double the risk of a crash for the entire trip if you play with your GPS once during an hour-long trip, or are you at double the risk only for the few seconds you're playing with it?  It's very hard to compare such behaviors with drunk drivers (who are obviously drunk through the whole trip)

Also a good point, except for the last sentence which is not a sound assumption, especially for the category we are talking about: people with BACs above .05 but below .08.  For those people, most likely many or even most of the trips they take are at 0 BAC (i.e. they aren't at .07 for the morning commute or a Sunday drive).  And for those  who might start a trip at .05 or .06 (a pint after work), it is very probably their BAC will fall below the threshold well before the destination is reached.

[Barrister]

What was done in BC (and in Alberta) is similar to what Berkut talked about.  If you blow over 50 you get an administrative license suspension and fine, but it's not a criminal offence.

[alfred russel]

Do you not see why restricting people from drinking 'moderate' amounts of alcohol, which in this case is roughly 3-5 drinks, and then driving, would also help us discourage people from drinking larger amounts of alcohol and driving?

It would. Criminalizing all alcohol possession would probably also reduce drunk driving.

I just don't think that putting harsh criminal penalties in place for behavior that is not especially dangerous is justified. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. I do not believe that the punishment should fit the crime that the activity could lead to if taken to excess.

[OttoVonBismarck]

That's all well and good - but you are talking about people who have an impaired in the past.

A lot of the people I prosecute risk losing their jobs not because of the conviction, but by losing their license. Yes maybe they can get it back again in a year, but that's a hard sell.

Well, in the U.S. most states now have an interlock system. I think those strike a nice balance between punishing someone for what they did, protecting the public, and not creating social ills from misdemeanor prosecutions. It's not really to the benefit of society to expand the unemployment/welfare rolls when someone drinks and drives if there is a valid alternative (and I think the interlock is--and it is plenty punishment for first offense DUI when you factor in having to spend hundreds of dollars on alcohol education classes, usually $50-100/mo for the interlock service + the installation fee, the fine/court costs from the criminal charge itself, and the DMV fees for ultimately getting your license fully reinstated when it's all over.)

[OttoVonBismarck]

It would. Criminalizing all alcohol possession would probably also reduce drunk driving.

I just don't think that putting harsh criminal penalties in place for behavior that is not especially dangerous is justified. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. I do not believe that the punishment should fit the crime that the activity could lead to if taken to excess.

And that's the problem with teetotalers, they have no respect for the rich history of fine alcoholic beverages dating back thousands of years and how human society itself was in part structured around producing this stuff. To try and remove it from public life is basically anathema to the cultural heritage of all mankind, and because some people never learned to enjoy fine alcohol products like adults. It really makes no sense to say, "well when it's abused it's a problem, so we should punish it even when it's not really being abused." Some people basically want all alcohol banned despite evidence it doesn't work, or they want its use so restricted you can only have it while at home behind closed doors and shuttered windows.

[Barrister]

It would. Criminalizing all alcohol possession would probably also reduce drunk driving.

I just don't think that putting harsh criminal penalties in place for behavior that is not especially dangerous is justified. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. I do not believe that the punishment should fit the crime that the activity could lead to if taken to excess.

And that's the problem with teetotalers, they have no respect for the rich history of fine alcoholic beverages dating back thousands of years and how human society itself was in part structured around producing this stuff. To try and remove it from public life is basically anathema to the cultural heritage of all mankind, and because some people never learned to enjoy fine alcohol products like adults. It really makes no sense to say, "well when it's abused it's a problem, so we should punish it even when it's not really being abused." Some people basically want all alcohol banned despite evidence it doesn't work, or they want its use so restricted you can only have it while at home behind closed doors and shuttered windows.

I am certainly not a teetotaller.

[ulmont]

So Ulmont - is your thinking that we should prosecute offences where a drunk has caused an accident, but not where they have gotten home safely?

Yes.*

Is that an honestly held belief, or some weird straw man / devil's advocate type position?

Honestly held belief.  If someone who has some amount of alcohol > X in their bloodstream (obviously, what specific X one might pick is open for debate) arrives at their destination safely, we have no victim.  I am opposed to victimless crimes.

*EDIT: with the caveat that breaches of other generally applicable traffic regulations may of course be applied to people with some amount of alcohol > X.

[Barrister]

So Ulmont - is your thinking that we should prosecute offences where a drunk has caused an accident, but not where they have gotten home safely?

Yes.

Is that an honestly held belief, or some weird straw man / devil's advocate type position?

Honestly held belief.  If someone who has some amount of alcohol > X in their bloodstream (obviously, what specific X one might pick is open for debate) arrives at their destination safely, we have no victim.  I am opposed to victimless crimes.

So lets say a homeowner walks out their front steps, pulls out their pistol and casually starts letting off shots, not aiming at anyone or anything in particular.  If no one winds up being injured this fellow has done nothing wrong?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Anyone who drinks less than me is a teetotaler.

[Valmy]

Do you not see why restricting people from drinking 'moderate' amounts of alcohol, which in this case is roughly 3-5 drinks, and then driving, would also help us discourage people from drinking larger amounts of alcohol and driving?

I thought AF said 1-2 drinks.  Since when is drinking 3-4 drinks considered moderate amounts?  If I sat down and had a half a sixpack I would think I had consumed quite a bit.  Besides do not move the goal posts, you are saying we should all be criminals if we drink anything at all and drive.