All I can say is I hope they bust your ass and throw you in jail before you kill someone. Maybe you'll learn that way.
My ass has been busted once - over 10 years ago and I no longer drive when I'm even near intoxicated, but I do not avoid driving entirely if I've had a drink. I'm NOT saying alcohol doesn't affect people and that, no matter how much you've had to drink, you're safe to drive. What I am saying is that line of impairment/intoxication is different based on many factors and that it does not necessarily match with the legal definition of simply measuring BAL.
Let's say you're given a simulation test to measure when you are no longer capable of driving and they measure your BAL. Do you think, under various circumstances, that line is going to be reached at different BAL levels? Let's say one day you're wide awake and alert. On another you've been up all day and you're exhausted. And in another test, you're exhausted and sick. You're going to hit that "not OK to drive" level at different BAL levels. And other people who may be younger and fitter may hit those marks at different points than you, under the same conditions. At least that's my contention. If you disagree, you'll never see what I'm saying.
But, let's say hypothetically, you hit it at .11 on your good day, .09 when you're tired, and .08 when you're tired and sick. If law enforcement and politicians are going to do these kinds of tests to see what the legal limit should be, what number are they going to choose? .08 - you have to go with the minimum. You don't want to set it at .10 because sometimes people are intoxicated at .08. Yet on the good day, bright and alert, you weren't unsafe until you hit .11, but the legal setting for "intoxicated" for your case is now set at .08. Any legal definition has to be near the minimum to catch all cases, not a maximum or even an average. And, some people are going to be OK over that minimum and some people are going to be impaired when they hit the minimum.
What I'm saying is the legal definition is not so cut-and-dried. Some people can be "a bit" over the minimum and be OK and some people can probably be under and still be intoxicated. And I do believe "a bit". When we start getting into higher BAL levels, the impairment goes up exponentially and there's no doubt you're drunk and impaired. I'm not saying otherwise.
Sure this is a controversial viewpoint. Most people would rather see things in black and white and have thier villians clearly defined for them and not really think about other factors or fairness. These are the same people who would probably sentence a lukemia patient growing pot to ease their suffering the same sentence as a drug dealer growing it to sell. No thinking outside the box.
You can fling your curses at me. Go ahead. At least Jesus Christ (the poster here, not THE Jesus) came back with a thoughtful response, indicating others think only in the right/wrong world and aren't thinking beyond hurtling insults and wishes for my demise.
The only thing I'm saying is that not everybody hits that "impaired/intoxicated" mark at the same BAL and some people can be above the legal definition and be equally qualified to drive as somebody below that legal definition. Yet one is a "drunk driver" and the other is not. Am I the only one that agrees with this statement?
As for batting, I never tried that after drinking. Granted, these aren't reaction-time sports, but I have seen people get a LOT better at billiards and darts when they're drunk than before they started drinking. I've also have seen some people get better at reaction-time video games. As I recall, the people who got better at video games were not REAL drunk, only a little and quite probably over the legal limit. But after a certain point, the more they drank, their play deteriorated greatly.
And I suspect this is true of many DWI accidents and those who cause them. You have to worry a lot more about the guy who's double the legal limit than the guy who's teetering at it. And he's not double the danger, the more you drink the danger goes up exponentially. I'm only arguing the strict demarcation line that claims everyone's body is equal and that above it you are not fit to drive, but somebody else one point under is.
If you're going to say people shouldn't be driving after even one beer because their reaction time is diminished, then push for zero tolerance. And while you're at it, banish cell-phone use in cars. Take drivers licenses away from people who start becoming forgetful. Force more frequent eye tests for elderly drivers. Ban CBs, radios, CDs, and tapes along with headphones if you're using them. Ban passengers from carrying on a conversation in a car. Ban people from driving after a breakup with their girlfriend/boyfriend or if they just had a fight with their wife/husband. Ban people from driving after a big meal because they're blood is processing food and making them sleepier. All of these things distract drivers and diminish response time and could kill a kid who runs out in front of you. Yet the only things I know of being addressed are alcohol, cell-phones, and headphones (never mind the headphones are off, but the music is so loud it can be heard 3 blocks away and they STILL can't hear an ambulance).
