Today's "super" drunk drivers are what we called ordinary drunk drivers a few decades ago (0.15% BAC threshold). It's nothing more than grade inflation.

I'm not much of a drinker...mostly because I've gotten to the point where I really dislike drunks (either that or I've just gotten old). I've been unfortunate enough to have a few friends that are alcoholics (though one has been sober for 3 years). Career-wise I've seen both sides of the coin... I was a bartender (through college) and a cop (2 years). I've also lost one friend to alcoholism (died last year) and my best friend's sister was killed by a drunk driver. That being said, if you blow above a .17, you're a professional drunk (i.e. you at least have a drinking "problem' and are possibly an alcoholic) and the last place you need to be is behind the wheel. Classifying someone that blows above a .17 as a super-drunk is probably accurate.

Back in the days when I wasn't a lightweight (I was drinking a few nights a week as opposed to a few drinks quarterly), one of the guys brought a PBT to an after-shift party. I had finished about half a fifth of Southern Comfort within 3 hours and was seeing double. I blew a .13 and I could barely stand, walk, or talk. Compare that with the professional...someone who can walk and talk with that much alcohol in their system. I've arrested guys that had blown an .20 and above that were walking and talking (without slurring), but were obviously impaired when given the field sobriety tests.

Scary to think that there are many of these professional drunks on the road...which is why I try not to drive after 1am...and if I do, I'm VERY aware of everyone around me.

slayer199: That being said, if you blow above a .17, you're a professional drunk (i.e. you at least have a drinking "problem' and are possibly an alcoholic) and the last place you need to be is behind the wheel. Classifying someone that blows above a .17 as a super-drunk is probably accurate.

Frankly, I've never understood this logic. The fact that a person gets picked up for a DUI does not automatically make that person an alcoholic. If I rarely ever drink, but go to a retirement party for a co-worker and end up staying longer (and drinking more) than I intended, and then drive home, that means that I have bad judgment, not alcoholism.

Nobody gives a rat's ass about the handicapped Vietnam vet on disability that lives a one-block walk away from his local watering hole, where he spends 12 hours a day. Nobody cares, because he's not driving. If society and law enforcement really and honestly cared about helping out chronic alcoholics, they would care about this guy -- but they don't.

Honestly, this whole effort to equate even isolated DUIs with alcoholism smacks of neoprohibitionism. That's become the stated goal of groups like MADD, and police departments all over the country are more than happy to oblige them since they're raking in cash hand over fist.

seventypercent: Frankly, I've never understood this logic. The fact that a person gets picked up for a DUI does not automatically make that person an alcoholic. If I rarely ever drink, but go to a retirement party for a co-worker and end up staying longer (and drinking more) than I intended, and then drive home, that means that I have bad judgment, not alcoholism.

Do you realize how much and how often you'd have to drink to have a tolerance to be able to function at a .17? Even if you don't have the tolerance to handle .17 and you still choose to drive, you're a farking moron. You get no sympathy from me.

Nobody gives a rat's ass about the handicapped Vietnam vet on disability that lives a one-block walk away from his local watering hole, where he spends 12 hours a day. Nobody cares, because he's not driving. If society and law enforcement really and honestly cared about helping out chronic alcoholics, they would care about this guy -- but they don't.

The only person that can help an alcoholic is themselves. I've been there and done that. There is help available for alcoholics when THEY decide they want it, but nobody can make an alcoholic stop drinking. There's not enough effort, love, attention or otherwise...it's ultimately their decision. If you believe otherwise, you probably don't know any alcoholics.

Honestly, this whole effort to equate even isolated DUIs with alcoholism smacks of neoprohibitionism. That's become the stated goal of groups like MADD, and police departments all over the country are more than happy to oblige them since they're raking in cash hand over fist.

I think lowering it to .08 was stupid and definitely neo-prohibitionist. That WOULD ensnare people that just had 4-5 drinks in 2 a hour span. The only time arrested anyone that blew under a .13 was if they had priors for drunk-driving (though technically, you can arrest anyone at any level if they show impairment).

slayer199: Do you realize how much and how often you'd have to drink to have a tolerance to be able to function at a .17? Even if you don't have the tolerance to handle .17 and you still choose to drive, you're a farking moron. You get no sympathy from me.

I don't disagree with this, but my point was that being a farking moron does not make you an alcoholic.

In many (most?) states, people are required to take "alcohol classes" or seek other sorts of "treatment" -- all at their own expense, of course -- even in instances where they blew a .08 at a sobriety checkpoint after a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. To me, this is an indication that these programs are more concerned with revenue generation than they are with actually treating genuine alcoholics or providing for public safety. (But this is an unfortunate trend that pervades law enforcement in its entirety, not just in DUI policy.)

seventypercent: I don't disagree with this, but my point was that being a farking moron does not make you an alcoholic.

In many (most?) states, people are required to take "alcohol classes" or seek other sorts of "treatment" -- all at their own expense, of course -- even in instances where they blew a .08 at a sobriety checkpoint after a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. To me, this is an indication that these programs are more concerned with revenue generation than they are with actually treating genuine alcoholics or providing for public safety. (But this is an unfortunate trend that pervades law enforcement in its entirety, not just in DUI policy.)

I don't think we're on the same page.

I never liked the lowering the limit to .08. That definitely ensnares the casual drinker that had 2-3 drinks in an hour....not that much. Most people can function at that level (depends on weight, but you get the idea). Blowing a .08 and being classified as an alcoholic is wrong (that's 2-3 drinks in an hour). Blowing above a .17 classifies you as at the very least having a drinking "problem" or at worst an alcoholic. In my lifetime, I have yet to know a casual drinker that had just a few too many blow a .17. In my mind, having more serious penalties for those blowing at a higher level is good...but ease up on the lower end of the spectrum.

able to drink entire kegs in a single chug



RIP Fox

TheWhoppah: You should be able to take the driving test while intoxicated to earn a "Drunk Driving License" issued by the State DMV.

I drove one of those drunk driving simulator cars that has delayed braking and steering. The MADD representative in the passenger seat was pissed that I didn't hit any cones.

Fines and other costs could top $8,000, some defense attorneys predict. Alcohol treatment is mandatory, possible jail time is doubled, and driving is forbidden for 45 days.

Of course during those 45 days you can get a bread and butter license that lets you drive to work. So really it all comes down to cutting a large check to the state for DUI and moving on. The fine and the costs of the state run treatment program.

/neighbor has 4 DUIs over the past decade
//he did 48 hours in jail and one week without a license of any sort as punishment
/MI legal system was all about the cash

Beyond the modern temperance movement, and revenue generation arguments- which I agree with, the thing that pisses me off about spending so much energy on drunk driving is that it totally distracts from other forms of bad driving. Using a cel phone, being tired, or just being a terrible driver.

I know everyone has their "my city has the worst drivers" story, but I gotta say- in parts of New Orleans I'm almost afraid while driving. During the middle of the day. No, I'm positive most of these people aren't actually drunk... but they sure drive like it. Seriously, in many parts of town if I have the right of way, and the cross street has a stop sign, I still almost come to a stop. Because a good percentage of the time the other car will just roll out into the street without thinking.

But drunk driving has a stigma and can be "measured".

I hate drunk drivers (real ones, not the new class of .08 blowers we incriminate for cash)... but ALL bad driving is a problem.

Johnnyflash: Why in the hell can't I post an image?

Super drunk?

As I stated earlier, my best friend's sister was killed by a drunk driver (and ironically drove my buddy and his mother to find comfort in the bottle...he finally sobered up 3 years ago...his mom sobered up 2 years ago). Side-note: the guy that ended up killing my buddy's sister (and one other person in the car he hit) in 1983 had multiple priors for drunk-driving and served only 5 years in prison. Now he'd likely get double the time at a minimum.

Statistically, the number of drunk-driving deaths as a percentage of fatal accidents has decreased from 60% in 1982 to 32% in 2009. Does enforcement have anything to do with it? I'd say yes. Does .08 make sense for first-time offenders? No since half of drunk-drivers are repeat offenders...get those clowns off the road.

iollow: Aren't there more accidents in rush hour than late at night?

People drive drunk at all hours...that is true. But in my experience, most of the accidents from drunk-driving were in the evening.

As mentioned frequently above, this has nothing to do with highway safety and everything to do with collecting more revenue for a state that is hurting financially. Huge monetary penalties, jail terms (BTW, in metro Detroit at least, when you're imprisoned for a DUI or DWI offense you get billed for the cost of your jail expenses) and required in-car breathalyzers (no doubt only certain models installed by prescribed state installers) all add up to more money for Michigan.

I remember when the state lowered the legal limit to .08, and then (temporarily) added a proviso to the law that said if you blew .08 or over your car would be confiscated and forfeited. (I say "temporarily" because within a few months that was struck down as being equivalent to being convicted without a trial.) My boss at the time bought a banged-up used car to use after hours to take clients to dinner and such because IF he was stopped and happened to blow .09 after two cocktails, he didn't want his brand new Mercedes to be confiscated by the cops just so they could re-sell it.

Rude Turnip: Skwrl: Agreed that the current level is low... But try going to parts of Europe (i.e., Estonia, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary) where the legal BAC limit is functionally zero...

I think it's also 0% in Ukraine. I'd welcome this in the US. It would encourage increased use of public transportation and/or a burgeoning hospitality industry around bars. A win-win for the economy and drunks.

Ok, your draconian zero-tolerance, any alcohol makes you drunk idea is just dumb.

However, this is my major problem with drunk driving laws. No one wants to discuss increasing public transportation.

Most people that drive drunk, do so because they have to. Ok, fine, no one HAS to drink... but the majority of America does drink and does so responsibly.

I'm so lucky to live in a city where I can walk/bike/cab to and from a ton of bars. I know plenty of hard-core drunks, and because we have options- most of them actually don't drive when they've gone too far that night.

This is absolutely not true with most of the rest of the country.

When I was living in the suburbs of Chicago I had basically zero options other than driving.

Rude Turnip

I heard the limit used to be zero or nearly zero in Russia. That law probably dated from the Soviet era and it would make sense for Ukraine to be the same. I heard the law justified by cultural differences in how people drink (from somebody who has visited Russia and doesn't like harsh American alcohol laws).