# Draconian DUI laws do not really help **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2001, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159 "2001-01-28T20:43:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/41 "2001-01-30T18:26:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by One Cell \* > > I’d say I have a right to have some red wine with my dinner in a restaurant without being terrorized. If you want to force me to take a taxi to go to a restaurant, I’d say go take a hike. > > \*\* Nobodys saying you cant have a glass or two of wine with dinner, there saying if you’re going to drink the whole bottle you might want to arrange for alternate transportation. ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/42 "2001-01-30T19:17:37Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by One Cell_ > **Excuse me. If I was living in Ayatollah’s land, I’d know very well what they do to Solmon Rushdi. Thus I would think twice before making a blasphemous remark (let alone trying alcohol). But this is America (love it or leave it?). As a “drunk driver” that has never had a traffic ticket in 40 years of driving, nor having been involved in any accident, I’d say I have a right to have some red wine with my dinner in a restaurant without being terrorized.** But you **have** had at least one problem. In your original post, you said you were arrested for DUI in your 40s, so you can’t claim perfect driver status. BTW, I’d hardly call being arrested for failing a DUI test on a rainy night being “terrorized.” > [@](#): > > **If you want to force me to take a taxi to go to a restaurant, I’d say go take a hike.** Why is it so much to ask that you either let someone else drive if you’re not able to do so safely or abstain from things that might cloud your judgement and slow your reflexes? > [@](#): > > **Hell, they have already taken my right to smoke anywhere.** Yeah, who cares about asthmatics and pregnant women, anyway? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > **You know, some of you people have become so self-righteous and intolerant that you’d like to see anyone who is not like you leave the country.** Y’know, just for fun, let’s take another look at your previous paragraph, shall we? > [@](#): > > **_And I am supposed to be tolerant_ to put up with those yukee children of MADD mothers? Get your kids out of my sight. I want a restaurant that has “kids” versus “no kids” section, the “ugly, fat and boring” section, as opposed to “only non-smoking” section.** > (emphasis mine) Yessir, you’re the perfect picture of tolerance. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > **As you know, this is a single party country (The Capitalist Party, click here). It is well known that a single party country (like Nazi Germany) eventually turns into fascism and a police state.** So because you were arrested once in 40 years of driving, we’re a police state now? BTW, your link was broken. [Here it is.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56764) > [@](#): > > **So, go ahead. Keep on saying “Love it or leave it”, rather than “stay and try to change some of the draconian laws”.** But you **didn’t** stay and try to change laws you disagreed with. You’re the one who ran away to France. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/43 "2001-01-30T21:40:46Z")
As a practicing drunk and the self-proclaimed “Worst Driver on the SDMB,” I’d like to contribute. I was a habitual drunk driver. I scored myself a DWI on St. Patrick’s Day, 1996 and have not driven regularly since, although I now (somehow) hold a license for use on business trips. As a result of my DWI, I restructured my entire life around the concept of not driving. I chose to do this because I did not (and still do not) trust myself not to drink and drive. I would like to think that part of my decision was based on my reluctance to further endanger myself or others. But the bulk of my decision was probably based on the fact that I did not care to face the enormous fines and penalties associated with a second infraction here in Virginia. So the system worked for me; in fact, it benefitted me greatly. I now have a great job, I use mass transit, and I have even more disposable income than I would because I pay for none of the personal costs associated with automobiles. I could be the DWI poster child. I may also be _unique_. Most Americans do not have access to reliable and convenient mass transit. Even fewer can find good job opportunities within convenient range of said mass transit. And probably fewer still would be willing to revamp their careers, truncate their social circles, and deal with the myriad minor annoyances non-drivers face daily. (One of those annoyances may be increased chance of random death. Some forty thousand Americans die each year in automobile accidents. How many are pedestrians?) I don’t have any answers, but I can say this with a degree of certitude: no matter how harsh, penalizing drunk drivers can only provide an incentive to change people’s habits. Circumstance, necessity, and addiction may very well dictate otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/44 "2001-01-30T23:43:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by One Cell \* > > \*\*Really. It makes me want to establish an organization called DDAM – Drunk Drivers Against Mothers !! > \*\* [sarcasm]Yeah, I hate when people try to protect their children. In fact, you know what, I should have the **right** to go into Central Park, fire a gun randomly because its what I might feel like doing, and if anyone gets hit, thats their fault! [/sarcasm] > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by One Cell \* > Call me a bourgeois, if you wish. But after I got my DUI, do you think I stayed here to suffer the concequences of a revoked driver’s license? Puh… No way. My wife and I immediately packed our bags, left the United States and lived in France for several years, where we could go to any bar or restaurant, have our wine, without worrying about a “quota seeking cop” hiding and waiting for patrons outside a drinking establishment. Too bad. Both the local and federal tax authorities in the U.S. lost my generous bourgeois tax contributions during those years. > \*\* What happened to “Staying and changing the draconian laws?” Anyway, good, I’m glad that there’s one less fool on the road for me to have to worry about. I just feel sorry for the French. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by One Cell \* > \*\*As the OP said: “The draconian DUI laws in the US do not really help”. It appears that in your zeal to push down your self-righteous stance down the throat of others, you missed the essence of the OP’s message and my response to it. > \*\* I don’t see how I am off topic. You wrote how these “Draconian laws” made you the victim of a conspiracy of the cops, court system and MADD. I showed how you deserved everything you got. I don’t understand why you are so “pro drunk driver.” You committed a crime, took your chances (with your life/well-being and other’s, including your wife’s), got caught and now you seem to be trying to make yourself out as martyr. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/45 "2001-01-31T00:48:24Z")
**Protesilaus** said: > [@](#): > > God, what a dick! [Moderator Hat ON] Protesilaus, in the Great Debates forum directly insulting other posters is unacceptable. If you want to insult anyone, do it in the BBQ Pit. Thank you. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![tsunamisurfer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@tsunamisurfer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tsunamisurfer)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/46 "2001-01-31T01:38:56Z")
To those who believe they should be able to drive their cars with a “safe” level of alcohol in their systems, would you allow me to do so with your children? What about the school bus driver? What is your company’s policy re: driving company cars with alcohol in your system? Do they tend to be Draconian? Air traffic controllers? Were you to run your own business, would you allow your employees to work with a “safe” level of alcohol in their systems? How much credence would you give to their claims that you are being Draconian? Would you allow them to drink a nice red wine at their desks–providing they feel safe enough to work? If, say, a .06 BAC is acceptable to you when you drive your vehicle, would you extend the same reasonable courtesy to ambulance and fire truck drivers? To police officers? ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/47 "2001-01-31T01:54:59Z")
I’m sorry, **Gaudere**. I shouldn’t have let my emotions get the better of me. I promise I won’t let it happen again. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/48 "2001-01-31T02:01:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tsunamisurfer \* > If, say, a .06 BAC is acceptable to you when you drive your vehicle, would you extend the same reasonable courtesy to ambulance and fire truck drivers? To police officers? > \*\* Every ambulance company I have ever heard of is zero tolerance for drugs/alcohol on duty. If you are in an accident and a test shows **any** sign of either, you are fired on the spot. Also in CA anyone with a commercial licence (buses and truck drivers, would also apply to fire apparatus) their legal limit while operating those vehiles I believe is like .04 but I think they still get .08 in their regular vehicles. I would imagine firefighters and or police officers have similar policies on the alcohol on duty but I dont know for sure. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/49 "2001-01-31T04:42:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by One Cell \* > \*\*Response to **bdgr** : > > **As long as we lost the drunk that goes with them, sounds like a fair trade to me. Maybe thats the solution, we could ship all the drunks off to other countrys.** > > Yeah. America… Love it or leave it. > How about Planet Earth. Love it or leave it?.. > \*\* I never said love it or leave it. I personally don’t care if you love it or not. But I do care if you are going to drive on the same streets with people I care about, when you are too drunk to do so safely. If you cant deal with that responsability like a rational human being, and when you get caught dirty, you sit there and whine about the nasty ol police ruining your fun and not leting you run over inocent people, that I would rather you be in jail or out of the way in some other fashion. If the french want you, Then thats thier problem. Maybe you and Ira Einhorn can hang out. Ive lost friends to drunk drivers. I hae absolutely no sympathy for someone who thinks that his haveing a good time and getting loaded is more important than my family’s right to get home safely. Obviously you did not spend enough time in jail, because you didn’t learn a thing. Its not America, love it or leave it. Its more like, America, don’t act like an idiot and you wont get thrown in jail. In my opinion the, the DWI laws arent tough enough. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/50 "2001-01-31T04:45:04Z")
You never did tell us what your BAC was. I assume it must of been well within the legal limits, since you feel so mistreated. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/51 "2001-01-31T05:23:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by One Cell \* > > Response to **Danielinthewolvesden** : > > Excuse me. If I was living in Ayatollah’s land, I’d know very well what they do to Solmon Rushdi. Thus I would think twice before making a blasphemous remark (let alone trying alcohol). But this is America (love it or leave it?). As a “drunk driver” that has never had a traffic ticket in 40 years of driving, nor having been involved in any accident, I’d say I have a right to have some red wine with my dinner in a restaurant without being terrorized. > \*\* Excuse ME. Did you actually read my post? I said that in cases like YOURS,with no previous record- the Judge should be able to take that into account, plus the circumstances you described- and thus not be anywhere nearly as “draconian”. Thus if his hands were not tied by foolish but well-meant minimum sentencing laws pushed by MADD, etc- he should have given you a much lighter sentence (perhaps just the fine, classes and a 30day suspension). BUT- still one that would make you remember the incident and not repeat it. I proposed draconian penalties for the SECOND and later offences. If you seriously think that it is perfectly OK to drive drunk, however, perhaps the sentencing was not severe enough. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/52 "2001-01-31T13:34:05Z")
Gee, these “draconian” laws didn’t seem to keep [this guy](http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4900-2001Jan30.html) off the streets. 16 DUI arrests and 12 convictions since 1984, and he’s never served any significant jail time. Hasn’t even had a driver’s license since 1987. Boy, that fascist system has really come down hard on him, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/53 "2001-01-31T23:17:45Z")
Heh. I saw that article today, too. I think it mainly serves to show that some people will never stop doing what they do. Those are the “habitual offenders.” Law enforcement and the justice system are finally coming around to the concept that a majority of crimes are committed by a minority of criminals, and keeping those people off the street for extended periods of time is what lowers crime. So why to we target DWIs from the exact opposite direction? You’ll notice that article states that 90% of DWI offenders there in Montgomery County do not go to jail. Why? Because there is nowhere to put them all! Why? Because the cops hand out DWIs like Hari Krishnas hand out stickers at airports. Why is this wrong? Because if you’re a relatively small guy like myself, you can buy one twelve-pack of beer, judiciously consume it over five years, and come away with three DWIs. Meanwhile, a guy who drinks a twelve-pack every day after work and then drives fifty miles home might wind up in the exact same situation. The law will treat both the same. _We are not targeting the habitual offenders._ I know this implicitly. I was a habitual offender for ten years and got caught _once_. Why are drunk driving deaths decreasing so slowly? Because so many people now have DWIs, there is no way to identify the ones who _will_ kill someone someday. In a perfect world, everyone would drive sober all the time. But if you want to save lives in this imperfect world, we should be devising ways to identify those who are most dangerous and getting those people off the road. Tagging a hundred way-gone alcoholics might save a hundred lives in a year. Tagging a thousand people who’ve had four beers apiece might not save anyone at all. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/54 "2001-02-01T01:44:33Z")
pld- I concur. Sofa- that is why I proposed extremely draconian penalties for repeat offenders- but would allow mercy for the 1st. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/55 "2001-02-01T04:30:38Z")
One Cell, your posts have been enlightening. Rather than answer our questions about your BAC or number of drinks that night, you continue to whine and bitch about getting hassled by the Man. Well, boo-fuckin-hoo, my friend. You sound like a kid when he gets caught doing something wrong, then tries to blame everybody but himself. Understandable in a young child. Pathetic in a grown man. I hope that France is still your home (I didn’t bother to check your profile), so that you can continue to reinforce their stereotype of the ugly American. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/56 "2001-02-01T15:21:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\*pld- I concur. > > Sofa- that is why I proposed extremely draconian penalties for repeat offenders- but would allow mercy for the 1st. > \*\* I might have agreed with you before One Cells posts, but apparently he was shown way too much mercy on the first…It didn’t seem to make an impact at all. Maybe public floggings are in order. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7feea3/32.png) [@PatrickM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickM)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/57 "2001-02-01T15:40:18Z")
I agree that the drunk driving laws are draconion. As a defense attorney who handles DUI cases I have seen first hand the following situations in DUI cases: A person is said to have flunked the walk and turn test when this happened. The officer said “Take X steps on this line, turn and take Y steps back.” She took X steps on the line, turned, and took Y steps back, and then to show the officer how easy the test was and how well she was doing she went on to take 3 more steps along the same line. The officer flunked her for not following directions. A 30 year old man lives in a small apartment with his mother. He and she have a fight. He goes down to the apartment parking lot and sits in the car listening to the baseball game on the car radio while drinking a beer. This is considered “operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.” Similarly, a man working on his car in his own driveway on a hot summer day, drinking a beer, was also arrested for DUI. A cop followed a person from a bar and stopped her for “weaving.” On the breathalyzer test she blew .02, with the legal limit being .10. She was still charged with DUI. Further, DUI arrests are typically based on shaky evidence. In order to obtain probable cause to arrest someone for DUI and subject them to the breath test, officers typically administer so-called “field sobriety tests”. These tests were designed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as a guide to determine whether a subject’s blood alcohol level is above .10. According to NHTSA, if the tests are administered properly and the person flunks, then there is a 80% probability that the person’s blood alcohol level is over .10. Think about that: flunking the tests only means that there is an 80 percent chance that the subject’s blood alcohol level is over .10, which of course means that there is a 20% percent chance that it isn’t that high. That isn’t particularly reliable, and yet officers and prosecutors present this evidence as if it was gospel proof that the person was too drunk to drive. My source here is the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Attorney’s (OACDL)'s Vindicator magazine, “Field Sobriety Tests: Evidence of Not” by Rob Lyons, and “Chopping the Legs from under DUI cases” by Dale Dorning, Fall 2000/Winter 2001 issue, pages 12-13. My take is that of course drunk drivers should be prosecuted, however, IMHO we have reached the point of diminishing returns. As said above and said better, making the drunk driving laws “tougher” doesn’t necessarily accomplish anything worthwhile. ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2001, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/58 "2001-02-02T02:09:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PatrickM \* > **According to NHTSA, if the tests are administered properly and the person flunks, then there is a 80% probability that the person’s blood alcohol level is over .10. Think about that: flunking the tests only means that there is an 80 percent chance that the subject’s blood alcohol level is over .10, which of course means that there is a 20% percent chance that it isn’t that high. That isn’t particularly reliable, and yet officers and prosecutors present this evidence as if it was gospel proof that the person was too drunk to drive.** There may be a 20% chance the driver’s BAC was under .10, but look at it this way. If someone is unable to do simple things like walking a straight line or hopping on alternating feet without falling over, doesn’t it follow that they’re also unable to drive a car safely, which is a more difficult thing to do? AFAIK, the .10 standard exists because there needed to be a standard by which to measure drunkenness so as to not make it a totally arbitrary decision by the police officer. But not everyone is the same. If a police officer stops a car and the driver is slurring their speech and falling all over the place trying to walk, but they only register a .07 on the breathalyzer, should the officer just let that driver go? Wouldn’t that be irresponsible? This person is clearly unable to control their own body, let alone a car. What if the driver then got into an accident? ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2001, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/59 "2001-02-02T08:43:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \* > > There may be a 20% chance the driver’s BAC was under .10, but look at it this way. If someone is unable to do simple things like walking a straight line or hopping on alternating feet without falling over, doesn’t it follow that they’re also unable to drive a car safely, which is a more difficult thing to do? > \*\* Nope, sorry. There is a fellow in my SCA household. He is very honest & hard-worker, but not too bright. Maybe a bit brighter than "Gump’. He could not say the alphabet backwards if his life depended on it. He is also a professional bus-driver, and AFAIK, has never taken a drink in his life (OK, i know he certainly does not drink, but…). He was stopped, and failed the “field sobriety test”, which included the Backwards alphabet, and another test, which he had trouble understanding the directions to. (He claimed the Cop was very excited and kept yelling the instruction). However, he “blew” a 0.01 or something like that- ie no drinking. Still, he was detained for almost an hour. And with no smell of drinking. ---
**Author:** ![zenith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e19b73/32.png) [@zenith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zenith)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2001, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159/60 "2001-02-02T20:20:53Z")
In the not-too-distant past small communities (independent towns, suburbs, police precincts within large cities) handled DUI much differently: They arrested and jailed the loud, boisterous, aggressive-driving drunk and let the social drinker who’d gone a little over the limit and was remorseful and respectful of the cops’ authority off with a surrender of the car keys, a ride home, and a ratting-out to the Significant Other. Juvenile drinkers smart enough not to mouth off to the cop got their alcohol confiscated, rides home, and rattings-out to their parents. Enter state and federal legislators pandering to “advocacy groups”. Now there’s lots of “free money” available to local law enforcers who demonstrate a “drunk driving problem”. Now, NOBODY gets a break ANYTIME. Every contact with anyone who’s had ANYTHING to drink has to result in full sobriety tests and at least a willful reckless charge even if the BAC falls below the limit. Youthful drinkers are “double baggers”, since Slick Willy The Pander Bear made buckets’o bucks available to communities showing a “youth crime problem”. In my community, the cops dusted off a nearly-never-enforced law prohibiting smoking by teens and is patrolling the high school parking lots looking for kids to ticket. (Apparently a ticket issued for a non-violent misdemeanor is as significant an arrest, for federal purposes, as one made for a felony.) In the meantime, it seems that law enforcement’s emphasis on arrest quantity, not quality, lets an awful lot of really dangerous problem drinkers slip through the cracks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/draconian-dui-laws-do-not-really-help/52159.md?page=4)