Oh sheet, now I have to worry about this too! Dh and I have young friends (30s)that like to party and some of them are coming over tonight. God, I am gonna have to watch them, aren't I?

Maybe next year the laws will be expanded so that if a friend gets charged w/dwi, the bar or homeowner will be charged as an accessory. It already is a criminal charge. Scary really. I mean I would be ok w/it if the limit wasn't SO DAMN LOW!

You know I have not been totally blind to this as a safety concern. I have pulled keys, called cabs, had friends sleep over - just have not had to do it in the last decade or so. Guess I got complacent.

I completely agree with the OP (Bladerunner?) that posted there is a difference between feeling ok to drive and legally being ok to drive. Maybe that is a slight twist on what he posted.

So everyone, look at my chart PLEASE. BAC Chart

Also TJ, I agree w/you on the irony but somehow I doubt any of the MADD proponents are complaining.

Okay, I am really bugging myself here. I certainly don't believe in drunk driving and don't know why I have been so oblivious the last decade to both the changes in the laws and the general safety issue.

The best explanation I can come up w/is that I moved from the DC area to the side of a mountain 10 years ago.

In DC, dh and I never drove. We would take cabs. Both of us took public transportation to work and rarely even had our cars out at night.

We were on top of the news and the changes in the laws.

When we moved to the side of the mountain, we had a child and so stopped going out for several years. No place to go really and w/a young child after 15 years of marriage, we weren't really interested in leaving her w/a sitter.

Then we started making friends and started going out. No cabs here. No traffic either; not like driving on a highway. Hitting a deer is more likely than hitting another car. Flying off the side of a mountain and killing yourself is more likely than hurting someone else.

I know, more likely sounds weak too.

I am starting to get it; I guess. Don't know why it took me so long. I promise I am not a stupid person who does not care about the safety of others.

So would you guys pull keys from friends if they only had 3 or 4 drinks over a long period of time? I mean if they seemed ok to drive - but they would be arrested if they were stopped.


And if you would do it; have you done it recently?

meon: too hard on yourself
i had a friend whom insisted he could drive after drinking
tried to convince him to not drive.
twas a battle.
he won the keys and took off.
couple hours later he called from jail.
he slid into back of police patrol car.
no one hurt.
had to bail him out of jail and represent him thereafter.
he moved to city and takes mass transit now, rather than drive and risk harm to another.
kept his drinking.
not a choice i would make, but he is grown. (he doesn't admit he drinks at all now, but one hears it in his voice.)
i could not stop him that nite, tho.

Stacy is correct. Under the law if you have had a party or even an individual in your home and alcohol was consumed and the individual(s) were impaired when they left and by chance happened to cause an injurious accident then the injured party can very well sue both the driver and you as being both responsible parties. I witnessed this first hand almost 10yrs ago as a good friend was in fact sued for this reason after a party at her home. To say the least it brought years of financial hardship on the whole family.

Take Keys, insure that there are DD's, or if in a location call a cab or grab pillows and blankets. Don't invest your livelihood in taking chances. DUI Laws have been in effect for how many years now? I do drink, but I also have to work and get to work so I have for those reasons just learned to be cautious as I can't fight the laws and need to maintain a job. You can sue someone in all states for the above. It is an injury accident. No separate State Laws on this.

http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/dramshop.htm

look up dram shop liability state by state

Yes Meon, that is something as a homeowner you have to worry about now.

Makes you not want to have alcohol in your house when you have company doesn't it?

Well, I did keep on eye on our friends last night, and I was pleased to see they were being very responsible. To be honest, I usually don't pay too much attention. So it was a nice surprise.

No not familiar with "Strike the Root" Fill me in?

I've also got a bartender angry because I notified him of a drunk young woman announcing she was leaving and driving home. He got pissed off, we stared each other down, then he called a cab and wouldn't let her leave the premise. Citizen's must look after each other, not bureaucratic agencies and agents.

Just google Strike the Root.
Are you familiar with Henry David Thoreau?
Sounds like you are birds of a feather.

I was getting smokes in a liquor store and a really drunk guy pulled up and walked in. He got something to drink in a paper bag. We all know what that means. I told the people working there and they blew me off and said he's always like that.

If I'd had a cell phone I would've called the cops. Yeah, I'm mean like.

It's been a long time since high school and lit classes. Ever interested in prophecy? Try reading Daniel chapter 2 verse 31 to 44. Similar basis of Strike the Root.

Sweetz, that is not mean. It is being a good citizen.

My friend who got busted for the 2 glasses of wine is now taking her alcohol counseling classes. There was another women in one of the sessions who had just been arrested for the 2nd time. She got busted driving drunk to the liquor store! She now has to wear an ankle bracelet and is awaiting her trial.

Again, my whole thing w/drunk driving is not agreeing w/the legal limit. I just wish is was still at .1 which seems more reasonable to me.

I just don't think .081 is enough to justify arrest, loss of license, jail time, and all the other stuff.

I feel like the LE's focus is on busting those who have had a nice dinner and 2 glasses of wine/beer/whatever; instead of focusing on those who are truly drunk and are repeat offenders.

Sort of like how the DEA is busting CP patients instead of drug addicts.

Hi meon. I think it just appears that way. If a department is conducting a DWI project, they investigate, meaning question, eye response test, and portable breathalyzer anyone they pull over. Unfortunately, they have to. If they pick and choose, they get labeled for profiling. If they are found to be profiling people for any reason, they could have all their cases thrown out. They have to treat the person with empty beer cans all over and urine stain on their unzipped, mud covered jean the same as the soccer mom who just had a couple of glasses of wine with the PTA

I just don't think .081 is enough to justify arrest, loss of license, jail time, and all the other stuff.


Meon, I have my Class A CDL. I can't even be near .04 or I go straight to jail, even when driving a car it is enforced. I no longer have the option for a glass of wine or beer if I'm driving when I go out. I can't even have Lysterine or Nyquil on my breath. They seem to target those who can pay the fine and a lawyer. Cha - Ching!

Well that seems odd to me; although I do believe you. Why are there stricter standards for a commercial driver when off duty? Any idea?

This went into effect I believe in 2005.

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) is a federal mandate designed to enhance highway safety by ensuring only safe drivers operate commercial motor vehicles. MCSIA improves the commercial driver license (CDL) sanctioning process by strengthening the disqualification process through the expansion of violations that result in disqualification. In addition, MCSIA requires states to disqualify CDL drivers who have high risk traffic offenses in their personal vehicles.

The Rules are more stringent on CDL's as they do not want say a Carrier to stop and have a drink or so with Dinner before heading back out or having a drink before they even start their haul.

AK can confirm, but I believe this would even apply to say a Careless Driving Ticket (like Tiger) in his car. He could lose his CDL for that as well.

NEW4- Any ticket a CDL driver receives on their own time is double the points and double the fine. We are suppossed to be professionals and held to a higher standerd. You can drink while parked, most companies would fire you though, and cannot have a drink 4 hours before going back behind the wheel. Do the math and a few beers would disqualify you from driving. DOT states ZERO alcohol in your system when behind the wheel. Blow a .01 and your on the phone telling your boss the truck can't move until you are alcohol free.

With a CDL there is NO CARELESS. Careless results in an accident, injury or death.

And you ask why held to a higher standerd? Like I posted above, they know you have the money to pay the fines. Most drivers have personal insurance that gives you access to a lawyer 24/7 while in the US and Canada. The DOT, troopers and locals always arrest the ones who can afford a lawyer and pay their fines.

I saw my friend this weekend she told me something really interesting about blood alcohol counts (BAC).

Apparently, one's ability to function is determined not only by one's BAC, but also by one's tolerance.

If you drink 2 or 3 glasses of wine every night, then even if your BAC is over .08, you would feel perfectly fine, if not 100% sober.

On the flip side, if you hardly ever drink and have no tolerance and have 2 glasses of wine, you would feel buzzed.
Although your BAC would still be the same as one who has more tolerance.

So, the BAC legal limits do not take into account any tolerance to alcohol, one may have. In theory, this is the reason for the road side tests (walk a straight line stuff).

Not sure what all this means. I just found it very interesting.

This is where the term "high functioning alcoholic" comes from. Same as any tolerance for any substance. I would love to see someone go into court and fight a DUI based on this though...

"Your honor, my client certainly was technically legally above the BAC needed for an arrest in this state, but he drinks constantly, and has a very high tolerance for alcohol..."

I don't think that would be a ridiculous defense at all. Think about it.

If one does have 3 or 4 drinks a night and did a bang up job on the roadside test, and his BAC was borderline legal ....

I don't know, as a defense, it makes sense to me. Seems to me that the legal BAC level is so low to catch those who are truly too drunk to drive, as they have no tolerance.

But most DWI/DUI's are pleaded out and don't go to trial. But still, it could be a worthwhile discussion to have w/the DA when trying to work out a plea.

In my world, having wine w/dinner every night is not excessive or embarrassing; it's just tasty!

And yes, 4 drinks a night is too much - I know. Personally, I am closer to 2, maybe 3.

The legal limit , how many drinks, what you drank, or what drug is in your system is not the issue in court.

ARE you under the influence of something thats known to cause impairment?

if that can be proven YES, then you;re busted and will be convicted of something.

Really E, you don't think that the degree of the impairment is relevant?

And if you are correct, then what is the point of the roadside test? Why is it even done?