In October of 2000, President Clinton signed into law that the new limit of .08% BAC would be considered to be per se impairment with significant penalties for all drivers that were at this limit or exceeding such. The first thing to be noted is that because the law states that .08% is impairment, it does not matter, nor is it relevant, how well that a given person conducts themselves, or demonstrates their control of their faculties because per se means “the thing speaks for itself.” So then, drivers who have a blood alcohol level of .08% or higher are Driving Under the Influence (DUI). The second thing to note is that back in the 1970s, the BAC rate for impairment was .15%, which bespeaks the question as to how did it come to this current point of a DUI being considerably lower.
When it comes to per se impairment, the very first thing that needs to be determined through scientific tests that accurately measure such is whether or not, .08% is actually impairment, or whether or not that number should be adjusted either higher or lower. That is to say, as it currently stands, impairment is .08% BAC but since this law was passed in 2000, and scientists and institutions are always in the process of improvement and advancement, it would certainly seem to be high time to determine or re-determine what is or is not impairment because the legal definition of alcoholic impairment should be accurate and without equivocation.
It could be said and it should be said that alcohol is going to affect different people in different ways, but ignoring that, for the simplicity of a blood alcohol test, is perhaps fine, as long as there has been a series of tests, consisting of a control group who have had no alcohol as compared to the test group who have achieved a specific amount of a certain blood alcohol level, of which, this testing measures specifically that which is pertinent to the nature of driving. That is to say, if we conclude that the scientists or legislators back in the 1970s were clearly unqualified or unscientific or just plain wrong on what actual driver impairment was -- which is why .15% was considered at that time to be impairment, as contrasted to something considerably lower, then it has to be taken into account, that the current limit of .08% may not itself, be any more true or accurate.
Indeed, the way that the DUI law seems to work, is that there has clearly been a concerted effort to lower the DUI rate to .08% not so much because the roads will be safer, but as a means for those who believe that drinking a little alcohol and then getting behind a wheel, should not be permitted and that the punishment for those doing so, should be significant – when, in fact, when it comes to impairment of any sort, the very first thing to figure out, is the true dividing line between impairment and non-impairment and to believe that the line is .08% should be scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and not presumed.