Correlation is not causation, you over-educated idiots

So a bunch of scientists want to lower the limit for BAC.

Most women would need to draw the line at two drinks, and men at two or three if states follow a blueprint by a prestigious scientific panel for eliminating the “entirely preventable” 10,000 alcohol-impaired driving deaths in the United States each year.

A "prestigious scientific panel" full of people who don't know what the hell they're talking about.  This is part of the problem when you're a very intelligent person - you tend to think that because you're a genius in one area, you're a genius in other areas.  Let me explain why they're wrong.

The BAC level for most states is set at .08.  So if you're at .08 or higher BAC, that's considered "drunk driving".  It was at .10 for decades, before it was lowered around the late 90's. 

Most people who I pulled over for drunk driving were blowing around .12 to .20 BAC, with some a bit higher.  So they were well beyond the limit, and that means even further beyond the limit that these so-called smart people want to impose.

The military folks didn't have too many DUIs in their background.  If they did they typically were busted down in rank, which meant removal from the service.  But the civilians we busted on post?  Multiple DUIs.  And they either kept driving even without a license, or they STILL HAD THEIR LICENSE after four or five DUIs!

You want to cut down on drunk driving in America?  Lowering the BAC level won't do a damn thing.  Lowering the boom on the assholes who are driving drunk WILL in fact help lower the DUI rates.  I've never understood why this country is so lenient with drunk drivers.  Would you be lenient with someone who walks around waving a gun at people?  Hell no you wouldn't, they would be in jail on multiple charges!

But the people who drive drunk, who in effect wave that gun at random people, get a slap on the wrist.

This isn't about BAC.  This is about the permissive attitude we as Americans have towards drunk drivers in our legal system.  Slap them in jail for a good period of time, and see how much drunk driving drops off.  Take away their licenses, hard, and impose massive punishment if you're driving drunk with a suspended license.  Do the same for those people who drive stoned or high.  You have no right to be operating a machine while impaired.  Take away the cars of those caught drunk driving and auction them off, and watch the DUI numbers fall. 

Just lowering an arbitrary number does nothing.  You have to make the punishment for drunk driving stick.  I don't care if you're at a .1 or a .3, if you don't actually punish people for driving drunk, it makes no difference.  You could set the limit at .02, but if you still allow the drunk drivers to have a license after five convictions, what you're really saying is that you don't actually give a shit.

For the record, and I know this because I was the test subject in a DUI certification class, the highest I've been recorded was a .133 BAC, and I can honestly say I was blotto.  At a .103 I knew that I didn't need to be anywhere near machinery.  Even at a .08 I knew I was "drunk", and wouldn't have gotten behind the wheel  So I have an idea of what .08 feels like, because I know how I felt when I had reached that point.  However, people have different reactions to booze depending on a whole host of factors.  That makes whatever BAC limit you impose pretty much arbitrary.