okay, i'll give you that, but it's a cop out for him to try and shift it to alcohol.
there's not an arbitrary ban on the number of alcoholic beverages one can consume before becoming "impaired to drive" according to the law, it's a certain percentage.
driver A has 6 drinks, and blows a .07 = legal.
driver B has 3 drinks, and blows a .09 = illegal.
But does a BAC of 0.08% affect every person the same way? Or does the level of impairment vary somewhat from one person to another?
And should it even be about level of impairment or should it be about maintaining some minimum level of driving ability?
I'm sure we can find a professional NASCAR driver who is an experienced drinker who is a better driver with a BAC of 0.11% than are some other drivers when they are stone cold sober.
Does this mean that the 0.08% limit is "entirely arbitrary"?
Or does it mean that mature, sensible folks recognize that there are limits on how fine of resolution we can have in such laws, but that such laws are needed?
banning tint to a certain level is arbitrary-
No more so that picking a single BAC regardless of how any individual is actually affected by that BAC, or what their base level of driving skill is. Sorry, but with 320 million persons in this nation (at a few hundred thousand in our least populated Sate) we don't have the luxury of passing individual laws for each very special snowflake.
We look at norms and averages and typical. We try to build in a modest margin of safety. And we pass laws based on that. Snowflakes will just have to learn to adjust....or choose to move somewhere where they don't have to co-exist peacefully and safely with millions of others.
if you really want to use alcohol as an excuse, then you can honestly say any impairment should be illegal: texting, putting on makeup, drinking a soda, eating, talking to someone in passenger seat, having tint, having a brakelight out, needing an oil change, having bad brakes, having a bad transmission, etc while driving...they are all impairments that affect one's ability to perform effectively. (although all at different levels of impairment.)
For those too young to remember, at one time, "I didn't mean to crash, I just had a couple of drinks in me," was a mitigating factor rather than an aggravating factor. As we recognized the danger of driving under the influence, laws evolved to reflect that. As portable TVs became a reality,
we imposed limits on where such screens could be installed or under what conditions they could be used in cars lest they distract the driver. In like manner, we are currently coming to recognize the danger of talking on cell phones, texting, or surfing the web while driving. Laws regarding cell phone use (including bans on non-hands-free cell phone use), texting, and other smartphone use while driving are currently evolving, but generally moving towards limiting or banning such activities while driving. Some States now have a general catch-all "Distracted Driving" law that allows citations for any activity that causes objective, observable problems while driving.
But the real key is recognizing the different levels of impairment. A BAC of 0.04% creates more impairment than a BAC of 0.0%. But the impairment is low enough not to materially contribute to the risk of a crash. Ditto the typical talking to a passenger in the vehicle. Needing an oil change has no material affect on driving ability or safety of the car unless you get the extreme corner case of seizing an engine. Rare enough not to warrant a law. Bad brakes, bad tranny, missing lights, etc, are all material dangers that can result in equipment failure citations.
so, since any number of things can effectively impair somoene's ability to perform (drive effectively), thus affecting the safety of your family on the road, driving should be illegal in and of itself. right?
In case it isn't clear yet, I reject the "all or nothing" position put forth too often by l/Libertarians, anarchists, and other snowflakes.
I don't need some grand, unified theory of socio-political thought in order to know that some things work and others don't, even if some folks have a hard time seeing the shades of gray or hues of color that exist between them, rather than the hard and fast black and white lines with which they are comfortable.
To those who don't understand the difference between 0.04% BAC and 0.15% BAC (whether neo-Prohibitionist or drunken idiot) I say simply, "grow up." Ditto for those who pretend not to see the difference between chatting with a passenger in the car and burying the driver's face in a smart phone texting.
Charles
