What do you think of lowering the blood alcohol content level for drunk driving from .10 to .08?
- TG, Columbia:
I think it is a great idea! If it were up to me it would be even lower. People do have a right to consume alcohol, but they should not be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car when they do. - LW, Columbia:
How can you tell if your blood alcohol level is .1 or .08? I do not believe that ANY limit on blood alcohol content is useful if a person has no means of determining what his or her BACL is. Public places which serve alcohol should have breathalizers available for patrons' use. - JP, Columbia:
I have to ask the question: What difference will it make ? The answer is polymorphic, first of all the police respond to questions of why dont they stop speeders, light runners, stop-sign runners and the answer is that their workload prevents them from inforcing minor traffic laws. Will they have time to enforce this law ? Will they have time to enforce the seat-belt law ? They havent had time to enforce the new license plate law banning hand-made temporary tags. Who will be punished ? The rich and famous will walk away (Look at former governor Dick Riley's son.) The poor will go to jail. With the exception of Washington D.C.,, I have never seen another state with as much corruption in the police/judicial systems as South Carolina. - JW, CHARLESTON:
I think they did it to get the federal money, but being legislators and lawyers they will implement loopholes to get their clients off. They better do something about the state budget because they will loose federal monies for our roadways. Wait till we have a hurricane then you will see how the budget is going to catch everyone off gaurd. There will be utter panic because there are hardly any state troopers because of the budget cuts, no gamewardens law enforcement in general because of the budgets cuts. You think the traffic jams were bad the last time the govenor ordered a evacuation all law enforcement are doing now is wreck patrol I road three hundred miles in S.C. interstates and did not see the first Trooper.I hope they do something because there will be a great lose of lives if our citizens are stuck on the interstates! - LW, Columbia:
.08 is not low enough. Having survived a head on collision by a drunk driver, I speak from experience. Even .01 is not acceptable. The penalty for any DUI should be at least 5 years in prison. Drunk driving should not be tolerated, period. - MB, Lugoff:
It won't matter one cent as long as the judges turn them loose over and over.Breaking the law has no real punishment anymore.The law breakers and the crooked lawyers and judges need to be held accountable. - RC, West Columbia, S.C.:
It`s about time that it was lowered, but many more will not get caught because for everyone stopped for DUI, many more will be missed because there are not enough police on the road after dark when most of the drinking goes on. Also the tax on alcohol should go way up and be used to put more police on the road. They just upped the tax on tobacco but has smoking legal cigarettes ever caused a wreck where many people were killed like DUI`s have ? - lt, rock hill:
if they want to do that then thats just fine but they really need to take some action against people yaking on their cell phone while driving.this is a big problem and will continue to get worse. - JV, Columbia:
When is South Carolina going to wake up and realize we are being laughed at each and every day!!! First it was video poker, then the flag issue, now we are going to continue to ignore federal funds for highway repair so that we can keep drunks on the road! Of course, lower the blood alcohol content to .08!! Oh wait, that might jeopardize half of our state legislators who act as if they are drunk half the time anyways with some of the legislation they put forward. SC, without a doubt, has some of the worst roads in the country simply because we have no money to fix them!! Wake up, people. - EM, Jefferson:
This is a good move and something that should have been done before now. Anyone registering 10 is too impared to drive and leaving it at 10 would cause South Carolina to loose its share of Federal Highway money. It would be a no brainer to leave it at 10. - DT, West Columbia:
This is a good move because it clears the way for South Carolina to receive its share federal highway funds, which have been entangled in this controversy for far too long. I can’t believe we wasted so much time arguing about a lousy 0.02%! I can’t help but believe that it wasn’t numbers we were arguing about, but political power. And I can’t help but wonder what else the people of South Carolina are losing out on because of similar political power struggles? - MG, Columbia:
On the heels of the non-smoking ban proposed in Charleston, this isn't surprising. The government (Federal, state, local) should not legislate "morality" to absurd levels that prevent the responsible, well-meaning general public from doing even the most basic forms of recreation. A few glasses of wine at supper should not, by definition, make me drunk. - RD, Columbia:
It makes logical sense. By now, we are all aware of the hazards of drinking and driving. There is no valid reason for continuing to fight the issue. Public safety and federal funding are in the balance. It would be a shame not to receive the federal highway funding. We need the money! - JG, Columbia:
Anything we can do to get drunk drivers off the road is a good idea. And, while we're at it, can we change the mini bottle law, please? Each drink in South Carolina is much more potent than those served in other states. No wonder our deaths from alcohol-related accidents are sky high!
