Patch Survey Results: Should CT Lower The Legal Driving Alcohol Limit?

CONNECTICUT — At closing time for Patch's reader survey on a proposed law that would lower the legal blood alcohol level for motorists, the nays have it by nearly a two-thirds margin.

Earlier this month, the state legislature's Transportation Committee advanced a bill that would lower the blood alcohol threshold for a driving under the influence conviction from 0.08 to 0.05 percent. Just over 62 percent of Patch readers who responded to an unscientific survey on the matter thought that was a bad idea.

For many of the 1,380 readers who weighed in, it came down to the "practical matter" of having the same legal BAC as neighboring states. Currently, the only state with a 0.05 percent limit is Utah.

A number of readers did the math, and pointed out that if lawmakers lowered the legal limit to 0.05 percent, most women would have to stop at one drink, and most men would have to stop at two or three, based upon their weight and other considerations.

"Lawyers will do well!" a New Fairfield reader reckoned, but "The hospitality industry will take a big hit. Dining out with two glasses of wine will probably put you over."

…and that's more than okay, for one Patch reader in Avon:

"But this will probably mean that anyone who goes out to dinner and has two glasses of wine is legally impaired. So be it. CT is out of control on DUI's. Got to do something."

Lowering the state's legal BAC to 0.05 percent would not only lighten the receipts of the state's hospitality venues, it would also make it just more difficult to do business, according to one Glastonbury restaurateur:

"It's not hard to get to 0.05%. Our responsibility for monitoring guests' consumption and serving safely is already very difficult. 0.05% makes it far more challenging to continue to operate our already tough situation."

The irony — or "Hypocrisy!!!" — of legislators who only just eased restrictions on cannabis consumption in the state wanting to tighten tippling regulations was not lost on many, many readers.

"The State of Connecticut ill-advisedly legalizes recreational marijuana, traffic fatalities increase, and the response is to lower the BAC threshold to equal that of a state whose limit is a product of the dominant religion in that state, the members of which are not supposed to drink," a Wilton reader commented.

"More people are driving stoned," a North Haven reader observed, while a Milford reader wondered, "Why are legislators and media not addressing the impact legal pot is having on motor vehicle crashes? Why isn't anyone talking about that?"

Maybe because there is no quick and easy way to quantify it. There are blood, saliva and urine tests designed to detect the presence of THC in a driver’s system, but nothing as simple and elegant as the breathalyzer test law enforcement agents use to assess alcohol levels.

Before any more motorists can be pulled over for testing, the state first needs to do something about the number of police officers monitoring the roads, in the opinion of one Fairfield reader:

"Perhaps there should be more police/sheriff presence/activity on the roads, there is a significant decline in police presence over the past few years. People are constantly driving reckless with no repercussions. No one is ever pulled over or reprimanded. Get the police back out and doing what they are supposed to be, and maybe people would be stopped before these fatalities occur! This is a huge issue. Lowering the legal BAC will not change this."

But who needs cops when you have technology?

"I think they should lower the blood alcohol, but I also think all cars, but especially all new cars, should all be installed with breathalyzers," was the pitch made by one Falls Village reader.

Quite a few other readers pointed out that a technology already exists that will let Connecticut residents travel anywhere, safely, after drinking as much alcohol as they want, and it's called Uber:

"With Uber as an option, I just can’t believe people still drink and drive," an East Haven reader posted. "You not only endanger yourself, but others."

Many readers were unconvinced that lowering the legal blood alcohol count would have any effect on the number of traffic accidents. After Utah lowered its BAC, traffic deaths in that state decreased, and more drivers said they arranged for sober rides home, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But many Patch readers speculated the proposed Connecticut law was more about ringing municipal cash registers, or, worse still, "just punitive 'feel good' virtue signaling."

"My observation from what I read is that BAC levels far higher than 0.08 predominately result in these horrible crashes and fatalities," a Guilford reader commented. "Reducing the allowable BAC level to 0.05 will have minimal to non-existent benefit in reducing these fatalities while ensnaring many people who are fully capable of operating a vehicle in the legal system. 48 other states have allowable BAC levels of 0.08. Connecticut doesn't have unique wisdom in seeking to reduce to 0.05."

"I don’t see lowering the levels as a means to deter these reckless individuals," a Newtown reader agreed. "If I had data showing 0.06 - 0.08 is part of the problem, I would certainly reconsider my position."

Without that data, "it is gaslighting and another useless legislation," according to a reader in Greenwich.

"Our government appears to have a fetish about trapping as many unwary Subjects as they can to extort fines and exact punishment for 'tiny crimes'. We can do better than this!" a keenly wary Subject in Enfield wrote.

Besides, drinkers gonna drink, many Patch readers argued.

"The threat of the death penalty is no deterrent to murder," a Milford resident reminded us.

"Lowering the limit is not going to make people more responsible. It's just going to increase the numbers of DUI's," posted a Meriden reader.

No true, said one reader in Bethany: "People mistakenly think they can drive safely on our winding country roads when their BAC is 0.05 - 0.08. If they know they will be stopped and their insurance will cost more if their BAC is over 0.05, some will drink less."

A reader in Manchester agreed: "This would be very beneficial for the state. It will get those who feel it's a great idea to drive while under the influence to think again before getting behind the wheel."

A thoughtful reader in Avon questioned not the premise of the law, but of social drinking:

"This is probably considered a response that could only be given by a buzz kill kind of guy. But as someone who gave up alcohol, by choice, in 1990, it has not hampered my ability to enjoy gathering with friends and strangers at local pubs and dining establishments. I was motivated by having teenagers and wanting to provide a proper example. Also I remember a phrase 'What is it about yourself that you find so unacceptable that you feel it is preferable to alter your brain function in order to have a good time?'"

In fact, such "zero tolerance" for any level of alcohol in a motorist's bloodstream was a touchstone for readers who answered the survey in favor of the proposed legislation. "No one should drive after drinking. Period," one Greenwich reader summed up the common sentiment.

"Too many motorists are driving while impaired and under the influence," a Middletown reader posted. "Harsher penalties also need to be put in place, but this is a step in the right direction, hopefully!"

We shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves on the whole punishment bit, a Ridgefield reader cautioned:

"I think we should look at a few things. We should look and see if they have a prior history and I think people should not get jail time, but they should get rehab time. Alcoholism is a disease, it’s not cured by going to prison."

A Newtown reader concurred: "DUI driving is a mental health issue as well as a physical one, and this would help save lives if once arrested they were mandated to go to counseling. Do what is best to save lives."

Although the reasons remain unclear, traffic accidents are on the rise in Connecticut, and that has made the mood in Hartford, and around many kitchen tables, ripe for a change:

"This past year, it’s as if the lunatics have been let out of the asylum and released onto the roads," a Stratford reader wrote. "Drivers constantly cut others off, weave back and forth between lanes, ignore stop signs and scoff at red lights. Pedestrians have become fair game, and drivers speed off, leaving bodies in their wake."

Or, as one exasperated Portland reader ready to throw in the bar towel succinctly put it, "Why not just close all the liquor stores and get it over with?"