Locals debate alcohol limits
by Lindsay Field
June 16, 2013 12:35 AM | 3511 views | 6 6 comments | 34 34 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Mulligan’s Bar owner Liz Dunn pours a draft beer for a patron Friday evening as customers getting off work stop in for a drink. Dunn is personally and professionally against the lowering of the DUI limit nationally from .08 to .05, stating it would affect businesses like hers.
Mulligan’s Bar owner Liz Dunn pours a draft beer for a patron Friday evening as customers getting off work stop in for a drink. Dunn is personally and professionally against the lowering of the DUI limit nationally from .08 to .05, stating it would affect businesses like hers.
slideshow
MARIETTA — Cobb County motorists have mixed feelings about whether the federal government’s proposal to reduce the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers is a good idea.

If Georgia follows the recommendation, the legal limit would go from .08 to .05, at which point a driver could be arrested for drunken driving.

Kennesaw resident David Ermutlu, who treated people in DUI-related accidents many times while working part-time as an EMT for 16 years, is on board with the change.

“Drunk driving is a huge problem in this country,” he said. “Anything we can do to make travel on our roads safer is, in my opinion, a good idea.

“If they lower the limit, there may be people who think twice about drinking and driving because they know they could get a DUI for a lower blood alcohol level.”

But other motorists see it differently.

The legal limit for alcohol has already been reduced several times: from .12, to .10, to .08. Taking it down to .05 would result in more DUI cases flooding into the court system. Some motorists, and even some safe-driving advocates, question whether it would make the roads safer.

“This isn’t about safety,” said Brian Neu of Marietta. “It’s about ego, power and money.”

Neu believes DUIs are “big business” for trial lawyers and municipalities. He said intimidation by the federal government can be expected.

In 2000, Neu said he remembers seeing Mothers Against Drunk Driving standing next to former President Bill Clinton as he signed a bill to withhold highway funds unless states lowered their limits to .08.

“John Stossel (the journalist) has highlighted studies that show that lowering to .08 has done nothing to reduce the amount of DUI-related fatalities, because as the police are off the road booking a .08 offender who was unlikely to cause an accident, that officer isn’t on the road observing for visible signs of the 0.10-plus drivers who are very dangerous,” he said. “It will exacerbate the problem of 0.10-plus drivers slipping by the absent police who are now off booking everyone who had a single glass of beer with dinner.”

Restaurants or bars affected?

Debbie Scalora, the general manager at Paddy’s Pub and Eatery off Cobb Parkway in Kennesaw, said she isn’t worried about it affecting their business.

“If we see someone who we feel like has had too much to drink, we try to get them in a cab,” she said. “I’ve even gone as far as going out to people’s cars when they are trying to get in them to tell them they can’t drive.”

She said she realizes that some people will still drink and drive but regardless of the limit, they will continue to monitor their customers’ alcohol consumption.

Liz Dunn, the owner of Mulligan’s Food and Spirits off Roswell Street in Marietta, thinks differently though, both personally and professionally.

“This will most definitely affect bars and restaurants to the negative,” she said. “Those that enjoy a glass of wine with their pasta or a beer with their burger will be gun shy to do so.”

She also thinks changing the law would turn responsible social drinkers into revenue makers for the government.

“I have not seen believable statistics to back up the argument that doing so would reduce alcohol related accidents and/or fatalities,” she said, adding that data shows a woman weighing 120 pounds who consumes one drink, and a man weighing 160 pounds who consumes two drinks would theoretically be within the .05 range.

Anti-drunk driving groups

MADD Executive Director Barry Martin said he thought expanding the ignition interlock laws to include first-time DUI offenders would be more effective in making the roads safer than lowering blood alcohol levels.

“It’s not so black and white for us,” he said. “And this issue is one of the more complicated issues we’ve had to deal with here.”

MADD agree that the reduction to .05 could save lives and reduce the number of people driving drunk but they’d rather fight their battle with state politicians to get the ignition interlock system required for all first-time DUI offenders.

“It’s a question of which battle do you want to fight,” he said. “We have a lot of momentum in the ignition interlock laws.”

They also have more successful data behind the interlock system as opposed to reducing the limit.

“An ignition interlock law on .08 or above has shown to reduce the number of drunk driving incidents and anyone who has it is 67 percent less likely to have a second DUI,” he said.

Martin said statistics show the system could save about 2,500 lives nationally, compared to about 500 lives being saved because of a .05 drinking and driving limit.

DUI attorney reacts to suggestion

Marietta attorney Kim Keheley Frye, whose private practice works closely with DUI offenders, said she thinks the proposal isn’t necessarily about saving lives but to get legislative approval for the ignition interlock system Martin mentioned.

“It’s definitely a double-edged sword so while the litigation would make for a better business for me, I’ve seen a lot of lives ruined from even one DUI arrest,” she said.

Frye also believes there is some room for improvement with the DUI testing.

“The way that it’s measured, whether it’s breath or blood, there is room for error,” she said. “With breath, there is error in the machines, and with blood, error in collection and testing.”

She said she learned during multiple legal education seminars that the Breathalyzer test discriminates against women because the readings can fluctuate based on whether a woman is ovulating.

“Women’s lungs are also smaller so in order to get enough 210 liters into the machines, they have to breathe harder,” she said. “And you know there’s that police saying, ‘The harder you blow, the higher you go.’”

Data also shows that a woman weighing around 120 pounds could register a .05 after just one drink. A man weighing up to 160 pounds would clear that threshold after two.

“We obviously don’t want to condone this, or for this to occur, but we would give permanent criminal records to many, many residents here in Cobb if the limit was reduced,” Frye said.

Many of her clients are first-time DUI offenders who struggle with the idea of paying so much in fines, serving a year on probation and having this offense on their record for a long time.

“This ensnares all walks of life,” she said.
Comments
(6)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
A huge problem
|
June 17, 2013
Hillgrove HS had over 26 students arrested this past year for drunk driving and or drug related charges. You know what EVERY ONE of them got? Diversion programs of community service and did not lose their licenses or their parents are still allowing them to drive illegally. One parent got her child off charges because his Miranda rights were not read to him. This is who we have leading our youth today. A court system who slaps their hand and parents who do not teach their children accountability.
Won't change
|
June 17, 2013
The fact is you could lower it and it won't change the fact that people drive drunk. I have heard people state the drinking age needs to be changed to 18 because in Europe....blah, blah, blah. In Europe they have a metro system so no one drives. They hop on a train everywhere. People are irresponsible. Maybe restaurants and bars should only be allowed to serve two drinks per person. It is the fault of the bars and restaurants that over serve people. People voted to have Sunday sales. It is sad the courts allow second and third offenders to go free. Maybe cars should all be equipped with breathalyzers. People are irresponsible but lowering the limit will just give courts more money and clog up the system.
Square Logic
|
June 16, 2013
The limit is already .05 for truck drivers, and even lower for under-21-year-olds. The question is iisn't whether the limit should be lowered - it's whether all adult drivers should be held to the truckers' standard.
TheBigDawg
|
June 16, 2013
If we are serious about stopping DUIs, then lets give a first DUI conviction a year in jail. That'll stop them. I'd be okay with One month in jail, if they had their car fitted with an interlock device. But if they get a second DUI with an interlock, then they should get at least a year in jail, no probation crap.
lisa j
|
June 16, 2013
Brian Neu what if your loved one was seriously injured or killed by a drunk driver? Debbie Scalora so you went personally out to the car did they still drive?

REYAS
|
June 18, 2013
Lisa, that sounds like wrath to me. The only one that should be held accountable for the death of a loved one is the one that killed the loved one, not scores of other people that had nothing to do with that unfortunate death.

Furthermore...I think we would all WANT to do something to anyone who killed a loved one, it's a good thing that there are people in our lives that will protect us from our emotions.

Its a revenue grab, pure and simple.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides