ne 47). On the other hand, a similar study at University of North Carolina shows no significant change after their adoption of 0.08%. Which study is correct? Most likely, both have some truthfulness. It could be either way depending on the state.The lowering of the Blood Alcohol Content percentage law is unnecessary and useless. Nevertheless, some states have already moved to the 0.08%, and we hear the argument: It makes no sense for a driver to be legally drunk in one state but not in another (Stone 46). To that, I ask a couple questions of my own. Why can I carry a concealed gun in one state and not another? Why is it that I can drive a certain speed in one state, but a different speed in another? The response to those questions and Stones statement is all of the above are state laws. At this point, the federal government seems to get confused. In October 2000, congress passed a law that uses the states money against them. It asserts that if a state doesnt lower its BAC percentage to 0.08% by 2003, it will lose two percent of its highway money. States that dont like the law will be forced to vote for it because they are desperate for highway construction money. Strings shouldnt be attached to this money. What are lost in all of this are the current laws for drunk driving. Driving while impaired is already illegal whether the person tests 0.04% or 0.10%. Courts can use alcohol test of 0.04% and higher as evidence of impairment. Its at 0.10% where a person is legally drunk and cannot legally operate a vehicle. Therefore, its not as if people who test 0.08% are going unpunished like the other side would have you believe.In conclusion, anybody who picks out one particular aspect and says that it is not working hasnt looked that the whole problem. The president for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Brian O Neill, says that hed rather see resources directed toward enforcing existing drunken driving laws. Hope...
