Letter to the Editor: Extreme to claim that a single drink would doom an average person into a DUI

The blood alcohol limit for drunk driving in Washington would drop to 0.05% from 0.08%, under a bill the state Senate approved on a 26-23 vote Wednesday. If the bill clears the House and the governor signs it, Washington would join Utah with the nation's strictest DUI standard. --Washington State Standard

To the Editor:

In regards to the recent opinion letter, "Lowering the blood alcohol content punishes the wrong people," I world strongly urge people not to be fooled by exaggeration. Declaring that lowering the blood alcohol limit to 0.05 from 0.08 will "punish the wrong people" is hyperbolic at best and a falsehood at worst.

The claim that a single drink might cause "life-altering consequences" seemed a bit extreme of an assertion to me, so I spent a little time (about 15 minutes) hunting down some additional information on the topic. Granted, in this day and age, it's strangely both easier and more difficult to do research for yourself, due to both the ease of informational access and the preponderance of misinformation. However, with more careful searching of information in credited articles (and avoiding overly brief AI summarizations), I found multiple charts across institutions in law, science, and academics that all supported a table that said that most likely, the only person whose blood alcohol content would spike to 0.05 within one drink would be only about 100 pounds!

I will mention that there is the repeated assertion in all these sources that the table is not one-size-fits-all, that factors like age and speed of metabolism can affect an individual's blood alcohol levels, but it still seems an extreme - and largely incorrect - claim that a single drink would doom the average person into a DUI.

Additionally, a claim that this might damage the hospitality industry as a whole is drastically oversimplifying the issue, especially in light of modern trends leaning away from drinking alcohol. Mocktails and non-alcoholic beers and wines are becoming common - and having a glass of water isn't going to kill one's enjoyment of a meal! The only situation I can think of that's directly impacted by a reduction in drinking alcohol is a place that relies on sales of it, such as a bar - in which case, people should already be practicing safer methods such as a designated driver, or taking one of the increasingly common and reliable methods of mass transit.

Another thing I found in my brief investigation of this matter was a good deal of accompanying studies about how changing the limit of blood alcohol from 0.08 to 0.05 has proven to save lives. If we can go on and on about how critical the speed limit on Ballinger and the traffic cameras along 178th Street are, if there's that level of concern about our neighborhoods, why not other streets, and highways? Why restrict our concern for others to the area outside our front doors? It seems the height of privilege to me to grandly claim that businesses will be negatively affected in some vague fashion - and ignore entirely the human cost of those impacted by anyone driving impaired.

I will add that I'm not a paid proponent of this measure, just a concerned citizen. And whatever side folks choose in this, I ask only that they do the research (brief as it is!) and decide for themselves... and, of course, to always drink responsibly.

Annie VanderMeer
Seattle