I only keep commenting on it because people keep bringing it up. I don't consider it a relevant point of discussion at all. I originally cited the numbers because someone asked what legal limits would be used in a rape trial. In most states, that's .08, in some it's .1, because that's what they use as the legal definition of "drunk."
In that sense, it's relevant. But it's far from the end-all, be-all of the discussion, because almost no cases will actually ever include this information. Unless someone checks into an ER with a level far above that, it's not likely to come into play.
Whether or not that matches the point of intoxication at which a jury would otherwise convict someone is another question entirely. And maybe that IS a discussion worth having. Maybe someone is sufficiently in control of their faculties at .08 that they can still give informed consent. I imagine that's a question for a government study into the issue.
And maybe it's the case that a legal definition of "drunk" needs to be uncoupled from DUI thresholds so the "drunk" label can be raised to a higher BAC without having to change the level for impairment relative to operating a vehicle. That's possible.
Either way, a victim being over the legal limit is likely going to be deemed unable to consent by a court.
And that's as far as it is relevant. ******** about how low that is isn't going to change that. If you disagree with it, fine. I don't - I've generally felt confident in my ability to gauge whether or not someone was at or past the limit. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong, maybe you're both wrong, or maybe we're both right. I don't know, I don't care. Either way, that's the legal definition of "drunk" as it currently stands. If you don't like it, write your representative or something. IDK - do people still do that?
See, just under that .08, and they appear overall normal, if a little unable to react in a timely manner to quickly changing stimuli. They couldn't up that to .08 because it'd still be against the law for them to operate that vehicle, even if for "science".
And if we were talking about a 10 second interaction, then I might be swayed by that argument. Since I'm going to go ahead and assume someone will spend more time than that talking to their partner, and leaving a venue/heading to privacy with a partner, and removing certain articles of clothing with a partner, that they should be able to tell if their partner is inebriated.
All of them seemed clearly drunk to me. Maybe that's because I spend more time observing people and their habits than average, and shouldn't expect other people to be able to do that. It's fully possible. I spend more time at parties hanging out with friends on sofas and watching other people than roving through crowds.
Yeah, if someone's borderline you can't tell. The difference between .075 and .08 isn't going to be noticeable. My rule of thumb is to just not have *** with someone if I'm not confident they're sober enough to consent. If that rule doesn't sit well with you, don't use it. Edited, Jun 6th 2013 8:54pm by idiggory