>State Sen. John Lovick (D-Mill Creek), a former state trooper, is proposing the bill.

>"I'm not saying this to be dramatic. I still have nightmares because of some of the things I witnessed, going to a fatal collision where a number of kids were killed," Lovick said in an interview with KING 5. "All of these things were preventable. A drunk driver makes the choice, and it's a bad choice, and they make the decision. You don't have to drink and drive. It's pretty simple."

>Lovick also said of the more than 700 people killed on roads in Washington last year, over half were DUI-related.

I would like to know how many accidents were caused with people who had a .05-.07 BAC. Is this bill being proposed because the evidence shows that people at .05-.07 still cause significantly more accidents?

I'd think a former trooper would be able to get those numbers pretty easily and see if the numbers make the case for him.

This will just be a new way for the police to apply systematic racism/classism. The white and wealthy will, on average, get a pass, and the rest will get arrested.

I'll be voting "NO"

Everyone forgets that back in the day, nobody agreed with the .08 de facto limit, because de facto intoxication laws arwn't based in science. Nobody wanted these laws on the books because they invite corruption and give the police a reason to arrest and persecute people who aren't actually intoxicated.

The feds had to blackmail the states with federal highway funding in order to get the .08 limit passed. It worked.

I don't vote "YES" on laws that aren't supported by evidence. We don't need a hard alcohol limit, we need a set of objective measures of performance supported by science, unlike most current FSTs (with the exception of HGN) to determine intoxication

Our state supreme court already decided Cannabis intoxication laws with no basis in science are fine, I’m not super hopeful

It is. You can use the Google (or view previous threads on this topic) to find the peer reviewed manuscripts that show this.

Thanks, this is fascinating.

Yeah, it's a meta study. But it looks like it's fairly well done.

I was a skeptic of the move at first, but it does seem to be in step with the data that it will save lives.

I don’t think you get to vote. The legislators do.

I don’t know how DUI arrests are racist…

[deleted]