The thing that concerns me about the BAC limit is that it's kind of hocus pocus science. Unless you are getting a blood draw, which everyone who is pulled over for DUI should request, it is not accurate via breathalyzer. Secondly, even if it were accurate via breathalyzer, I have no idea how many drinks it takes me to get there. People always cite studies of how many drinks its takes an xx pound man to hit 0.05. The majority of the public has no idea how much alcohol will get them to 0.05. It's a black box for most of us. Given the consequences of being arrested and/or getting in an accident, these things should be more apparent to the public.

This study didn't seem to address the difference in risk between 0.05 and 0.8-0.10 though. Is there a difference? The study was also supported by MADD. I'm a scientist myself, so I understand how science works and you get funding where you can get it, but it would appear to be a conflict of interest. There is no question that driving impaired by alcohol would increase traffic deaths. But let's state the obvious here, Utahns are terrible drivers independent of alcohol. Perhaps they should enforce normal traffic laws too. No one wants anyone to die in a car crash, but the demonization alcohol is too much for a non-native Utahn to stomach.

Personally, I just think that there are larger issues than alcohol. The opioid epidemic is far more serious than alcohol is in its current state. This thread started over an argument about increasing % alcohol content in beer in liquor stores. This is a largely republican state, the political party that is supposed to be about personal accountability, yet they run a nanny state. I guess I am wondering what a republican actually stands for because it does not seem to be liberty.