The National Transportation Safety Board is recommending lowering the legal blood-alcohol content limit from the current universal U.S. standard of 0.08 percent down to 0.05 percent.

The NTSB cites the relatively unchanging 10,000 annual deaths attributed to impaired drivers throughout the country since the standard was reduced from 0.10 percent down to 0.08 percent during the Clinton administration.

The first of a host of protests our D.C. DUI lawyers would present is: How is arresting people who aren't very drunk going to reduce the number of DUI fatalities?

We certainly recognize that if society is going to outlaw drunk driving, there is inevitably going to be some cut-off point at which we say, "You've had enough" and that limit has to be universal and therefore fair to everyone - even if the substance affects everyone differently. But as it stands right now, even the NTSB concedes that the vast majority of impaired drivers in fatal crashes measure BAC levels that were far over the limit of 0.08 percent. So reducing that limit further to 0.05 percent makes little sense if the end goal is reduce impaired driving injuries and fatalities.

What's more, the last reduction didn't have a whole lot of impact either. Those 10,000 annual DUI fatalities we record every year? That's remained about the same since 1995. The percentage of alcohol-related highway fatalities has remained in the 30 to 32 percent range every single year since then - despite the reduction from 0.10 to 0.08 percent.

So if reducing the limit had little effect before, how can we expect to produce any real results by halving it at this point?

The answer, clearly, is that it won't. The NTSB may full well know this. As the measure is supported by a host of law enforcement groups, we can't help but wonder what the true motivation is.

Here's what the real outcome will be: More people with criminal records, paying huge fines, having their work and family lives disrupted - in some cases irreparably - all while benefiting the bottom line of municipalities and the court system and simultaneously having little to no effect on the loss of lives due to impaired driving.

What you're going to see if a measure like this passes is a massive number of arrests for people who did nothing more than enjoy a glass of wine or two with dinner before heading home. These people aren't actually drunk, but will be considered so under the law. They were not at huge risk themselves, other passengers or other motorists, and yet they will be arrested, labeled, fined, forced to spend time in jail, serve community service and possibly have an ignition interlock device installed. This blemish will forever be on their permanent record.

And for what?

The NTSB argues that by reducing the BAC limit, the drinking behavior of all drivers will be mitigated. That is, those who would be more likely to consume even more alcohol - those who would otherwise have a BAC much higher than 0.08 - would drink less.

Not only is this theory untested and unproven, it also requires that we arrest more than a few innocents in order to target the drinking habits of those who imbibe heavily. But this also overlooks a big part of the reason that some people drink heavily: They have a problem. They are addicted.

Anyone who has ever been familiar with addiction knows that current laws - among so many other tactics - aren't enough to get them to reduce their intake. That's an intense process, and reducing the legal definition of "drunk" isn't likely to have any impact whatsoever on it.

If the point is simply to ensure that those who are most dangerous are targeted and taken off the road to ensure the safety of others - that's already happening now. Arresting those who aren't actually drunk does little to achieve this goal.

If you are facing DUI charges in D.C., contact the Law Office of Daniel A. Gross, PLLC at 202-596-5716.

Colorado may have been one of the first two states in the nation to approve the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, but authorities there are also cracking down on those driving under the influence of the drug.

Our D.C. DUI attorneys understand that a controversial bill that would quantify the amount of marijuana allowable in a driver's system has passed the state Senate, after failing six times in the last three years.

House Bill 1325 passed on a vote of 24-11 in the Senate, and is now headed to the governor's desk. It's believed it will pass, as the governor has said he supports the framework of a marijuana DUI law.

The law holds that any motorist who measures 5 nanograms or more of THC in his or her blood would be considered too high to drive, and therefore would be treated the same as someone who was operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

This measure - and others like it across the country - has been sharply criticized for the simple fact that a regular marijuana smoker is undoubtedly going to have higher levels of THC in the blood stream. However, that doesn't necessarily mean he or she is intoxicated.

As we've previously discussed in this blog, the reason has to do with the way that the body processes marijuana, versus how it processes alcohol. While alcohol streams very quickly through the body, the presence of marijuana may be traceable for several weeks.

So while higher levels of alcohol in a person's blood stream would indicate very recent consumption, higher levels of THC in one's blood stream wouldn't necessarily indicate that the drug had been consumed recently or even that day.

That's why laws like this have been so hotly contested. A person could be arrested for "impaired" driving on the basis of a test that doesn't actually prove impairment.

In Washington D.C., it is legal to smoke or consume marijuana for medicinal purposes with a valid prescription.

The one difference between this measure in Colorado and previous measures that have failed is the absence of a "per se" clause. That is, previous measures would have resulted in an automatic conviction nearly every time for someone who tested above the legal 5 nanogram limit.

However, the latest version of the bill requires that the state has to prove that the individual's driving also appeared to reflect intoxication. In other words, was he or swerving or running lights or driving too slowly or engaging in any other behind-the-wheel action that would indicate intoxication?

That is certainly an improvement from the other measures that were proposed, but it still sets the framework for unfair DUI convictions.

A recent investigation by a television station in Washington state revealed that a regular smoker tested above the legal limit automatically, yet drove without much of an issue. However, once they consumed more marijuana, their driving abilities quickly deteriorated.

The "study" wasn't scientific by any means, but it illustrates why this kind of legislation is so dangerous.

If you are facing DUI charges in D.C., contact the Law Office of Daniel A. Gross, PLLC at 202-596-5716