At .08, even if someone’s reason, judgment, and will are not significantly impaired, his or her reflexes and response time will probably be impaired.
True, for most people, a blood level of .08% probably does not constitute 'drunkenness.
It is a sin to drive at this level of intoxication merely because you are putting yourself and others in danger (that’s why the law exists), not because of the law.
I would disagree with this, because a blood level of .08% in most people does not cause a significant enough degree of impairment to the point that ones safety or that of others is jeopardized. Someone who needs a designated driver intends to drink above and beyond the legal limit. If it were true that it was a sin to drive at that level of intoxication, then I am sinning everytime I drive because, even while being totally sober, my reflexes are naturally slower than the average person with a blood alcohol level of .08%. It would be a sin simply because it is a sin to disobey lawful authority. In this case lawful authority prohibits driving with a blood level of .08%. In the same way it is not disobedient to drive with a blood level of .06%, it would become a sin if one chose to drive at that level and lawful authority reduced the legal limit. This has already happened, for example it was previously not illegal to drive at .08%.
If a deer jumps out in the road after you’ve had two drinks, the amount of time it take you to hit the brake doesn’t have anything to do with your judgment or reason (you know perfectly well that you need to hit the brake). It’s purely a matter of reflexes.
This is highly subjective and differs from person to person. Again, in my case my reflexes are naturally slower than the average person who has had two drinks.
If you know you are going to be drinking and you do not appoint a designated driver (or arrange some other form of transportation), you are sinning because you are planning to put yourself and others in danger by operating a vehicle.
Actually, If you are going to be drinking to the point that you are putting yourself and others in danger, you are sinning because of Church’s teachings on temperance and gluttony:
CCC para #2290:
The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine.
Intentionally drinking to the point that one poses a danger to others would be an excess. If ones reason is not impaired, then the issue of a designated driver is not necessary, since that person will not reason that he is fit to drive if he would pose a danger to others.
If you are with friends and they ask you to be the designated driver and you refuse because you don’t approve of their behavior (without making some effort to find them a replacement or suggest another option), you are knowingly putting them in a position where they may be tempted to drive. I think that is sinful.
It would only be sinful if one has an obligation to provide a means of transportation to those who willfully incapacitate themselves to the point that they are unfit to drive. For you to knowingly put them in a position where they are tempted to drive would imply their reason is impaired. That would be drinking to excess which is a sin. Therefore you would be enabling their excess and disregard for the virtue of temperance.
To be clear, you are suggesting it is sinful not to provide transportation to someone who asks you to drive them to and from the bar? or to recommend another person who will? or as you suggest another option. Could that option be suggesting staying home and drinking? Could that option be suggesting one find some alternate form of recreation if one has a need to drink excessively to the point where someone must provide for them a safe means of transportation?
I don’t agree that being drunk period is a sin. I think you can be drunk (tipsy, buzzed, whatever you want to call it) without being excessively drunk. Excessive intoxication is a sin, I agree.
I also stand by my opinion that someone who is buzzed enough to not be able to drive isn’t necessarily “drunk”.
Yes I agree with you that being ‘buzzed’ is not necessarily drunk, however I do believe that drinking to the point that others must be relied on for ones safety and that of others amounts to an excess to which the the CCC refers.
