AHS Views

A recent news story accused breathalizer testing to be racist. According to the lawyer on a case, who asked for his client’s breathalizer test to be inadmissable, black men have a lung capacity of 3% more than white men. Which means that .08 would translated into .0776. So, the black man was 3% less drunk than the white guy.

Did the accused carefully monitor his intake knowing that his lung capacity was 3% higher? I doubt it. In fact, I would venture to say that no one failing a breathalizer test - assuming the machine was calibrated - was actually watching his drinking that closely before he got into a car.

Bearing in mind that the drunk (allegedly) driver could have killed someone, getting in a car after you’ve been drinking is dangerous.

The idea that someone could evade the addiction help they need, and endanger the public safety, not to mention his own, because of his lung capacity is pretty scary. Especially when we’re not particularly worried about how alcohol is affecting someone’s lungs - it’s the brain and motor control we’re worried about.

It’s unfortunate that lawyers will find any way they can to get their client off. The judge denied the motion. Good call.