The same discussion (intoxication) has popped up many times over the years. (
Not addressed to you C-dub; just ranting.)
Section
49.01 of the Penal Code hasn't changed a bit in all that time.
Is it legal to have a beer or a glass of wine if you are a normal adult, of a normal weight, with a normal metabolism, and who has no medical conditions or has consumed no other medications/substances that might exacerbate or magnify the effect of the alcohol?
It almost certainly is legal. And there is no distinction in the legality among carrying a concealed firearm, driving an automobile, or operating a watercraft. In Texas law, intoxication is intoxication.
That's why PC §49.01
has to be worded in such a way that intoxication by alcohol cannot materially be differentiated from intoxication by other substances.
Yes, there is a standard for intoxication by alcohol. PC §49.01(2)(B) contains the infamous "...alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more." (
But you do know, right, that "alcohol concentration" does not strictly mean Blood Alcohol Concentration or "BAC"...another misconception: see PC §49.01 for what 0.08 means in terms of breath, urine, and blood.)
What baffles me is why so many people's eyes seem drawn to
0.08, yet they ignore the overriding 42 words above it in PC §49.01(2)(A). The alcohol concentration specification is only an
OR. It is only a single, specific quantifier by which you can be adjudged intoxicated.
You can be adjudged intoxicated by "...the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body." Period.
Pop a few Quaaludes, and you will probably be intoxicated. Pop a Quaalude and have a beer, and you will probably be intoxicated. Never have a drink in your life but have a strong predilection for crystal meth, and you're probably intoxicated most of the time.
Therein lies the rub, and why the law cannot be more specific than it is.
Does the habitual drunk driver worry about the consequences of his actions? Certainly not.
Does the conscientious CHL holder worry about the definition and consequences of intoxication? Absolutely.
That's what sets us apart.
That's why this subject is perennial. We'll see it pop up again in a few months.
PC §49.01 defines Texas law regarding what intoxication means. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise...that includes misinformed CHL instructors. There is no distinction under law for CHL holders; you are held to no separate legal standard regarding intoxication.
That said, there is what is
legal and what is
right.
Personally, I never carry or drive if I consume even a single drink. But that's purely a personal choice.
Many years ago, a close friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver running a red light. T-boned her driver-side and killed her on the spot. That brought it home to me and solidified my choice.
I enjoy a good wine with dinner. And it's been difficult to restrict that to at-home dining, particularly with business entertaining. But if asked, I simply say that I've made a choice never to drink and drive.
Also important to me:
please don't text and drive. And enforce no-texting while driving with others you know.
Houston rush-hour traffic was bad 10 years ago. With population expansion it's much worse. With the proliferation of smartphones and texting, it's become downright dangerous. If you're in a major metropolitan area, you've also no doubt seen the effects.
and if a CHL thinks they're too intoxicated to carry, they definitely shouldn't drive.