Bialas B
Blutalkohol. 1996 May;33(3):142-51.
The Legislator's decision not to lower the 0.8 per mile alcohol level limit of the section 240 StVG runs counter to the tendency of fighting dring driving altogether. This decision was made despite the fact, that according to current medical science the risk limit lies at 0.4 per mile. It can't be justified by the "ultima ratio" principle which was introduced by the legislator for decision making. Much on the contrary, it suggests a development where considerations will no longer be applied only for the protection of the citizen. Here we can observe a continuation of the interpretation of the alcohol level limits which seem to simply serve as a means of ensuring a conviction. The economical analysis of the law is the theoretical background to this consideration which dominated by this process. This analysis does not take any further limitations of legislative powers into consideration with the exception of effectiveness, efficiency and its maximum use under the political and economic aspects. Therefore it allows the protection of the individual to be obscured by these maxims. However, lowering of the alcohol level risk limit to 0.4 per mile should not be insisted on, but instead there should be a call for the introduction of an alcohol ban altogether. This request could be justified with the lack of the legal basis of the alcohol level limits.
立法者决定不降低《道路交通法》第240条规定的每英里0.8酒精含量限制,这与彻底打击酒驾的趋势背道而驰。尽管根据当前医学科学,风险限制为每英里0.4,但仍做出了这一决定。它不能以立法者引入的用于决策的“最终手段”原则为依据。恰恰相反,这表明了一种不再仅出于保护公民而进行考量的发展趋势。在这里,我们可以看到对酒精含量限制的解释仍在延续,这似乎仅仅是确保定罪的一种手段。法律的经济分析是这一考量的理论背景,而这一过程主导了该分析。这种分析除了在政治和经济层面的有效性、效率及其最大利用外,没有考虑立法权的任何进一步限制。因此,它使得个人保护被这些准则所掩盖。然而,不应坚持将酒精含量风险限制降至每英里0.4,而应呼吁完全实施禁酒令。这一要求可以基于酒精含量限制缺乏法律依据来证明其合理性。