[Rodney King]

If your teenage children were driving home from a football game on a saturday night, what would you consider the acceptable level of risk that you would be willing to subject your children to if you knew that one out of every 7 cars on the road that your child was sharing was being driven by someone who had been drinking that night? And what would be the acceptable level of risk that you would be willing to grant to the driver of the car your children were riding in? .05? Would you let your chidren ride around in a car on a Saturday night after a football game if you knew that car was being piloted by someone with a blood alcohol level of .05? Be honest.

Two answers: I am sure that I have driven at .05 with my kids in the car. If we go out to eat, I will have two drinks. I am not at all concerned.

Your larger point, however is one of acceptable risk. The question is, where do we draw the line? If you think the answer is zero, then I am ok with that intellectually so long as you ban other, similar levels of risk. I think .1 works, and I think it is better to have the level be reflective of reality so that the law and the courts can focus on those who are really a major threat. The guy who drives down the wrong side of the highway is at .2, not .1.

[P-Marlowe]

Two answers: I am sure that I have driven at .05 with my kids in the car. If we go out to eat, I will have two drinks. I am not at all concerned.

That tells me a lot about your judgment. It also explains your attitude on this thread. You just don't want anyone on the road who is drunker than you are. You consider yourself the standard of sobriety. I'd consider you impaired.