Replies

What SIR is your interpretation of drunk? Do you consider it to be .10? .08? .00? The FACT is SIR that the nanny state has been enacting ever more draconian laws, thereby making a common occurence (having a few beers) effectively illegal. AT THE SAME TIME, organizations such as the AARP and their lobbying arm block any attempt to hold older drivers accountable through such methods as more frequent testing and the mandatory license suspension. You see SIR, I am drawing a distinction between impairment. If the state is going to punish imparement, DO IT ACROSS THE BOARD. You're too obtuse to see my point is all.

My interpratation of a drunk is ,by law, someone that has .08 or above BAC.

Again you claim that having a few beers is illegal and you miss it entirely. It isn't the drinking that is illegal. It is the driving. Do you see how you jump from the driving being illegal and attempt to make it the drinking illegal? That is just a false line, sir.

The FACT is SIR that the nanny state has been enacting ever more draconian laws, thereby making a common occurence (having a few beers) effectively illegal

You seem to have your 'facts" a bit out of wack!.The laws are not about drinking SIR, they are about driving. Stop the spin please.

You are completely wrong that I miss your point. I agree that all impairment should be treated the same. Impairment should mean punishment for driving while you are impaired. Wether that means cell phones age or drinking. It is you that missed my point.

My point is that you are off base to argue that drinking and driving should be allowed because old folks are allowed or cell phones are allowed. You claim that nothing is done about one so nothing should be done about the other. That is about as backwards as it gets. Surely it is not a position that will ever lead to any progress on any fronts. think about that a bit he?

There is something fundamentally un-American about arresting people simply because they fall into a category that has an elevated crime rate (in this case, causing an accident).

When I was in High School, we had a cop come in to give a talk about drugs, drinking and driving. He said "50% of all vehicular accidents are caused by drunk drivers." I, being the smart-a$$ that I was (am), raised my hand and said "So you're saying that 50% of all vehicular accidents are caused by sober drivers?" He was not amused.

Let me try to argue by analogy: If we agree that an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of crime is committed by young African-Americans between the ages of 14-24, should we lock them ALL up to prevent crime?

By the same token, if we agree that an overwhelming majority of vehicular accidents are caused by drunk drivers, should we lock them ALL up?

Punish the crime: If someone gets into an accident while drunk, throw him/her in jail. If he/she kills someone while driving drunk, give 'em the death penality.

Punish the crime, not the fact that someone falls into a category with an elevated risk of a crime happening.