[SoothingDave]

Indeed .08 is shown to be measurable impairment. What you said about that is simply false.

I'm sorry, you are wrong. The average social drinker is not going to be a hazard at 0.08.

If you think noone crashes at .08 , well I guess you live in a place other than planet earth.

Please provide one documented example.

If you think our laws are the most strict on this issue you also live in a place other than planet earth.

I never said that. I said that 0.08 is not a reasonable limit. The real problem is people who drive with much higher BACs. They should be the target of law enforcement, not the average man who had 3 beers after work a little too quickly and got stopped for a "safety checkpoint."

SD

[BlueStateDepression]

The average social drinker is not going to be a hazard at 0.08

Could you prove that to me please?

Please provide one documented example. (of .08 crash)

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/dui/section2.html

http://www.ncadd.com/08_crashrisk.cfm

Do you think they just come up these out of thin air?

Positive BACs below .08 were involved in an estimated 69,400 crashes that killed 2,664 and injured 43,730

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/impaired_driving_pg2/US.htm

I suppose you consider EVERY one of that estimate to be false or made up???? Or what??? C'mon now you cannot really think that people below .08 don't crash????Do ya?

You are more than willing to claim waht is unreasonable. I would politely ask you to provide for me what you do find reasonable and why you find it reasonable. See that is the thing that qualifies opposition. Alternatives that rest on their merit. Got any?

[elkfersupper]

I never said that. I said that 0.08 is not a reasonable limit.

Science exited the equation at about .15

Politics took over at that point.