[Publius Valerius]

they are completely arbitrary and subjective

But isn't your example of reckless driving basically a subjective standard, too?

One person at 0.04% may be far more impaired than another at 0.12%, and yet the latter person is considered "legally drunk" but the former is not.

Maybe so, but when making policy, we have to draw lines. It is far too costly to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a person's actions have presented a risk of danger to others. Some people are going to get a raw deal based on where that line is drawn, but we can't exist any other way. For instance, AJ Foyt may be perfectly capable of driving his car 125 miles per hour down the expressway without being a danger to others, but the law applies to him just like it does everyone else.

For driving drunk, we've chosen, for better or for worse, .08. There might be some people who are perfectly capable of driving a car without impairment when they have blood alcohol levels above .08. But those people have to accept that regardless of their abilities, society has made a policy choice based on the characteristics of society as a whole.

[Alberta's Child]

All valid points.

Now combine the subjectivity of the legal standard with the "stop/search" aspect (i.e., random checkpoints, with no basis for a police officer to suspect that a violation has occurred) through which it is often enforced. And then tell me how this isn't a textbook example of a police state in action.

[elkfersupper]

Maybe so, but when making policy, we have to draw lines.

Just who is "we" there, Kemo Sabe?

[Gilbo_3]

It is far too costly to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a person's actions have presented a risk of danger to others.

Yeah that pesky 'innocent until proven guilty' thingy is a real pain in the a@@ to $$$grubbing political whores...