Nothing will cheer a fella up like committing a little vehicular homicide.
“Nothing will cheer a fella up like committing a little vehicular homicide.”
The dirty little secret is that healthy young men drive *better* at .1 than they do at .00000000.
The statistics are manipulated—surprise, surprise. A person could be driving home with a six-pack in the trunk and be rear-ended by a completely sober granny lady. The lying scum will count that as an “alcohol-related” accident.
When this thing first started, the heat was on “drunk driving.” You could stop for a couple of beers on the way home. The criteria for “drunk” have been tightened up, not because it makes sense, but because the criteria were too low to begin with.
People at .1 weren’t causing significantly more accidents than people with less or no alcohol in their systems, so establishing that value didn’t do much to stop “alcohol-related” accidents. The people who cause the accidents *because*of*their*drinking* are at some ridiculous level like .25.
Lower the level to .08, and you still don’t get much change: have to keep cooking those books.
They adopted a falsehood as a fundamental assumption: if a person who has ingested alcohol has an accident, the drinking caused the accident. It ain’t necessarily so.
We have gone from “don’t drive drunk” to “don’t drink and drive,” presumably any amount.
Why?
Well, it fits in with the left’s design to “get Americans out of their cars,” and because it is a stupid law, it negatively impacts respect for the law in general.
Of course, some of the extremists are just sincere but stupid, like the temperance types responsible for prohibition. Almost everybody believes the government hype that no one is safe to drive at .08, and you couldn’t get a study showing anything else funded or published.