Well stated CM.
Absolutism is never a good guiding principle. It is the proverbial foolish consistency, the hobgoblin of little minds.
The usual rush to signal virtue means that politicians and far too many others are willing to uncouple scientific definitions of impairment from colloquial ones.
Exactly what ‘pro-life’ ie a term typically used in the context of abortion, has to do with the medical and/or legal definition of impairment, remains a mystery. At best one might say we are anti-death or anti-accident but isn’t every rational person?
The reality is that DUI is a safe political target for states who have turned the ‘crime’ into a huge revenue stream on which they have become dependent. Fines are ratcheted up, limits lowered and 4th Amendment mocking checkpoints erected with federal grants paying for overtime. If your house is burgled while the majority of the cops are standing idle on a roadside somewhere, that’s hard luck.
The other reality is that MUCH stricter licensing requirements, from tests to vision to operation with retesting every 10 years, would increase road safety a thousandfold beyond getting a few so-called impaired drivers arrested and fined. Most of us know at least one senior citizen with bad eyesight, cataracts, loss of peripheral vision, loss of physical ability (arthritis, surgeries, hearing loss, etc.) who keep their license and are even coaxed through vision tests at the DMV.
We have all seen panic defensive moves and near wrecks caused by someone putting along 10 mph below the posted limit especially on freeways. They don’t check mirrors, they don’t signal, they don’t know or care
Why? License fees, tags, vehicle/property taxes, and fuel taxes are an even bigger earner for states. Keeping seniors on the road, even if they don’t belong there, keeps the dollars flowing. The state is never as interested in safety as it is cold hard cash.
.