As far as being a prohibitionist, I'm far from it. I don't care if you get sh*t faced daily, just stay off the road. Again, you have your pat argument against issues I never brought up.
You make the claim that it's about rights, but it appears the only right you are referring to is the right to drink and drive otherwise you wouldn't be spouting .1% is safe.
“It’s quite disingenuous of you to continue to attribute any of the counts to MADD when you know quite well they are quoting other peoples numbers.”
When MADD repeats numbers from whatever source, they are endorsing them. Further, MADD has been caught advancing numbers that apparently have no other source than their fevered imaginations.
“As well as any connection I may or may not have with them, which there is none.”
I never said you had any connection with them.
“But none of that has stopped you from fabricating a connection now has it?”
I never need anything to stop me from fabricating anything. I refrain from fabrications as a matter of principle and habit. In line with that habit, I have not said or implied that you have any connection with MADD.
“As far as being a prohibitionist, I’m far from it.”
Again, to say that you have believed the numbers advanced by crypto-prohibitionists is not to say that you are a prohibitionist.
“I don’t care if you get sh*t faced daily”
Can’t drink. Diabetes and liver problems.
“You make the claim that it’s about rights, but it appears the only right you are referring to is the right to drink and drive otherwise you wouldn’t be spouting .1% is safe.”
Well, yes, the only right I am referring to in this discussion is the right to drink and drive. I discuss other rights in other discussions, but this one is about drinking and driving.
If you think that we should outlaw driving after drinking any amount of alcohol, then you should say so, rather than trying to get your way by blurring the difference between driving after drinking but unimpaired, and driving while impaired.
I would not go so far as to say that 0.10% BAC is a "safe" way to be driving... I don't believe it is.. But, I can say... several years ago, when I took the time to really delve deeply into the statisitics... it was clear than drivers with 0.08% BAC were not at ANY greater risk of being in a fatal accident than were people with no alcohol reading at all.
At 0.10%, there was a slight uptick in the fatality rate... although, it was arguable as to whether is was 'significant'. As you got to 0.12% and above, the statistics changed dramatically....
Clearly to me.. 0.10% was VERY near the line of true risk.. and, given the innacuracies in measurement of impairment that I mentioned in earlier posts... not really a good place to begin applying severe punishment. I think, most people have come to understand this. And, that is why there is NOT universal support for harsher penalties.
Interestingly to me, I've made an attempt to find the same kinds of statistics now... and, it seems, the statistics are reported differently now. All I can find is, stats for OVER 0.08% BAC... nothing that breaks out the accident rates correlated with levels of intoxication. Perhaps, there is political agenda at work in the data collection?