Why is it unreasonable? No nation has more drivers than the USA. No nation spends more time on the road than the USA. Alcohol usage and driving shouldn't even be a consideration. Thousands of ppl die every year at the hand of drunk drivers, despite the sobriety tests and punitive actions. Thousands would still be with their families, if not for another driver deciding it was okay to "have a few" and still drive. The first thing that goes after a few drinks is a persons judgment.
Considering how many ppl drive and how urbanized this country is, I'm surprised it's not more punitive.
Drinking isn't a right. Driving is a privilege. The two should never be mixed.
Again, this is unreasonable. Alcohol has been a part of most cultures for as long as there has been cultures. In most states driving is an inescapable part of daily life. The two are bound to cross paths at one time or another. And in fairness, that is why we really don't have a zero tolerance. That is why the limit is .08% and not 0%.
The fact is drunk driving is nowhere near the problem it is made out to be. The statistics you hear about are not factual - they are propaganda. The fact is, there are bars on every corner and they all have parking lots, so on any given day there are a lot of people driving who have imbibed. Some of these people are bound, like anyone else, to get into a fender bender. But when they do, the guy who drank even one beer is automatically at fault and it is automatically ruled "alcohol related." So, it is easy to concoct misleading statistics to make something look more serious than it really is.
Now, regarding the instances in which people who get killed by drunks, every one is a tragedy. But as with all tragedies we must be careful of a phenomenon known as misleading vividness. This is the tendency for people to come to exaggerated and irrational conclusions based on a few particularly vivid events. Never attending a sporting even because a fan once died at one would be an example.
The fact is, if you take a survey, few people you know or meet know someone who was ever in an accident caused by a drunk. Even if they were the accident may in reality not have been caused by the drunk.
But again, I am not defending people who irresponsibly drink and drive. I am just saying that driving with a buzz can be done responsibly. Lots of people do it and lots of people can continue to do so without endangering anyone. Laws ought to be based on what people are actually doing wrong, not what they could conceivably do wrong. And people should never be prosecuted "one size fits all" because it is expedient for the authorities. That is what we are really discussing here. We are discussing lumping minor offenders with the worst offenders simply because it is more expedient to do so.
It is never OK to allow the Government to act in this manner. If you disagree then you must apply the same standard to everything. You must also agree that a guy with one joint should be treated the same as a guy caught with 10 tones of weed.
The bottom line is that there are better ways to punish offenders than by pulling them in and churning the system. Up to say .10 could be $100 fine. After that $250 up to .15 at which time more severe punishment could be considered. They should also consider mitigating factors such as distance driven and time and place. Driving one mile on a back woods road is clearly less dangerous than driving in Manhattan in the middle of the day.
