I do not support .02 and I do not support moving it from .08.
What science do you put up against it to show something else? I would love to read what you have to offer.
Where are your BAC studies that show where impairment begins at .10 or .15? Lets see em? You call out junk science....what do you put up against it?
Good for you. Unfortunately, the legislature in New Hampshire already lowered the accepted BAC to 0.02 for young drivers and to 0.04 for commercial drivers.
Were the MADD members in New Hampshire opposed to it? I wonder if you can find out, since you seem to be involved with the MADD crowd.
"I do not support .02 and I do not support moving it from .08."
Glad to hear it. The question is, is it a good use of police resources, not to mention good policy in a supposedly free country with an assumption of innocence, to set up stings and road blocks to just look for people whose BAC is over .08 but have not shown any deficiency in their driving ability? I say no. If a cop observes a driver driving erratically, pulls them over, and administers a breathalyzer (with an approved, accurate, calibrated machine, which often is not the case) and they blow over .08, I say go ahead and arrest them and charge them. Then we come to the discussion of how strong the punishment should be for a first time conviction of a driver that blows just over the limit. I believe current laws, at least the ones in Canada that I am familiar with, are overly harsh.