I never pretended to isolate the .08 factor and said quite clearly it was in combination with other things done at the same time.
You know if you feel the need to claim i say things I did not say then I have no further desire to continue this conversation with you anymore.
I like that you claim propaganda....you say "that would be science" when you know damn well there is no way to measure miles driven at stages of drunkeness" there is no way to have perfect accurate numbers on any of this. Best guesses are all that came to pass for this situation and you know it.
You cannot change the fact that drinking and driving when mixed causes death and injury.....cut all the stats in half to account for what you call propaganda and then come back and tell me that those numbers are acceptable.....go for it......you will have to live with it if you do.
Folks like you refuse to accept the .08 and really do not offer anything to put in its place....and you wonder why the level has changed downward instead of upwards.
You got no right to endanger others on the public highways....just as a terrorist has no right to detonate a bomb in public. Drinking and driving at levels above .08 does just that in unacceptable fashion. There can be no perfection, I understand, and that is why I support .080 being the line. Studies show impairment really gets going in meaningful ways at .08 and I accept that as plausible until such time as something is shown to me that will change my position.
You have shown me nothing but opposition without solution.
One study cited on http://www.ncadd.com/08_crashrisk.cfm says that at 0.02 you are 3-5 times more likely to be killed. At 0.05, 6-17 times more likely.
Are those numbers acceptable?
SD