Your post 86:
Every person that is killed by a driver that has been drinking could be avoided by people not driving when they drink. That is absolutely a true statement. For if noone was drinking and driving there would be noone killed or hurt by a driver that had been drinking.
If this isn't an argument for zero tolerance, what is it?
You try to keep up the pretense that 0.08 is your final answer, but I find that hard to believe.
In a comprimise no opposing side gets everything they want. .00 will never be attained because it is unreasonable. Noone in the MADD organization that I deal with directly EVER says .00 is the goal, Though some around the country do.
Follow the logic. Your own logic using your own facts. You may accept 0.08 as a political compromise right now, but would you really refuse to go to 0.05?
Show me why it isn't.
0.08 is not a problem level. 0.10 was and is a reasonable threshold for seperating the bulk of the true problem drivers from the casual drinker. If the average DUI arrest is at 0.16, why does the level need to be set at half that?
If the fatalities skyrocket for those above 0.10, why target the three-beer drinker?
SD
What it is, is a statement of fact. If noone would drive after drinking noone would die as a result of it. What I said had nothing to do with tolerating it or not.
Other posts in this thread speak about my position on tolerance of it. Below .08 is to be tolerated as part of the comprimise. Above it should not.
What is your comprimise and how do you come to it? I have explained my position. Can you explain yours?
You can find it hard to believe all you want to. That is your problem. I back .08 100% and want it to stay there for reasons I have posted.....You can search some other threads I have posted on and I say the very same things there that I do here. Belive it, its the truth.
I would refuse a .05. How many times must I say such a thing?
The fact that more people are caught driving at a higher level than .08 (say .16) is not related in anyway to how dangerous they are. Studies show that significant impairment begins at .08 and I think the studies are the most valid thing we have to go on.
Just because you feel like you aren't impaired doesn't mean you are not.
I do not know anyone that got into DUI school only being a three beer drinker. I think that is a strawman argument used to spin the issue to something that it isn't.
How many people that are stopped actually had three beers? Cmon now.