IMHO if the amount of alcohol someone has consumed affects their driving ability they should be arrested. If drugs, prescribed, over the counter or illegal hamper someones driving ability, they should be arrested. On any given weekend night 1 out of 10 cars has a drunk driver behind the wheel. Impaired drivers need to be stopped. No one has the right to endanger other people because they can't control their own behavior.
By what definition of "drunk"? Bear in mind that if your statistic is accurate, then in even if alcohol had no effect on people's driving ability, in 10% of accidents involving one driver that driver would be intoxicated, and in 19% of accidents involving two drivers, at least one would be intoxicated.
If MADD were actually interested in reducing drunk driving, why did they oppose legislation to allow restaurants to seal partially-consumed bottles of wine so patrons could take them home? It would seem to me a patron would be far more inclined to finish off a bottle of wine before getting in his car if the excess would otherwise go to waste than if he could have it as a nightcap once he gets home. But MADD opposed such legislation. Why?
MADD is more interested in magnifying the perceived extent of the drunk driving problem than in actually solving it. If enforcement efforts were targeted at people with disproportionately-high accident rates, drunk-driving fatality rates might go down too much, and MADD might not be as effective at raising funds. Better to push for ever-expanding definitions of "intoxicated" and "alcohol-related" so as to make the problem seem as severe as possible.
And if a driver is a functioning alcoholic who doesn't appear to be affected by his drinking, but blows over a .10 - are you willing to let him go?
MADD keeps trying to lower the BAC in the statutes - from .10 to .08 and impaired from .05 down. And the reading alone can justify the conviction, under the statute, without the swerving, etc. [A roadblock for ALL traffic can do the job].
Yea and he/she is gay too.