libertarian ping
Two very important points.
1)According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term ‘alcohol-related’ does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol.
And:
2)From the book: Alcohol in America: Taking Action to Prevent Abuse (1985)
Starting on page 32, here’s what they had to say:
Using several epidemiological studies of drunk driving, Reed has calculated a more accurate estimate of the number of deaths that could be prevented if no one ever drove after drinking. These studies compared the blood alcohol levels of drivers involved in accidents with the blood alcohol levels of drivers not involved in accidents(this latter control group was randomly selected at times and places similar to those at which the accidents occurred). The data shows that 24 percent of the fatalities would not have occurred if the drivers had not been drinking.
So, 76% of drunk driving fatalities would have occurred whether alcohol was present or not.
Most deaths claiming to be “alcohol” related are in fact not related to alcohol at all.
Mark
He had me up until the point he said the California Supreme Court is to the right of the US Supreme Court.
He really has no idea does he? Their position on this issue is a “lefty” position of “we know better than you or your messy science” and not even a conservative opinion.