I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Isn't just like our overbearing nanny state to try to force those who even once get caught driving drunk to have to go through the embarisment and cost of controlled ignition systems.

When do the stonings and burnings start up again I wonder?

Hawkeye it is worst then that there are talk about equipping all news cars with such locks so we all will need to prove we are not under the influence before we can start our cars.

Who are the masters the government or the people?

The people are the government.

Cattle calls

Our drunk driving laws are a joke
By Jeff Edelstein
Columnist
July 13, 2012

I’ve written here before, but it’s worth mentioning it again: Our drunk driving laws make absolutely no sense.

All across this great land of ours, if you have a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .08 or above, you are over the “legal limit.” As such, if you decide to drive a car and get pulled over, you’re going to get a drunk driving ticket.

You’re also probably completely blitzed.

Plain and simple: The .08 BAC barrier doesn’t go far enough.

I’m a drinker. Not a point of pride, but a fact. I enjoy my bourbon. And beer. And wine. I’m not a lightweight. I can hold my booze. I also weigh about a buck ninety, and so, according to every BAC calculator I’ve come across, if, over the course of two hours, I drank five beers, or five shots of bourbon, or five glasses of wine (which would be a full bottle of wine, for the record) I would still be just under the legal limit. Yep. Under. And let me also tell you this: While I wouldn’t be fall-down drunk, I’d certainly be leaning-against-the-nearest-wall drunk. In short, I’d have absolutely no business getting behind the wheel of a car.

And we wonder why over 10,000 Americans still die each year in drunk driving accidents, according to the United States Department of Transportation, and why almost 40 percent of all fatal accidents involve alcohol in one form or another.
Really, consider that last number: Four in 10 traffic fatalities involve alcohol. That’s a shocking, scary figure.

So what to do? Well, I truly believe the legal limit should be knocked down to at least .05. I’m not alone in that either, as .05 is supported by the World Medical Association, the American and British Medical Associations, the European Commission, the European Transport Safety Council, the World Health Organization and the American College of Emergency Physicians. It’s also the limit in numerous other countries, including Belgium, Germany and France.

Speaking of France, as of last week, a new law was enacted forcing all motorists to carry in their car, at all times, single-use breathalyzer tests. The idea being simple: You might check yourself before (trying so hard not to say it and failing) you wreck yourself.

Honestly, I’m pretty much for this idea as well.

I’m no saint, and I don’t like the government getting into my business, but this is not that. Drunk driving kills over 3,500 non-drunk people a year. Almost 10 people a day, just going about their business, killed by drunk drivers.

So yes. Booze is, and should be, legal. But drunk driving should be a more serious offense than it is now, and the blood alcohol legal limit levels are a joke.

Seriously. I know myself. And I know if I drink a bottle of wine over a two-hour period, I am going to be wasted. And legally allowed to drive.

Jeff Edelstein is a columnist for The Trentonian newspaper in Trenton, N.J. He can be reached at [email protected], facebook.com/jeffreyedelstein and twitter.com/jeffedelstein

http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/20120713/OPINION03/120719740/our-drunk-driving-laws-are-a-joke

"Cattle calls"? You've obviously not made the effort to catch up with your member of Congress. They show up at all sorts of small groups and small functions in the district, and they really aren't that inaccessible. They are constantly campaigning because their term of office is so short, so they aren't hard to find or speak to. And they want your vote.

None of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread--it's your usual tired anti-government rant.

Ignition interlock devices in cars would help to save many lives, and help to prevent injuries and property damage that would otherwise occur due to the irresponsible judgment of those who chose to break the law and drive drunk.

Thom Swift would be much better off today if his car had been equipped with such a device that prevented him from starting it while drunk.

The government is the voice of the people,
it protects them from irresponsible drunks like you.