Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Sir Robbie, there is no doubt in my mind that I or anyone else would be able to shift your thinking.
Cheers.
|
Mark, all I'm saying is that the current DUI laws in the U.S. were instigated by "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" back in the 1970's.
And their voting block and ad campaign pressured politicians to make the accepted levels far too low.
It was done on emotion, not clear thinking.
I'm not against having laws for DUI.
I'm against having a level that is so low...that whenever a town needs extra revenue they can just send the cops out on a Friday night and pull anybody over and they will blow that ridiculous low number.
Just because the cops put up billboards and t.v. commercials saying that "buzzed driving is drunk driving" doesn't make it true.
I could drink a six pack and a couple of shots and still be more alert and have better hand-to-eye coordination than a 100% sober guy who hasn't slept.
Or a person texting on their phone.
Or just a busy mom with several kids in the car diverting her attention from the road.
I think that DUI laws shouldn't be using breathalyzers (I'm even hearing of people's blood being DRAWN to check for drugs...outrageous).
I think it should be based on a police officer giving a field sobriety test.
If you can't even walk straight and you're talking slurred...you don't need to be behind the wheel.
If you are alert, awake, and clear headed...then there shouldn't be any problem.
I think the levels that have been set are simply too low, and that it has become a source of revenue.
You think that the levels are great and that cities are not making bank off of it and it's okay to ruin lives.
I just can't go with your line of thinking on that.