> "Jim Carr" azwebpages.com> wrote
>

>>> Is the law bad because it's on the books, or because it has a
>>> specific level of BAL?

>>
>> My issue is the presumption of impairment based solely upon BAL. The
>> BAL in an of itself as not the issue - it's the impairment whether
>> it's caused by prescription drugs, illegal narcotics, Benadryl, or
>> just exhaustion.
>>
>> Test and prosecute severely on impairment. It's ridiculous to me
>> that you can drive while exhausted and crash into a tree with only
>> minor punishment, but if you drive *perfectly* but get caught at a
>> road block, you're fucked.

>
> IAWTP. A regular drinker is less dangerous at .08 than my
> mom after one glass of wine. We had to take my grandmother's
> car keys away eventually. Fortunately she lived next to the
> Portchester, NY town manager, and the cops knew to follow her
> around on Sunday mornings. She drove 40 mph on the frickin'
> thruway -- absolutely insane around the NYC area.
>
> At any rate, my grandma was always "bumping into" the house
> or garage. Lord knows what else...
>
> Whether or not road blocks should even be constutional is
> another story. I seem to remember the founding fathers were
> rather annoyed by them. The real drunks out there are like
> pointing a loaded gun at a crowd -- go after them, sure, and
> quit wasting your time on those who aren't impaired.