Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
I'm curious about attitudes here concerning the idea that if you are cought driving drunk even once, even if you hurt no one, got into no accident, and your blood alcohol were just barely over the legal limit, that you are automatically banned from driving a personal vehicle for life, with life meaning life; and if you either violate this driving ban or, alternatively, get cought driving drunk again even for non-personal reasons such as work or business, again even if you hurt no one and had no accident, automatic X years of hard labour, maybe even life.
Would this be too harsh or reasonable?
Yes it's too harsh. To begin with, we should throw out the term "drunk" driving because people can't agree on what "drunk" is. If we are going to use the term "impaired" than it should be impaired regardless of what is causing the impairment (ie sleep deprivation or drugs).
Secondly, we should compare BAC levels (as opposed to legal impairment) to accident stats. I read an interesting study done in Australia a few years ago that said that the accident rate begins to drop as people drink until the BAC hits 0.10. One possible reason is that while people's judgement may become impaired, they may tend to compensate in other ways such as staying off of major thoroughfares.
If I wish to take drastic steps to protect myself, the first thing I need to determine is where the risk is. That clearly hasn't been done because people like MADD like to make the issue emotional so they can increase revenue. After all, the number one rule of sales is people buy emotionally and justify logically.