Nobody is debating that there is a correlation between alcohol and impaired driving. What we are debating is the level of impairment that comes from having a low BAC level. You pulled some quotes which make some very generalized statements about the level of impairment at low BAC levels and site them as "scientific research". How were these tests preformed, who preformed them, what were the differences in reaction time between sober vs impaired individuals? Just saying "significant" isn't considered scientific research.
And how do these levels compare with other driving distractions such as talking on the phone, texting, playing with the radio, or just being tired? There is plenty of evidence out there that these can be just as bad if not worse than drinking and driving.
Why are the penalties for these other offenses just as strict as the penalties for drinking and driving? Why did policy makers decide .08 was where they would draw the line? Why can they arrest someone for DUI if they are below that limit? Why are you so obsessed with rattling your saber against anyone who has a few drinks and drives?
I'm not playing the what-if game, I'm just saying you have no moral ground to stand on unless you know the circumstances. Dickface.
Anthony Hope? Clearly you just googled "ignorance quotes" and picked one. Good job buddy. The quote doesn't really make sense though because you're not having a conversation with anyone, you're just railing against anyone who doesn't think like you think. Your 'arguments' have the same quality and eloquence as the Lamb Center poster.
Attachments: