Originally Posted by houghtam
So you're saying passing laws that say don't do X don't prevent people from doing X.
Let's just not pass any laws?
Do you really believe that the emphasis on DUIs has had no effect on the number of alcohol related deaths and injuries? Or are you just being intellectually dishonest again to try proving a point?
Side note, the article you posted makes a great case for federal regulation of business.
My feelings on DUI laws are pretty parallel to restrictions on guns. There's a floor of common sense somewhere, but every time something bad happens some political activist(s) somewhere has to build off of that floor in order to "do something" so everyone so-inclined can feel better. The floor of DUI laws (and real punishments) as established over the 1980's -90's or so was probably a good thing. But now what we're faced with is a steady push to lower those limits every time enough bad happens to stir emotions. Anti-drinking advocates are now talking about criminalizing .05% even though there's little to no evidence that level of "intoxication" is causing any real harm. It doesn't matter to them if the vast majority of truly alcohol-related tragedies were caused by people violating already-existing limits. They've got to "do something." And that something tends to be whatever's easiest, which means lowering limits to include mostly people who were never the problem in the first place.
And I believe what we likely will see come out of this tragedy (if anything) will be something that would've had next to no impact on the case at hand. Unfortunately it's all just an exercise certain people need to go through in order to give themselves the false hope that the inevitable isn't going to happen again.