Joe,
The guy was having trouble counting his change, he definitely did not need
to be on the road. As far as a zero tolerance, I don't believe any states
have zero tolerance. I know there are some countries in Europe that do have
zero tolerance.


"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote
I know it is not really a 2 liter, I just don't know what size the BIG
bottle of beer is. ; )

If you don't know a quart from a double-deuce, you're really not qualified
to comment on this subject. (Just funnin' witcha)

Seriously, though, I think a zero tolerance policy, and for that matter
the virtual zero tolerance policies that we currently use, are
counterproductive. Targeting responsible drinkers with random tests is as
much a waste of resources as strip searching little old ladies at the
airport. Organizations like MADD and the NSC have done an outstanding job
of changing societal attitudes toward drunk driving, but there are still
hard-core hard-cases who don't respond to public scorn. The problem is not
people with trace amounts of alcohol in their system, the problem is
drunks, and that's who we should be concentrating our scarce law
enforcement resources on.

In the unlikely event that Doug Kanter has a good day fishing and
celebrates with that beer of his, he's probably not going to be instantly
transmogrified into a marauding menace to society. But the way our current
enforcement policies work, he could be treated the same as that guy who's
been drinking all day and tearing around in his 50mph cigarette boat. I'll
take common sense over zero tolerance any day.

"J. Smithers" wrote
The guy was having trouble counting his change,
he definitely did not need to be on the road.

So get him off the road. That's my point. We can all recognize when somebody
really shouldn't be driving and we don't need to send blood to the lab to do
it. Making the guy who has no signs of impairment other than a .08 BAC
reading equal in the eyes of the law to the guy who's obviously drunk is
foolish.

"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"J. Smithers" wrote
The guy was having trouble counting his change,
he definitely did not need to be on the road.

So get him off the road. That's my point. We can all recognize when
somebody really shouldn't be driving and we don't need to send blood to
the lab to do it. Making the guy who has no signs of impairment other than
a .08 BAC reading equal in the eyes of the law to the guy who's obviously
drunk is foolish.




I don't think the cops have the time for making value judgements, even
though they should. Legally, things would probably get sticky without some
sort of metrics. However, I *do* see your point about how subjective
inebriation can be. I only know how it affects me differently, depending on
time of day, what I've eaten, and what activity I'm involved in. If I'm out
in the sun, maybe snacking instead of eating real meals, one beer will
sometimes flatten me, and I *know* it's going to happen. (That's why the one
fishing beer usually remains in the cooler). Other times, 2 bourbons mixed
with appetizers and dinner have less of an effect. But, I have friends who
expect to reach a certain level of buzz much quickly, and they're unable to
judge things very well, putting down 3 cocktails before they've had food.
One in particular loses her ability to judge appropriate comments, and often
doesn't remember what she said the night before. Obviously a problem.

But still, cops can only make judgements in the way they write speeding
tickets: They see a snapshot of an activity. I don't like it, but that's how
it is.

Joe,
That is the reason the cops do the field sobriety test in front of the
camera.


"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"J. Smithers" wrote
The guy was having trouble counting his change,
he definitely did not need to be on the road.

So get him off the road. That's my point. We can all recognize when
somebody really shouldn't be driving and we don't need to send blood to
the lab to do it. Making the guy who has no signs of impairment other than
a .08 BAC reading equal in the eyes of the law to the guy who's obviously
drunk is foolish.