Quote:

We’ve all seen drivers so deficient in them that they are a greater danger stone cold sober than other drivers with a six pack under their belt. Should naturally deficient drivers be legally allowed to endanger the rest of us while we throw drinking drivers in jail and ruin their lives despite the very real possibility that they might be safer on the road than the cell phone talker, the mom yelling at her kids, the aggressive A-hole, or the little old lady who can’t see over her steering wheel?



I TOTALLY agree that all of these other things should be addressed (heck I would be happy to take a road and written test every 5 years to keep my licence), but I think a lot of people like to compare things to make a point and it's not really a valid argument. Know what I mean? In all of these examples you are making comparisons. Worse than, etc. But that doesn't make the thing you are comparing it to ok! I know that wasn't really your point, but I just thought I would add my two cents in support of your argument The point of the drunk driving laws is to have standards, and it's too bad we don't have higher standards for these other dangers.

Benny Black & Silver '02 Too many mods to list Not enough miles ridden