Quote Originally Posted by biondino
Bigred on the money. Salsa, I don't know what's got into you on this thread, YOU'RE NOT USUALLY LIKE THIS. Of course the limit has to be an arbitrary one! Everything's arbitrary! The only non-arbitrary limit would be zero! And of course it will be towards the lower end of the scale - if some people are impaired at (or even below) the limit, then we need to stop them driving while impaired.

The government and the law have a lot of dumb, unfair or disproportional rules we're expected to follow. Forbidding driving while impaired by alcohol is not one of them. I assume you've had some kind of run-in with the law? Drugs maybe? Fine, you have a genuine grievance, BUT NOT WITH THIS.
Yeah I guess so.

The problem with any argument I could make is that drink driving is an activity that puts innocent third parties at risk.

All I can say is I think the penalties imposed at the lower end of infringements, especially in my home country of Australia where a first offence of 0.06 will get your license immediately suspended and a big fine are disproportionate to the risk actually posed to the community. But as long as people who think like me are in the minority, I guess we'll all be safe.

Yes I've been in trouble with drug possession and it the associated criminal record will be an incovenience to me if I wish to become a solicitor/barrister, but not fatal. I currently work part time for small law firm and one of their specialties in criminal defense for drug possession and acquisition (not trafficking and commercial quantities). I work in that department and derive much pleasure from my work.