this is in responce to some of the hard core sentiments seen in other threads.
my personal take is that you shouldn't drive drunk, but driving after a couple isn't that much of a big deal.
lets face it, it is totally unreasonable to expect that EVERY person that will be out for a few will have a designated driver, or take a cab.
next time you see a baseball game on tv, think about how many in attendance are drinking. do you think that 1/4 is about right, or maybe even a little on the low side? that's a lot of drinkers in a stadium holding 12,000 or better.  
now, how many stadiums are packed around the country? how about other sports, football, hockey, nascar.
how about concerts, clubs, people drinking in restaurants?
people drinking are everywhere, everyday, in numbers that would boggle the mind.
most do so responsibly. take note of how few horror stories you hear compared to the shear volume of drinkers.
do you hard core anti drinkers think that EACH AND EVERY ONE of those drinkers should be driven by someone else? all of them?
you know that's not going to happen.
driving drunk isn't acceptable, but i just can't buy the "if you drink ANYTHING AT ALL, you should be shot if caught behind the wheel" reaction of some.  
i'm off for the next 4 days, i'll check this out when i get back. i just wanted to see the extreme reactions to this topic.
and one last thing, considering that what i said above about people drinking is true, do you advocate the banning of alcohol being served unless proof is provided that you aren't driving?
or do you accept that most people are in fact responsible enough to have a few without then driving cocked?
 
yeah, i expect to see , but that just isn't so.


editted to add that i feel totally sorry for the victums of drunk drivers, and the suvivors of those that were killed. i myself, have an uncle i never met, because he was mowed down by a drunk driver.
and be clear, i don't condone, nor accept, driving when too impaired to do so.  
i have a whole other arguement concerning being impaired versus being in violation of the per se laws. the per se laws being forced upon the states by the feds in a blackmail move where the feds would withhold federal highway funds unless those laws were passed.

I'll drink to that.  

Most fatal accidents occur with high alcohol contents. The people killing people
are not the ones, just at, or slightly above the legal limit, unless they are people that seldom drink
and are dangerous at any alcohol level.


GM

I think they should raise the penalty for drunk driving and raise the BAL to a level where someone is actually drunk.  Giving someone a DUI after only 2 or 3 drinks is in my opinion unreasonable.  I do however think that if someone is caught driving totally shitfaced swerving all over the road clearly endangering others should be punished.

Im with you on that.  Only time I had a drink and drove was after 2 and that was to get away from a situation that was getting annoying/bad.

I will avoid drinking and driving at all costs and when I do I'll only have 3 drinks over a long period, after that I won't drive.  Of course my nerves are so fucking shot I probably shouldn't be behind the wheel until I had a few drinks.

IF you drive with a BAC of .08 you're legally drunk, whether you had 1 drink or 2 or whatever. Personally, if I go drinking with co-workers etc. 1 beer and that's it.

Quoted: IF you drive with a BAC of .08 you're legally drunk, whether you had 1 drink or 2 or whatever. Personally, if I go drinking with co-workers etc. 1 beer and that's it.

Atleast we learned in school (so I dont trust it)

1 shot of Whiskey or similar, 1 glass of wine, or 1 beer is .02


Not taking anything into account, but they told us this for years,

Now if I drink a two shots of Knob Creek, have a glass or 2 of Cisco red, or 2 Double Bastard ales I expect it would throw me over the limit.

But according the them I would be only at .04