From: "Al Hephy"
Subject: Re: Defeating Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:48:33 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Reply-To: "Al Hephy"
References: <3E160F0D.B23A8BE5@sympatico.ca> <3E15ED10.firstname.lastname@example.org> <9zoR9.6018$Sa3.email@example.com> <3E161FF0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <3E17289F.firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
Fred Bloggs wrote in message =
> Bill Sloman wrote:
> > Are you sure? In the state of Victoria in Australia in the 1960's, =
> > police surgeon John Birrell, put together the statistics on the =
> > alcohol levels of road accident victims as measured at autopsy, and =
> > that something like a third of the victims had levels that would =
> > social drinker incapable of walking, let alone driving. Heavy =
> > (alcoholics) can function ostensibly normally at these sorts of =
> > alcohols levels, and are heavily over-represented amongst road =
> > victims.
> And that is precisely why the law is ineffective. These hard-core=20
> alcoholics will not be put off by the law- they will continue to drive =
> anyway- they are almost never less than a 0.2.
Bill, I think you just made the best point in this thread.
It's the legislative mindset which thinks every problem can be quickly =
solved by passing yet another law. Didn't work during prohibition, is =
not working during war-on-drugs, etc., etc.