Driving under the Influence (DUIs') aren't really about making the roads safer for me and you; they are a lot more about the symbiotic relationship between 'opposing' attorneys, extra and unmerited revenue for government agencies, and in some jurisdictions: free and undeserved mandatory labor. While I would agree that people that actually do have their driving abilities impaired should be subject to a reasonable penalty for using our public roads, I do not agree with our current DUI laws which are arbitrary, capricious, and morally suspect.
For instance, how is it that the needle for a DUI is constantly moving ever downward so that the blood alcohol level to be considered DUI is becoming lower and lower. That isn't good science, that isn't science at all, which makes for arbitrary and very bad law. For instance, in Georgia, in 1954, you were considered to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor at 0.15 percent. Since that time, Georgia has reduced its' definition of "under the influence of intoxicating liquor" to 0.12 percent, then to 0.10 percent, and now to 0.08 percent. Then, in May of 2013 the NTSB put out their recommendation that a DUI should be further reduced from its current 0.08 percent (in all 50 states) to 0.05 percent. Since the Federal Government likes to wield its big stick and withhold highway construction monies from states that do not adhere to its dictates, the chances of this becoming the new standard for a DUI are quite high.
What a DUI should be about is actual driving impairment and nothing else. Therefore DUIs should be based on sound science with proven and reliable studies as compared to the arbitrary levels to which we are subjected to daily. It is these studies that should solely determine the amount of alcohol level permitted to define whether a driver is or is not "under the influence of intoxicating liquor". The inability of government agencies to follow this reasonable and sane process is demonstrative proof that DUIs are in fact not about good law but instead a source of revenue, harassment, and oppressive police/government actions.
DUI proponents love to recite statistics that demonstrate how many lives have been saved from having strict DUI laws in regards to blood alcohol content. Their premise is that if you continue to lower DUI levels, our roads will become safer and less deadly. If this was indeed the case, why allow any public consumption of alcohol whatsoever! In fact, why waste your time lowering the DUI levels, as opposed to simply eliminating alcohol as a legal beverage in this country. Isn't this the ultimate objective?
While driving is a privilege and not a right, it's biased and unfair to arrest, incarcerate, compel to enforced labor, and monetarily fine drivers who have committed no crime other than to have an arbitrary amount of blood alcohol in their body. This serves no good purpose and many bad ones. Bad laws and bad justice do not make good citizens and builds contempt for the law.