>>I assume that this law was based on extensive research that showed 18-20 year old intoxicated drivers are a significantly greater threat to society to 21+ years old intoxicated drivers.
>>
>>Of course, I could be wrong about that...
>>
>>Peter
>
>Um, not to question "extensive research" which is obviously always correct, :-) but how would the age of an intoxicated driver affect the threat level of that driver, if both are intoxicated to the same degree?


My comments were totally "tongue-in-cheek". Other than the fact that experienced drivers ARE safer drivers and some of that experience will remain even with increased levels of blood alchohol, I can't see the rationale at all. Cracking the whip on 18-20 year olds is a politically expedient substitute for getting really tough with DUI's in general.

As to concerns about alcohol abuse independent of driving, we need to target the abuse and not reasonable use.

Of course, I also dissagree strongly with marijuana prohibition laws!

Peter