> Okay, first of all that category of "alcohol or narcotics" includes some things that are not precisely alcohol. For example, narcotics. So that tempers the number of such arrests involving alcohol somewhat. But, more tellingly, I'm not convinced statistics about DUI arrests are valid. States have wildly differing definitions about when precisely you are considered "under the influence," and some of them are asinine. If you happen to live in a state like this one, for example, you are driving under the influence if the officer who pulled you over says so. Period. No tests are required. It's entirely possible that you've never so much as had a wine cooler in your entire life, and you can get arrested for DUI in Massachusetts. It happened to a friend of mine, even (admittedly, he's been known to drink - somewhat heavily, as young males are prone to do - but on this occasion he was a designated driver and had had nothing).
>
> Also, you're talking arrests. Convictions are another matter. One is led to wonder how many of those 1.4M arrests minus the number that were narcotcs-related were overturned in court.

Good points. The salient point of the statistic, and the reason I quoted it, was the number of specifically alcohol-related incidents of self-reported impaired driving. That so many incidents were reported willingly by people, and that the incidents were alcohol related, was the important point. Even if the same people report 10 incidents per year, the number of people involved is enormous. I think that drunk driving is a poor choice in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

> I agree. People make bad choices. All the time. I don't have the impression that anyone's been denying that. But here's some spin for you. Bad decisions involving alcohol can be deadly when they also involve automobiles. Remove the automobiles, and the chances of a bad alcohol-related decision killing that family of four plummets. It's still possible, but hardly common. However, remove the alcohol, and you still see a lot of people killed because of bad decisions involving automobiles. An awful lot. This implies to me that, of the pair, the cars are the more dangerous, yet I don't quite see the outcry against them. If the primary issue is how many people are killed per year, cars are the single biggest danger I can think of. Would you have us outlaw them?

Yes, my point was about alcohol use combined with driving, and it is that combination that makes it dangerous. I made no implication that alcohol should be outlawed because of it, only that the severity was worth noting. I am not making an outcry against alcohol use, just an appeal to sane use of it.

frum