OK, I agree that punishment should fit the crime. I agree that M.A.D.D. is an out of control political group not really interested in their stated cause so much as the pursuit of power and money (my opinion, more on that later). I agree that our laws are arbitrary, stupid, and designed to punish the vast majority of law abiding citizens, while having little effect on the group they were intended for.
Studies have shown that driving and using a cell phone (one of my pet peeves), even hands free, leaves the driver more impared than if they had consumed 4 alcholic beverages.  
http://www.jpshealthnet.org/JPS-Specialty-Sites/trauma/community-programs/dis...
http://www.jpshealthnet.org/uploadedFiles/Medical_Services_Specialty/JPS_Trau...
Yet we have no bans on cell phone usage and, to the best of my knowledge, no increase in penalty for an accident where cell phone usage played a part; unlike DUI.
As for MADD, I believe in their cause. I don't think those impaired by alchohol (and I mean Jerry's definition) should be allowed to drive. I also believe that license suspension doesn't work. I've heard of several cases where an individual has been arrested for the umpteenth time for DUI, and their license had been suspended. In one case for a number of years, and yet this individual had simply continued to get behind the wheel of a car. As I said, I believe in the cause, I just don't believe in the organization. Several years ago, I contacted MADD. I had an idea that I had run by law enforcement who said that the idea had merit, and thought it would work. In Texas, we have a barcode running on the back of our license. My idea was to use it at the pump for preapproval before purchasing fuel. For the person convicted of DUI, the license wouldn't be suspended, it would be inactivated. They would be one tank of gas away from being on foot. Use the fines imposed on the convicted to fund the system, and make the penalty for aiding an restricted license holder in the purchase of fuel a stiff fine, and the same inactivation for 6 months. Would it eliminate every restricted license holder from getting fuel, no, it had some areas that needed work; but it was at least a starting point. Every person I talked with supported the idea, and thought it would work. MADD wanted nothing to do with it. I believe for the very reason that it might have worked. How can you grab headlines if there aren't any "drunks" on the road. I couldn't get a discussion started in Austin either, and I believe it was because of MADD's undue influence in government. MADD gets money from several sources, including well intentioned people who think they're contributing to a noble cause. Without the requisite number of "drunks" on the road, the coffers might run dry.
As for obeying every traffic law all of the time, I don't believe any of us do it. Would there have been a different tone with Jerry's friend if he hadn't been drinking? I mean, alchohol or not, he crossed the center line. That's illegal. How about running the red light at an empty intersection in the middle of no where that won't change because there's not enough metal in the bike to trip the traffic sensor? I've done it. Five miles over the limit? That's illegal too. Forgot to signal a turn? Oops, call the cops. "But, but he was drinking!" Yeah, so we throw the book at a guy 200 yards from his house, traveling an empty stretch of road. Meanwhile some drunk with a suspended license was probably on a crowded street making his way to wherever. Relax the laws, increase the penalty.

I agree that those who insist on phoning or texting while driving are a significant danger, and I do feel the risk they pose.  I would have no problem with at least texting while driving being against the law as well.  I agree that many older people should not be on the road.  When my Father reached that point, my Brother & I took his keys and sold his truck.  Next to his death some years later, it was among the hardest things we had to do, but it needed to be done.

As someone in the discussion said, there are degrees of imparied.  The problem is there is no objective way for the average LEO to be able to tell if some one is capable of successfully driving or not, so without the use of a set standard, most courts would not accept their subjective view of the driver's capability.  I might be fine to drive at .08, but someone else might not.  The problem is the "not that impaired" part.  How impaired do you have to be to have your reaction time slow to where you are more likely to have/cause an accident.

The person who is 85, or has one eye, or one arm did not chose to be that way, they had no choice.  The person who choses to drink past whatever limit is set, and then makes a choice to drive is in that situation by choice.

We may have to just disagree on this point.  As you said about the polititician, While I understand your reasoning, I'm not able to agree with it.

Jay -

I have no explanation for the person who has umpteen DUIs while his license is suspended, except to assume that he has an addiction to alcohol that is uncontrollable.

And, it's not an uncommon problem.  For those people, I agree that a license suspension does not keep them off of the road.  So, unfortunately, they must be dealt with harshly and perhaps jailed for a considerable period of time.  But like those addicted to other drugs (alcohol is certainly a drug of abuse), as soon as they get out of jail, they are likely to fall back into their old ways.  Solving drug addiction may be one of the biggest challenges of our generation.  I sure don't have the answer.

I guess that I failed to make it clear that my comments weren't about an alcoholic or drug addict - they were about a 48 year old business owner who has been as clean as a pin until that one evening.  This guy has never even smoked in his adult life, he's so clean.

For what it's worth, the bar where he did his drinking was one mile from where he got nailed, and the spot of his arrest was 200 yards from his driveway.  All in a rural area with no highly traveled roads anywhere nearby.  According to him, he never passed or encountered any car other than the deputy who sneaked up on him, with his headlights turned off.

I think we should do away with all public drinking,like we do smoking,think how many lives it will save.

Why?Cuz it sounds like a card in the spokes on a bicycle when you turn?

I call that thugish behavior.

If I exercise my rights & it "causes" someone to suddenly change their attitude, then that person is a punk.

I have no idea how we let it get this far.