"a driver who drinks but is below the limit is not a drunk driver,a drunk driver is one who is over the limit."

No, Schweik, you are wrong, for several reasons:

- First of all, you said yourself that "you can be over the limit, without having consumed any alcohol [medication can do this]". Therefore, someone whose blood-alcohol level is over the legal limit for driving but who has not consumed alcohol is not "drunk", although his/her ability to drive is definitely affected by that blood-alcohol level. He or she would be "driving under the influence (DUI)" of a medication or whatever else had caused his/her blood-alcohol level to rise.

- Secondly, anyone who consumes any amount of alcohol is intoxicated because he/she has ingested a toxic substance that affects his/her brain chemistry AND is considered "drunk" because that toxic substance is alcohol. The level of drunkenness changes with the level of alcohol in his/her system, but the only non-drunk person is a sober person (i.e. a person who has not consumed any alcohol).

- Thirdly, you are confusing the term "drunk" with the term "legally intoxicated". (Either that, or you are intentionally being a prat!) Governments set laws to determine the level of intoxication at which they will prosecute a person for Driving Under the Influence; anyone below that level is still intoxicated, even though he/she cannot legally be prosecuted for driving at that blood-alcohol level. Governments can and do change their laws to lower the level of intoxication at which they will prosecute a driver, but that does not change the fact that anyone who consumes any amount of alcohol is going to be affected by it in a way that reduces his/her ability to drive safely.

Governments do represent all of the people they govern, BUT they have a mandate to fulfill the promises on which they were elected to office by the majority of the voters and to act responsibly in the interests of the safety and civility of their region, even when some of their constituents want them to do something irresponsible (such as raising the legal limit for DUI!).

Schweik, you keep claiming that there is no statistical evidence that justifies the lowering of the legal limit, but only because you keep ignoring the evidence that is there. When a statistic is presented to you, you insist that it "proves nothing" because you don't want to believe it. When someone posts a logical comment, you say it is illogical. When someone points out a flaw in your logic, you either ignore the comment or complain that the poster is ignorant. It seems that you do not want to listen to anyone but yourself, and that you've opened this discussion for the sole purpose of shooting down anyone who disagrees with you.

Unfortunately for you, what you have actually done here is to make yourself look awfully foolish.