The whole situation of it all, doesn't escape me. Look at a bigger picture. Perhaps there are a lot of scientists getting slagged. It may have nothing,something or everything to do with claims stated here. I am willing to explore the nothing or something of it, though.
What reasons can we find by wringing our memories of the events of , shall we say, the slashdot age?
1.Science tainted by money.
2. Science tainted by politics.
3. Science tainted by idiots.
4. Misled, mismanaged,misinterpreted research that misses the mark.
5. Broad misconceptions by an ever more distrustful public about the quality of bullshit now coming from the founts of Politics and Religion and now Science.
6. Bad timing
7. Good timing (we can't have that! REGULATE IT!)
8.Self affirmative hubris about infallibility of accepted assumptions based on findings of less enabled generations accepted as the norm by throngs of sheep.
9. Perpetual motion, zero point, cold fusion of snake oil that makes the media ahead of actual progress.
Finally 10. The Geeks seemingly stereotypical inability to interpret the fruit of social situations readily enough to figure out who he is pissing off with his findings/words/opinions and further his work by dissecting the politics of his environment in a lit room with both hands and a map.

Science isn't exactly out of this particular Dark Dis-information Age thing. Too much, too little , too late, two cold beers, please.

Accepting compromise and further dilluting what we have with Repubmocrat mis-management is no solution.
Support comes from anyone who hates the political party from the left or the right. They only have to see it is the same creature.
But nothing will keep you from being an idiot. How were your parents related?

Yeah, but Obama would still feed his mother a dead-rat sandwich, if he thought it would increase his popularity.

Quit making phony excuses. They have no puppet strings, no one controls their choices, but for themselves.
No one forced the neck of a bottle down their throat. It IS A CHOICE and the courts will always see it that way. In fact the only people who don't see it that way are those who profit from the false assertion; drunks and liberal behavoralists who have about as much credibility as a Puerto Rican wart healer. So, WRONG ANSWER.

          Someone who impaired themselves with ALWAYS be at fault. Therefore, we eliminate the problem through culturecide. We kill off the drunks as they cross the line to dangerous. Before would be better, but we have to give them a chance to destroy innocent lives before we turn them to useful fertilizer. Therein lie the drunks just chance. You wanna hear something stupid? Record and play back your bullshit.

          Sounds to me like you default to whatever cartoon drama your brains can handle.....

Dumbass, that's like saying " my car has a flat tire, so I must accept it".

            You must actually get off your ass, out of the car and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Accept it, jeez, what a total fucking idiot.

Jane you ignorant slut, the calibration must be set to rid the roads of self chosen hazards to save the innocent. That's lives, not some self-reserved right. Get your priorities in order before you come swinging your liberal hemorrhoids around here.

You know what's really cool? We mail in our votes at my house and my wife lets me fill out her ballot. I vote twice!

So far, along with mystified researchers in Marijuana states, you are unable to prove that marijuana ingestion leads to unsafe driving. Google it.
Let me get this straight, you're gonna hop-a-cunticle on my cock, sucker? God ,you public school grads will just service anything that moves, won't you?

Yup, that is some tech that would help.
Nope, it's o.k. to sacrifice the incompetent in MOST ANY circumstance.
I don't recall any constitutional print that read that we have to sacrifice OUR rights to protect some personally reserved right.
For instance if I reserved the right to stand outside bars, sorting out the unable to drive, disabling their abilities with extreme prejudice and then charging them for my time; I would have to defend that right by retreating at the first sign of those come to oppress me, and run from the cops.
Some just don't understand reserved rights.

Nope, just those willing to make the choice to endanger others with their driving.
Quit pouting.

Nope, one party system.
You got the Demopican from looking at the rectal end of the animal.

Both wings of the Repubmocrat party sing that song EVERY election. The majority buy it every time and we have had a Repubmocrat in office, sucking our lifeforce out, for more than a century now.

Over tired, doesn't have the ability to test.
Driving drunk, has a test.
Build a machine that does what you say, then run your mouth. Perhaps one that will sense tired, give you a few minutes to situate, then shut off the car for an amount of time.
While you're at it build one that shuts off cell phones, stifles passengers, repels idiots and forces your wife and kids to check the fluids once a week.
Meanwhile, drunks who drive just need put down.

Neither, in fact, you may feel free to admire me.
In our country of misplaced justice, we tend to lock up the non-dangerous in large numbers, while the dangerous get all sorts of legal gold stars during the enforcement phase, to get out early, to indulge in recidivism. No ones problem is solved.
We merely take the most dangerous, the most recidivistic and delete them, saving enough money to deal with those not so dangerous and eliminate prison overcrowding, making it a safer place to rehabilitate the able.
We have no use for the dangerous, who, either gave up their humanity or never had it to begin with. No real loss, no moral conflict and no credit to the morally retarded who hold us all in jeopardy and debt, trying to keep the scumbags among us alive to continue to feed off us.

At one time testing showed me to be amongst the top 4% of minds on the planet.
Perhaps I work from far more detailed criteria than you. Don't feel bad, at least your brain works well enough to cogitate the subject in a rudimentary way.

Well when you can separate the undrunk from the drunk , then we will worry about the morality of it. Meanwhile, lives are at stake and nobody gives a damn about your nearly innocent- nearly drunks.
Suck it up buddy.

They chose to be impaired, so YES they used up their choice.
Victims of drunks had no choice. So drunks should have no choice in being killed for killing.
After I stopped and thought about it a bit, it still sounds too nice without torturing the drunk for days before you tire of him and end his worthless life.