My condolences.

Nope, just the number they were given.

You are my new favorite person.

Comparing drinking in Europe to drinking in the US is like comparing gun control in Canada to gun control in the US. The evidence doesn't follow the facts. It's a societal issue and can't be framed in the same way. So many people, yourself included, are too busy screaming "think of the children" that the real issue is obfuscated in hysteria. Here's a good way to think about this. You know what they have a lot of in Europe? Public transit. You know what they don't have a lot of in the US? Maybe that is why people drive drunk instead of catching the bus or train like they could in Berlin or Stockholm.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? Maybe you should put down the smirnoff ice and get on with your life.

This is something, that if you really need it explained to you, you couldn't grasp in the first place. Good day sir.

Getting "cases to courts" for minor infractions is just another way to make poor people that can't afford adequate representation into criminals when they shouldn't be.

The same can be said about gun related crime, or smoking related deaths. People want an easy bad guy to blame the indifference of the universe on.

So you're lightweight friends can't handle their booze, how or why should that impact how the rest of the real world works? Being responsible is something you have to plan for and if you can't then don't go out or don't drink. Aside from that and that breathalyzers are notoriously flaky, especially the ones regular losers can get their hands on, and can be challenged in court pretty easily.

While I don't contend that gun regulation will save lives, I don't think this will either.

The majority of accidents are caused by people well over the insipid .08 B.A.C in the first place. B.A.C. isn't a good indication of driving impairment or base levels of intoxication. You can't really measure something arbitrary like drunkeness with a simple blood test. When you can use BAC as an indication of intoxication, it's already too late. Lowering the threshold isn't going to do anything more than increase the amount of people with DUI's, it won't do a damn bit to prevent accidents or make the roads safer. Some people are a danger on the road sober lets focus on them first.

It's called "The Secret Service".

And the government has a right to dismiss any lawsuit against it that it feels is "frivolous." Why we let the gov't decide that is beyond me...

Your analogy is not properly supported by the facts. Based solely on the merits of Brad Pitt being a sexy man with or without the money. It would be more appropriate if you used Steve Buscemi and William H. Macy. They start on a level playing field of both being incredibly unsexy, then the advantage goes to the person with the most money. As currently stated, your analogy would be better served swapping the roles since currently we have big money and bad ideas in politics because that is what makes money for the corporate donors while the good ideas don't get the backing from AT&T and others with deep pockets since they would be more beneficial to everyone instead of just the upper 1%.

Something very similar happened here when they banned smoking. Smoking was banned in public buildings, but not bars or (now this is the kicker) bowling alleys. Now as a smoker at the time I was pleased but a little surprised for the odd exemption. I couldn't smoke at the horse track, but I could at the bowling alley. Why was that? Well one of the city councilmen owned a bowling alley and slipped it in. Eventually that part of the ban was fixed to only be bars exclusively but it took a few years.