The drink-driving (DUI) laws aren't broke so there's no need to fix them

My opponent agrees that alcohol does indeed impair a drivers performance. However he disagrees with my assertion that the effect is substantial. I do not believe that this is a tenable position. From the link my opponent posted himself (1) it can be seen that drivers who drink do indeed cause accidents. Furthermore it has been proven that a 0.05% alcohol level impairs reaction times. Since we are arguing about a law that wishes to change the drunk driving laws from 0.08% to 0.05% the point of this argument is whether or not that is a justified change. I believe, that since a 0.05% alcohol level does indeed negatively impair those functions that are needed when driving, that the law is justified. My opponent has not given a reasonable explanation for why a driver with a 0.05% alcohol level should be allowed to drink. Things like convenience simply are not relevant because the driver can choose not to drink before driving. There is nothing forcing the driver to ingest alcohol. The mantra "there is a time for everything" comes to mind. My opponent has focused on the obese in this argument, seeking to shift blame to them for accidents. I wholeheartedly agree that the amount of accidents caused by people eating is shocking. However it is not the point of this argument. This argument is focused on debating the specific issue: should a driver with a 0.05% alcohol limit be allowed to drive? It does not matter that there are greater causes of accidents, it only matters that alcohol is one of the causes. However let us entertain my opponent's argument. On the surface we can immediately see a fallacy: he assumes that the drivers who eat while driving are obese. What evidence does he propose for this? Do drivers who are not obese not eat and drive as well? However that is beside the point. The issues of eating while driving, and "drinking" while driving are completely different. An accident caused when someone is "eating and driving" is not caused by the effects of the food but because the action of eating is a distraction to the driver. On the other hand the consumption of alcohol effects the very senses of the driver. Distraction vs. deliberate dulling of the senses are completely different causes. Obviously people who eat and drive should be discouraged however that is for another argument. Here we debate whether or not a person who has ingested a drug (alcohol) should be allowed to drive a vehicle. Common sense tells us no. The person is no longer in complete control of the vehicle and posses a threat to society. A person has a right to drink but they do not have the right to drink and drive. My opponent claims that discrimination is occurring. I ask: how? A person has a right to drink, he also has a right to drive. However he cannot do them at the same time. This is a reasonable limitation and is in no way discrimination. All a person needs to do to be allowed to drive is abstain from alcohol before getting into a car. Alcohol can be consumed at a later appropriate time. Sometimes one needs to have a sense of responsibility to personal and societal safety before indulging in practices that risk everyones lives. 1) . http://www.statistics.gov.uk...