Actually they are. The company isn't operating where the users are, they are operating where the servers are. At least according to wikipedia twitters servers are in the US.
If underage dancing sex slave boys were legal in the US but not in say the UK, there is nothing preventing someone from the UK from ordering one from a website hosted on US servers.
Of course you do... AFTER you cook it. Some types of fat (like Prime Rib) are so good you can literally chew or even eat them. But ALL types of fat have flavor and moisture that they contribute during cooking. If you don't want to eat them trim them AFTER cooking.
Yeah, I thought that too. I wasn't a big proponent of 'free-range' anything or 'organic' anything. I mean wtf its a plant, its all organic. It shouldn't matter what the source of the nutrients because the plant converts them into its own plant material anyway. One day I decided to give it a fair try and to debunk this garbage (alright, so there was an organic market handy at the moment and I was just too lazy to go across town to the regular grocery). I had both as a child/teen and during my smoking life but after quitting smoking I've found my tastes and smells are far more sensitive than ever before. There is a difference (in some things) it is subtle for the most part but chickens/eggs are one of the biggest differences.
If you are a smoker don't bother. You won't be able to taste anything. But if you are someone who can taste a spice blend and start naming ingredients... then yes it turns out there is sometimes a difference.
If you concentrate a chicken into a broth you can clearly taste the chicken flavor regardless. But industrial farmed chicken is pretty bland. Free range doesn't taste different per say, it just has that chicken flavor in higher concentration. The chicken breast tastes more like industrial farmed chicken broth. There is also a similar comparison in the eggs and the texture of the egg is drastically different. This becomes especially noticeable if you are doing certain cooking processes that involve whipping egg whites into a froth. The yolks tend to be thicker and darker though the shells tend to be thinner.
I don't believe any of this has to do with 'happiness' anymore than I believe that is what affects Kobe beef. I think it has more to do with the nutrient profiles of the diet, the rate it is eaten, the speed of growth, and exercise. All of these things are known to affect the health of humans, is it really unreasonable to think they would affect the texture and taste of livestock?
Since discovering this I have looked further. Personally, I find it a bit hypocritical to pretend I care about the animals happiness and then slaughter and eat the fscking thing. This is purely about taste and to a lesser degree my health (but mostly taste, which is why I have whole milk and real butter in my fridge). Here is what I've found:
Fresh/Frozen - Most foods taste better if they have never been frozen. Some things taste different, other things like shrimp, lobster, and beef have the same flavor but less of it. This is true of fruits and vegetables as well. Some flavor compounds are destroyed at low temps and others at high temps.
Organic Fruits and Vegetables - Sometimes these taste better (probably because of the water trapped in the plant tissues or superior trace nutrient profiles in the soils, industrial farms tend to have low trace mineral content and only supplement macro nutrients) mostly they are just safer. If it has a thick rind I'll probably buy the cheap industrial version. Otherwise, measurements show higher pesticide levels in the meat of the fruit so organic is safer. That said, its a preference, laziness usually prevails.
Tomato on the vine - This matters, quite a bit. The tomato continues to get sugar and nutrients as long as it is on the vine. If you pull it off it will still get darker but it will use up its sugars to do it. You don't actually need the little piece of vine after its chopped so if its on there I pull it off my by the pound tomatoes before bagging them. Also tomatoes contain volatile flavor compounds that are destroyed when the plant drops BELOW a certain temp. It never comes back so don't ever, ever refrigerate tomatoes and try to eat the foods you make without cooling them overmuch in the fridge. Tomatoes have a thin skin and absorb pesticides so organic is safer here.
Seafood/Fish - There is a big difference between the taste of farm raised and wild caught. This is universally accepted and the stores will normally price accordingly. Fish will have a drastically different flavor if farm raised and from one type of feed to
Testing outside the rated margin of error represents a false positive or negative. Giving an over the limit rating on people who haven't drank anything represents a false positive and giving a below the limit rating for people who have had more than 10 beers in the past 2-3hrs and stumbled up to the machine definitely rates a false negative.
"...and here, I thought INTELLIGENT people used Slashdot. I guess I was mistaken. Alcohol + driving = tragedy"
I know. It seems there are stupid people who think watering down constitutional rights in order to stop people from doing something that MIGHT impair abilities that COULD lead to some sort of property damage or injury is a good idea.
fscking idiots. I hope you all are falsely charged with crimes or are charged with things you genuinely did under legitimate circumstances. At the very least you have some unjust and ridiculously out of proportion to your actions punishments coming.
I've seen false postives and false negatives first hand. That's pretty bad since I've only seen six people take a breathalyzer first hand and the mistakes came from two different machines!
"Most of the people who trying to avoid the test know they're over the limit and are just trying to get a free pass."
And that makes it okay to burn the rest? If you think there is any circumstance under which you are not compelled to give the police information or consent to a test then you should go back and have a conversation with your lawyer. Getting arrested and even convicted often has little to do with guilt.
"sometimes it is because the person is guilty as hell and wants (vainly) to avoid conviction"
And? Who wouldn't? We have a gray world and black and white laws. If the police have anything approaching a 10% success rate pursuing crime then we are all pretty much fucked.
"sometimes they are just assholes"
That also is their right.
"Or you are a flaming asshole who claims to be a sovereign citizen and is aware of the International Jewish Bankers Conspiracy/Bilderberg/Trilateral Commission and will resist this evil with all you are."
I think that is a naive view but I fail to see how it makes someone a flaming asshole. Your comments on the other hand are a clear indication of flaming assholedom. Something I just supported your right to be.
Really? I don't recall dui laws reducing OVERALL driving fatality numbers anywhere, only alcohol related.
The problem with a stop like this is that it misses the essential first step. Someone driving poorly. If they aren't driving poorly it isn't saving anyone to arrest them. After all, it is certain alcohol impairs your reaction times but so does frustration, road rage, having a bad day, being sick, thinking about something else, stress, a giant yellow bird walking down the sidewalk, being a lousy driver, etc. And people don't start with equal reaction times. My impaired reaction could still be twice as fast as yours unimpaired.
All that is why it is pointless to arrest someone unless that are driving poorly and why if you want to save lives you take your dui level punishments and apply them to everyone who does drive poorly instead of singling out a cause.
I don't recall anyone saying the police have a warrant to conduct a breathalyzer.
A police officer deciding he wants to search you is not 'probable cause'. Simply deciding he thinks there is something to find is nowhere near probable cause.
If the barrier were that low the police could search your home every time they wanted to. They wouldn't be searching if they didn't think there might be something to find.
The point is, why is the punishment for dui more severe than driving with low blood sugar? Why do you think you have the right to 'rough up' people who are considered innocent? And more than that, why are you in the US if you don't like freedom... nm on the last one, it doesn't apply these days.
Intention is defined as "the end or object intended; purpose."
Nobody is reckless or takes a risk for the purpose of taking a risk. Therefore it is not correct to say it is their intention to behave recklessly. It's also not criminal. It becomes criminal when you do something for the purpose of harming someone.
If someone has been drinking and drives home their intention is to drive home. Depending on how acute their reactions were in the first place and how much they drank (and their body mass) they may do a better job of driving than someone who is annoyed about events at the office or frustrated with traffic.
"Uh huh. Perhaps you can explain how locking someone up *after* they've killed by drink-driving is "preventing harm", because I'm not quite seeing it."
Who said anything about killed? You do know there is nothing automatic about drinking that makes you kill someone? You can be equally impaired by pissed about work or frustrated by traffic or being old or just being a lousy driver. A skilled driver who has had a couple beers may well drive better impaired than an unskilled driver who is stone cold sober. "Harm" also encompasses all forms of harm not just physical harm and not just fatal harm.
I also said nothing about 'locking up' preventing anything. I said punish those who cause harm. The people who take the greatest risks (as defined by their own individual abilities) and who take risks often are the ones who will are most likely to cause harm. They are also aren't limited to causing harm once in their life. If you punish them in a way that dissuades them from causing future harm or outright makes it impossible the number of harmful people is reduced. That reduces the likelihood of harm happening again in the future.
If you are attempting to find a method that prevents all harm in the first place you are living in a happy fairytale land. Everyone takes risks and everyone does things that others might deem reckless. Even for those who are careful, shit happens. Driving around big hunks of metal at fast speeds is risky in itself and as long as it is allowed we as a society are accepting driving related fatalities (regardless of the cause) as a worthwhile trade.
You are honestly going to tell me you fail to see a difference between shooting at a hill near an office building without hitting the building and shooting at the office building and missing?
Intent is as important as action. There is a big difference between someone doing something that could potentially cause harm and someone who is actively trying to cause harm.
Everyone does things likely to cause harm. I have a dartboard on the wall at home. There is also one at work used by others. At home I have a foam pad that extends about 3 inches from the board. At work we have two large cork boards positioned behind the board which is hung on a pole. These provide protection of a minimum of 12 inches from any edge of the board to compare with my 3 and twice that for most of the board.
We both risk damaging walls by having a board at all. I take a greater risk because there is a smaller area of protection behind my board. However, in the real world I am an individual and not subject to the average risks that inches of padding provides. In the real world the walls around the work board are peppered with holes while there is not a single hole in the wall around my board at home.
Punishing people for drinking and driving is like punishing people for having small pads on their boards. Statistically this broad stroke should reduce holes in walls. But a far more effective remedy would be to set a severe punishment for putting holes in the wall, utilize very effective enforcement, and then subject the person to due process where their peers can determine if they did in fact put a hole in the wall and if it is just to apply the punishment under the circumstance (this is essential for justice when you attempt to apply black and white laws to a gray world).
You must not actually be in the USA if you think it has been socially acceptable to drink and drive here anytime in the past decade.
"So trying to kill someone and failing means no charge?"
Trying to kill someone would be an actual crime in and of itself. The law doesn't work on action alone, intent is as important if not more important. There is a big difference between deliberately trying to do harm and failing and doing something risky with no intention of causing harm at all.
"How about firing a gun at random in a crowded street ? All cool so long as no-one is hit ?"
I doubt this scenario is even possible. If you are firing at random into a crowd then every shot will damage either a person or property or both. Unless they are blanks, in which case the panic caused firing the gun could be considered a form of harm.
But lets pretend the bullet fairy caught all your bullets, the crowd ignored them, and that somehow you also managed to get past the fact that you couldn't both know the difference between right and wrong (and thus are legally not guilty) and not intend to cause harm by firing the shots.
What purpose would be served by punishing this individual that wouldn't be served by a stern lecture from the police officer? We can't get vengen... err justice because there was no harm of any kind to return. Educating the individual is as simple as pointing out the folly of their way with a few stern words. I suppose it might help put food on the table of the many megacorps responsible for our private prison system?
'Kinda sucks if they succeed and you're the victim.'
Yeah. I mean I'd be totally cool with it if I was killed by someone with no track record of stupidity. I'm sure my mother would be greatly comforted by the fact that my killer wasn't an idiot.
Everyone takes risks and everyone puts others at risk. The people who do it often are going to actually cause harm more often. If you want to prevent harm, you punish these people severely when they cause any and thereby make them more cautious in the future.
"No, I don't condone drunk driving. I'm sorry people get hurt and die. But at some point, you have to stand up and say, I think our system is OK as-is."
You know we punish people more severely for doing something which MIGHT result in them driving poorly (drinking) than we do people who ACTUALLY drive poorly.
Some states take the view the restrictions of the constitution apply only to the federal government and not to the states. This is how cities outlaw tattoo shops and invoke curfew laws.
It is called preventive law enforcement. First we find that you have a statistically greater chance of causing problems if you imbibe alcohol. Then rather than waiting for someoene to do anything wrong you make imbibing alcohol illegal to prevent wrongdoing before it happens... but now imbibing alcohol and driving is itself illegal and therefore wrongdoing. So we need checkpoints to head off the wrongdoing.
Now we need laws to punish people who try to avoid the checkpoints meant to potentially head off the potential wrongdoing of those with a theoretical increased potential to do something which is actually wrong.
Is there any reason to think singling out a cause of poor driving is more effective than just punishing people who actually drive poorly? Nope. Just bogus numbers about reduced 'alcohol-related accidents'. No shit but how about we stick to looking at the overall numbers instead of just seeing if there is less of what we banned?
Actually the punishment for driving poorly is usually far less severe than the punishment for drinking and driving well.
Is there any evidence that alcohol bans have reduced the number of total vehicular deaths and accidents (as opposed to 'alcohol related') by any significant margin?
If someone gets drunk and hits a fence post or otherwise breaks the law you punish them. But why punish people who haven't caused any actual problems because you don't agree with the risks they take? Driving itself is voluntary and causes far more fatalities. Maybe it is an unneeded risk and we should revoke the travel privs of anyone who endangers others by doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see your point. Wikileaks hasn't broken any laws, even in the US.
'Twitter is not operating in the US only,'
Actually they are. The company isn't operating where the users are, they are operating where the servers are. At least according to wikipedia twitters servers are in the US.
If underage dancing sex slave boys were legal in the US but not in say the UK, there is nothing preventing someone from the UK from ordering one from a website hosted on US servers.
Of course you do... AFTER you cook it. Some types of fat (like Prime Rib) are so good you can literally chew or even eat them. But ALL types of fat have flavor and moisture that they contribute during cooking. If you don't want to eat them trim them AFTER cooking.
It could be. Stress plays a significant role in the health of humans so it isn't unreasonable to think it could affect livestock as well.
Yeah, I thought that too. I wasn't a big proponent of 'free-range' anything or 'organic' anything. I mean wtf its a plant, its all organic. It shouldn't matter what the source of the nutrients because the plant converts them into its own plant material anyway. One day I decided to give it a fair try and to debunk this garbage (alright, so there was an organic market handy at the moment and I was just too lazy to go across town to the regular grocery). I had both as a child/teen and during my smoking life but after quitting smoking I've found my tastes and smells are far more sensitive than ever before. There is a difference (in some things) it is subtle for the most part but chickens/eggs are one of the biggest differences.
If you are a smoker don't bother. You won't be able to taste anything. But if you are someone who can taste a spice blend and start naming ingredients... then yes it turns out there is sometimes a difference.
If you concentrate a chicken into a broth you can clearly taste the chicken flavor regardless. But industrial farmed chicken is pretty bland. Free range doesn't taste different per say, it just has that chicken flavor in higher concentration. The chicken breast tastes more like industrial farmed chicken broth. There is also a similar comparison in the eggs and the texture of the egg is drastically different. This becomes especially noticeable if you are doing certain cooking processes that involve whipping egg whites into a froth. The yolks tend to be thicker and darker though the shells tend to be thinner.
I don't believe any of this has to do with 'happiness' anymore than I believe that is what affects Kobe beef. I think it has more to do with the nutrient profiles of the diet, the rate it is eaten, the speed of growth, and exercise. All of these things are known to affect the health of humans, is it really unreasonable to think they would affect the texture and taste of livestock?
Since discovering this I have looked further. Personally, I find it a bit hypocritical to pretend I care about the animals happiness and then slaughter and eat the fscking thing. This is purely about taste and to a lesser degree my health (but mostly taste, which is why I have whole milk and real butter in my fridge). Here is what I've found:
Fresh/Frozen - Most foods taste better if they have never been frozen. Some things taste different, other things like shrimp, lobster, and beef have the same flavor but less of it. This is true of fruits and vegetables as well. Some flavor compounds are destroyed at low temps and others at high temps.
Organic Fruits and Vegetables - Sometimes these taste better (probably because of the water trapped in the plant tissues or superior trace nutrient profiles in the soils, industrial farms tend to have low trace mineral content and only supplement macro nutrients) mostly they are just safer. If it has a thick rind I'll probably buy the cheap industrial version. Otherwise, measurements show higher pesticide levels in the meat of the fruit so organic is safer. That said, its a preference, laziness usually prevails.
Tomato on the vine - This matters, quite a bit. The tomato continues to get sugar and nutrients as long as it is on the vine. If you pull it off it will still get darker but it will use up its sugars to do it. You don't actually need the little piece of vine after its chopped so if its on there I pull it off my by the pound tomatoes before bagging them. Also tomatoes contain volatile flavor compounds that are destroyed when the plant drops BELOW a certain temp. It never comes back so don't ever, ever refrigerate tomatoes and try to eat the foods you make without cooling them overmuch in the fridge. Tomatoes have a thin skin and absorb pesticides so organic is safer here.
Seafood/Fish - There is a big difference between the taste of farm raised and wild caught. This is universally accepted and the stores will normally price accordingly. Fish will have a drastically different flavor if farm raised and from one type of feed to
"While you leap to assumptions and base beliefs on probability"
I know. Such a crime choosing the action most likely to give a successful outcome. I mean playing the odds doesn't work, just ask the casinos. ;)
Drunk driving isn't socially acceptable AFAIK.
Testing outside the rated margin of error represents a false positive or negative. Giving an over the limit rating on people who haven't drank anything represents a false positive and giving a below the limit rating for people who have had more than 10 beers in the past 2-3hrs and stumbled up to the machine definitely rates a false negative.
I've seen both first hand.
"...and here, I thought INTELLIGENT people used Slashdot. I guess I was mistaken. Alcohol + driving = tragedy"
I know. It seems there are stupid people who think watering down constitutional rights in order to stop people from doing something that MIGHT impair abilities that COULD lead to some sort of property damage or injury is a good idea.
fscking idiots. I hope you all are falsely charged with crimes or are charged with things you genuinely did under legitimate circumstances. At the very least you have some unjust and ridiculously out of proportion to your actions punishments coming.
I've seen false postives and false negatives first hand. That's pretty bad since I've only seen six people take a breathalyzer first hand and the mistakes came from two different machines!
"Most of the people who trying to avoid the test know they're over the limit and are just trying to get a free pass."
And that makes it okay to burn the rest? If you think there is any circumstance under which you are not compelled to give the police information or consent to a test then you should go back and have a conversation with your lawyer. Getting arrested and even convicted often has little to do with guilt.
Maybe I just follow the advice of my lawyer?
"sometimes it is because the person is guilty as hell and wants (vainly) to avoid conviction"
And? Who wouldn't? We have a gray world and black and white laws. If the police have anything approaching a 10% success rate pursuing crime then we are all pretty much fucked.
"sometimes they are just assholes"
That also is their right.
"Or you are a flaming asshole who claims to be a sovereign citizen and is aware of the International Jewish Bankers Conspiracy/Bilderberg/Trilateral Commission and will resist this evil with all you are."
I think that is a naive view but I fail to see how it makes someone a flaming asshole. Your comments on the other hand are a clear indication of flaming assholedom. Something I just supported your right to be.
Really? I don't recall dui laws reducing OVERALL driving fatality numbers anywhere, only alcohol related.
The problem with a stop like this is that it misses the essential first step. Someone driving poorly. If they aren't driving poorly it isn't saving anyone to arrest them. After all, it is certain alcohol impairs your reaction times but so does frustration, road rage, having a bad day, being sick, thinking about something else, stress, a giant yellow bird walking down the sidewalk, being a lousy driver, etc. And people don't start with equal reaction times. My impaired reaction could still be twice as fast as yours unimpaired.
All that is why it is pointless to arrest someone unless that are driving poorly and why if you want to save lives you take your dui level punishments and apply them to everyone who does drive poorly instead of singling out a cause.
Lets stop pretending the cops are angels and add... what if the cop hid drugs in your car and pretends to find it.
"If you don't drink alcohol at all, you can't false positive."
Who told you that crap?
"I don't see a breathalyzer test as a violation of the 4'th in any way."
Good for you. I see any test as a violation of my 4th AND if I've been drinking it's a violation of the 5th to force me to take it.
I don't recall anyone saying the police have a warrant to conduct a breathalyzer.
A police officer deciding he wants to search you is not 'probable cause'. Simply deciding he thinks there is something to find is nowhere near probable cause.
If the barrier were that low the police could search your home every time they wanted to. They wouldn't be searching if they didn't think there might be something to find.
The point is, why is the punishment for dui more severe than driving with low blood sugar? Why do you think you have the right to 'rough up' people who are considered innocent? And more than that, why are you in the US if you don't like freedom... nm on the last one, it doesn't apply these days.
yeah but a false negative doesn't really help you. Best case you are right back where you started.
"The intent in question is reckless behaviour."
Intention is defined as "the end or object intended; purpose."
Nobody is reckless or takes a risk for the purpose of taking a risk. Therefore it is not correct to say it is their intention to behave recklessly. It's also not criminal. It becomes criminal when you do something for the purpose of harming someone.
If someone has been drinking and drives home their intention is to drive home. Depending on how acute their reactions were in the first place and how much they drank (and their body mass) they may do a better job of driving than someone who is annoyed about events at the office or frustrated with traffic.
"Uh huh. Perhaps you can explain how locking someone up *after* they've killed by drink-driving is "preventing harm", because I'm not quite seeing it."
Who said anything about killed? You do know there is nothing automatic about drinking that makes you kill someone? You can be equally impaired by pissed about work or frustrated by traffic or being old or just being a lousy driver. A skilled driver who has had a couple beers may well drive better impaired than an unskilled driver who is stone cold sober. "Harm" also encompasses all forms of harm not just physical harm and not just fatal harm.
I also said nothing about 'locking up' preventing anything. I said punish those who cause harm. The people who take the greatest risks (as defined by their own individual abilities) and who take risks often are the ones who will are most likely to cause harm. They are also aren't limited to causing harm once in their life. If you punish them in a way that dissuades them from causing future harm or outright makes it impossible the number of harmful people is reduced. That reduces the likelihood of harm happening again in the future.
If you are attempting to find a method that prevents all harm in the first place you are living in a happy fairytale land. Everyone takes risks and everyone does things that others might deem reckless. Even for those who are careful, shit happens. Driving around big hunks of metal at fast speeds is risky in itself and as long as it is allowed we as a society are accepting driving related fatalities (regardless of the cause) as a worthwhile trade.
You are honestly going to tell me you fail to see a difference between shooting at a hill near an office building without hitting the building and shooting at the office building and missing?
Intent is as important as action. There is a big difference between someone doing something that could potentially cause harm and someone who is actively trying to cause harm.
Everyone does things likely to cause harm. I have a dartboard on the wall at home. There is also one at work used by others. At home I have a foam pad that extends about 3 inches from the board. At work we have two large cork boards positioned behind the board which is hung on a pole. These provide protection of a minimum of 12 inches from any edge of the board to compare with my 3 and twice that for most of the board.
We both risk damaging walls by having a board at all. I take a greater risk because there is a smaller area of protection behind my board. However, in the real world I am an individual and not subject to the average risks that inches of padding provides. In the real world the walls around the work board are peppered with holes while there is not a single hole in the wall around my board at home.
Punishing people for drinking and driving is like punishing people for having small pads on their boards. Statistically this broad stroke should reduce holes in walls. But a far more effective remedy would be to set a severe punishment for putting holes in the wall, utilize very effective enforcement, and then subject the person to due process where their peers can determine if they did in fact put a hole in the wall and if it is just to apply the punishment under the circumstance (this is essential for justice when you attempt to apply black and white laws to a gray world).
"In the USA ? Surely you jest."
You must not actually be in the USA if you think it has been socially acceptable to drink and drive here anytime in the past decade.
"So trying to kill someone and failing means no charge?"
Trying to kill someone would be an actual crime in and of itself. The law doesn't work on action alone, intent is as important if not more important. There is a big difference between deliberately trying to do harm and failing and doing something risky with no intention of causing harm at all.
"How about firing a gun at random in a crowded street ? All cool so long as no-one is hit ?"
I doubt this scenario is even possible. If you are firing at random into a crowd then every shot will damage either a person or property or both. Unless they are blanks, in which case the panic caused firing the gun could be considered a form of harm.
But lets pretend the bullet fairy caught all your bullets, the crowd ignored them, and that somehow you also managed to get past the fact that you couldn't both know the difference between right and wrong (and thus are legally not guilty) and not intend to cause harm by firing the shots.
What purpose would be served by punishing this individual that wouldn't be served by a stern lecture from the police officer? We can't get vengen... err justice because there was no harm of any kind to return. Educating the individual is as simple as pointing out the folly of their way with a few stern words. I suppose it might help put food on the table of the many megacorps responsible for our private prison system?
'Kinda sucks if they succeed and you're the victim.'
Yeah. I mean I'd be totally cool with it if I was killed by someone with no track record of stupidity. I'm sure my mother would be greatly comforted by the fact that my killer wasn't an idiot.
Everyone takes risks and everyone puts others at risk. The people who do it often are going to actually cause harm more often. If you want to prevent harm, you punish these people severely when they cause any and thereby make them more cautious in the future.
"No, I don't condone drunk driving. I'm sorry people get hurt and die. But at some point, you have to stand up and say, I think our system is OK as-is."
You know we punish people more severely for doing something which MIGHT result in them driving poorly (drinking) than we do people who ACTUALLY drive poorly.
Some states take the view the restrictions of the constitution apply only to the federal government and not to the states. This is how cities outlaw tattoo shops and invoke curfew laws.
It is called preventive law enforcement. First we find that you have a statistically greater chance of causing problems if you imbibe alcohol. Then rather than waiting for someoene to do anything wrong you make imbibing alcohol illegal to prevent wrongdoing before it happens... but now imbibing alcohol and driving is itself illegal and therefore wrongdoing. So we need checkpoints to head off the wrongdoing.
Now we need laws to punish people who try to avoid the checkpoints meant to potentially head off the potential wrongdoing of those with a theoretical increased potential to do something which is actually wrong.
Is there any reason to think singling out a cause of poor driving is more effective than just punishing people who actually drive poorly? Nope. Just bogus numbers about reduced 'alcohol-related accidents'. No shit but how about we stick to looking at the overall numbers instead of just seeing if there is less of what we banned?
Actually the punishment for driving poorly is usually far less severe than the punishment for drinking and driving well.
Is there any evidence that alcohol bans have reduced the number of total vehicular deaths and accidents (as opposed to 'alcohol related') by any significant margin?
If someone gets drunk and hits a fence post or otherwise breaks the law you punish them. But why punish people who haven't caused any actual problems because you don't agree with the risks they take? Driving itself is voluntary and causes far more fatalities. Maybe it is an unneeded risk and we should revoke the travel privs of anyone who endangers others by doing it.