Should the drink drive limit be zero?
For my report, I am going to see if the drink-drive limit should be zero. I am going to research the following: * Pros of the limit being reduced
* Cons of the limit being reduced
* Environmental effects
* Social effects
* Financial effects
After researching these categories, I will decide whether the or not using all the facts and research I have procured. I will use reliable sources and proven sources for my research. I will also give my opinion on the subject. The graph below shows the current BAC limit in certain countries, Hungary is the only country with a BAC of zero.
There are many Pros to reducing the limit to zero including: * Increases reaction time as a result fewer accidents, which means fewer deaths and hospital admissions.
* Un-impaired judgment i.e. not taking massive risks on the road. * Less alcohol related health-problems such as liver sclerosis. * The result of fewer road accidents means less damage to property; cars, roads, buildings etc which saves money. However there are also many cons to reducing the limit to zero, such as: * The breathalyzer would give false readings if the person had a mouthwash containing alcohol, or any other similar product that contains alcohol but isn’t harmful. Police time would be wasted as a result. * Wine is used in some meals; this is harmless but could also give false readings. * There would be a mass of complaints and a drop in morale because most people wouldn’t be able to go out and have a little drink, but not go over the limit. * Most would argue that the people who drink-drive is those who are not aware of what is other the limit, as it’s different for everyone. So, people don’t think they should be punished for other people’s lack of knowledge.  There are many environmental effects of reducing the drink-drive limit. Cars wouldn’t be damaged; neither would buildings, roads and other property. It would also...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document