SIR - I see that the Government is considering lowering the drink-drive limit from the present 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood. The basis of this argument is that a lower limit could save 65 lives in a year.
Considering all governments' accuracy on forecasting, I doubt this very much. However, if this is true, we are going to inconvenience millions of people who drink sensibly for a mere possible 65. But surely anything that would bring a death rate down should be applauded, and acted upon?
Giving this factor due consideration, it then shows that any item that would bring down deaths would be desirable, so where is the argument against the death penalty, and bringing back the birch, as both were, without doubt, effective.
The Government says that the lower limit is in line with Europe, and by inference says that we should follow suit. Then where is the argument that says we should not have pensions and bank holidays to suit?
It seems to me that this is a typical case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
A G Goldsbrough, Dale Court, Fieldway, Ilkley
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article