Don't get me started on MADD. Okay, I do NOT condone drunk driving. I've never done it and will never do it. On the other hand, if you think that breathalyzers operated by cops, whose job it is to arrest you, are accuarate, think again. Think about it from a scientific perspective. These guys know nothing about the machines, the calibration of the machines, different factors that can give false readings (trust me there is plenty of crazy variance in those machines) etc, etc.
Oh, and the field tests are a friggin JOKE. Ummm...I told him to walk a straight IMAGINARY line on the gravely side of a sloped shoulder on the highway and he veered off my imaginary line a bit, so he must be drunk.
Plus, if you look at many cops police reports it becomes obvious that they sit outside bars and pull everyone over. They give the same probable cause statement like "they swerved over the yellow line" for every person they pulled over that night. Such BS.
People shouldn't drive drunk. My point is that the state should have to PROVE their case a bit better.
In Kentucky, the prosecution is FORBIDDEN BY STATUTE to amend down a DUI charge to a lesser charge. What does this mean? Well, no plea bargaining on DUI's. We have to take almost every darn one to trial or have them plead guilty upon agreement of the least possible sentence. Who can afford to hire a chemical analyst expert witness to appear at their trial? Not too may defendants can. A real scientist would probably disprove the science in more than 50% of the cases.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
