The Automobile Association has called on the country?s lawmakers to reduce the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers from 0.05g/100ml to 0.02g/100ml in an attempt to reduce road accidents. Is this a good idea? Ebrahim Moolla takes on Ryan Bubear?

Ebrahim Moolla eyes the AA's suggestion and goes one step further, advocating a zero tolerance, zero mg approach to drunk driving.

It is estimated that half of those who die on South African roads have a blood alcohol concentration level above 0.05g/100ml ? the maximum allowed.

If that statistic doesn't ring alarm bells, then you're in dire need of the 12-step programme from the other AA, or you're as jobber as a sudge.

Apart from making women seem more attractive, alcohol also has the effect of retarding inhibitions, so it's easier to say yes to that second pint. South Africa's roads are notoriously treacherous. The AA's sentiment can only be commended as a progressive step.

Rather than berate the car fundis for not delving into the intricacies of law and human nature, I'm willing to go even further, erring on the side of caution, and advocate a zero tolerance, zero mg approach to drunk driving. The law protects society from itself: it is the duty of the executive to ensure that laws are enforced.

There is a very valid counter argument that the law is proving to be no deterrent which is why President Zuma has called for the laws to have "more bite". Stiffer penalties ? fines, prison terms, roadside corporal punishment ? should serve well.

From a purely health standpoint, many countries are clamping down on that other great social narcotic, nicotine. Why is it that a similar crunch on the hard stuff creates such a furore? It's not as if Draco himself has emerged to limit our personal freedoms.

Drunk driving is an incredibly selfish practice. It's fine drinking yourself into a stupor, retching bile and spitting bits of liver, but do it on your own terms, without injuring anyone or using their taxes to fix damaged infrastructure. Of course this isn't about drunks, but even social drinkers can understand that removing the temptation is a positive step with the death tolls out on the highways at staggeringly high levels.

If you simply must indulge before getting behind the wheel, take a toke from the tree of life ? at least that way, you'll be sure of not driving fast enough to do any harm.

Despite strong feelings on the subject of drinking and driving, Ryan Bubear thinks there is little point in changing a law that is currently being enforced pretty poorly?

Let me start with a disclaimer: I in no way endorse driving while under the influence of alcohol. In fact, being a firm teetotaller, the issue is pretty close to my heart and I feel particularly strongly about accidents caused by drunk drivers.

However, the news that the AA wants the legal blood alcohol limit to be reduced made me chuckle.

While I'm all for the beefing up of the law to save lives, until such time that the current legislation can be effectively enforced by a competent and corruption-free police force, there seems very little point in creating more rules to be broken.

Effective laws and the subsequent punishment for transgression rely heavily upon a deterrent factor. If you (as a generally law-abiding citizen) end up having a few too many beers tonight, get caught on the road and convicted of drinking and driving, you could face up to six years in prison.

Now, surely the prospect of spending nearly 2200 days sharing a cell with a hulking, heavily-tattooed criminal aching for intimate contact is enough of a deterrent to prevent someone from getting behind the wheel with the stench of booze still strong on their breath?

Well, perhaps it would be if the public believed that there was any real chance of offenders being caught. And this is where a lack of law enforcement (and visibility) as well as sloppy support from the legal system come into play.

If, in general, a fair chunk of licence-holding drinkers don?t bother to adhere to the current law (the AA says that "one in every fifteen drivers on the road in the evenings is over the limit"), is a change in the limit really going to alter their behaviour? Never mind the chances that those causing the accidents are already well over the current limit?

Quite simply, without the crucial ingredient of enforcement, a change to the current law would be little more than window-dressing.

So, the next time a clearly intoxicated motorist comes hurtling past you, struggling to keep all four wheels in one lane, look around and try to spot a traffic officer. Highly unlikely, isn?t it?

But if you are one of the lucky few who catch a glimpse of the lesser-spotted patrolman, take note whether or not any action is taken against the culprit. Just as unlikely?

Only once control of our roads is back in the hands of law enforcement agencies, will a change in the legal blood alcohol limit be of any perceivable use in the fight to reduce road fatalities.

Do you agree with Ebrahim or Ryan? Share your thoughts below!