I read the article entitled “Feds want stiffer alcohol limits.”

As an AA member, I am required by tradition to not speak on the organization’s behalf; however, as a 20-year engineer for Federal Highway Administration, who has administered over $2 billion of federal-aid highway funds, I can voice my opinion.

The 0.08 percent blood alcohol content (BAC) current law was put into place after the federal government threatened to take away 10 percent of federal-aid funds for state highway funds. The same occurred when the limit was 0.15 percent BAC and reduced to 0.10 percent BAC years ago.

As an alcoholic, I would contend that a true alcoholic driving an auto at 0.08 percent BAC is safer than one driving with 0.00. If you have the shakes, you are safer with some alcohol in your system. You have to be one to know one.

I’m disappointed with Sheriff (Dennis) Meeks’ tone and attitude when he advocates a 0.00 limit. Does he not know that more people are killed by inattentive drivers with cellphones and text messages and general inattentiveness than by alcohol? And they don’t get any jail time at all.

In the highway-engineering field, we never refer to anything as an “accident.” We refer to it as a “crash,” because there is no such thing as an accident, because every crash has a reason. If not, he ought to do his research. By the way, his jail does not even comply with the Geneva conventions. It is meant for rats, not humans. Thankfully, to date, I’ve only had to spend two days in there. The arresting county officer admitted that his purpose was just to get the fine money. Unfortunately, this disproportionately affects the socioeconomic people who can’t afford a lawyer and who are Hispanic or African-American. Don’t believe me – just go observe court proceedings one day.

Walter Boyd, P.E.

former decorated Naval officer