members of the Committee that the deterrent value of the State’s drunk driving laws could be ... affected if the current exclusion of drunk driving cases were to be eliminated. Thus, the clear consensus of the Committee was that the present exclusion should continue, subject only to the unilateral actions of the municipal prosecutor with regard to dismissals and amendments____ [Final Report at 28-30.] The Court’s intention in upholding this ban can therefore be seen as an effectuation of the strong legislative and public policy to eliminate drunk driving, by refusing to allow drunk drivers to escape responsibility for their actions, by ensuring accountability of those who cause drunk driving, and by penalizing drinking-and-driving offenses to the fullest extent of the law. The 1984) (<HOLDING>); N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.6 (codifying law imposing
holding a social host liable for serving a visibly intoxicated guest who foreseeably becomes involved in motor vehicle accident holding that indianas operating while intoxicated statute which states that a person who operates a vehicle while intoxicated commits a class a misdemeanor is not limited to operation of motor vehicles on public highways holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle  holding that tavern will be held liable for serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated patron who then foreseeably becomes involved in a motor vehicle accident holding dwi intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle in a public place is clearly not a crime of violence under 18 usc  16b