Under the influence
![[Print This Post]](http://www.rantlust.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.gif "[Print This Post]")
A recent conversation with a friend made me look up this old article on driving under the influence. The author makes quite a compelling case for legalizing drunk driving. He argues that by arresting a person for driving under the influence, you’re not punishing his or her actual crime, or even the potential for crime, but rather the physiological datum of blood-alcohol content based on an arbitrary government-mandated scale, and that this is against the basic principle of law. I know this issue raises passionate feelings, and would be interested in knowing what my fellow rantlusters think about it.
The DUI law is there as a means of preventing the crime before it happens. It’s premise is that it’s better to be “safe than sorry.”
Interesting article though. I agree with him in that the figure of 0.08 is quite random (does anyone know how they came up with that?) and that most people leaving bars and nightclubs are probably prime DUI candidates under this law. But in order to get caught, you need to be doing something stupid (driving zig-zag, veering onto the shoulder, etc.) and be seen by a cop while doing that.
I don’t agree with him in that people who have had a few can drive better. This is a stupid statement. I personally know that after a few drinks, I can’t drive as well as when I am sober.
The DUI laws are not the only laws which are aimed at “preventing” a crime before it happens and have severe consequences for the offender. Carrying a gun onto an airplane even if you don’t have any intention of using it is a serious crime. They are not going to let you go with just a warning in that case.
On a related note, my wife was telling me the other day about a traffic accident in Taiwan where a teenage drunk driver crashed into another car killing its occupants. What’s worse is that one of the victims happened to be the drunk driver’s mom. Sad coincidence.
Not true. If a policeman sees you stepping out of a bar and into a car and driving away, he can stop you and charge you with DUI even if you did nothing (else) wrong. That is precisely the subtle point the author is trying to make. The crime is not something you’ve done, but something in your blood.
The author did not say that some people can drive better, but that some people can drive safer. It’s a known fact that your reaction time is slower after you take a drink or two, but you can compensate for that by driving slower than you usually do, leaving more space between your car and others, and generally being a more cautious and defensive driver. In fact, I’ve heard that one way policeman catch drunk drivers is by watching for people who are driving rather too slowly on freeways.
That’s not a fair comparison. The question is whether a normal person would need to do that in the course of day-to-day life. There can be no conceivable reason for someone to enter an airplane with a gun. Not so with driving and drinking, which are everyday activities indulged in by millions.
True but this is not that common in the US. In other countries, there are often checkpoints where the cops stop cars randomly and check for drunk drivers. Most of the DUI cases in the US are of people caught doing something weird on the road or of who are actually in an accident.
Not only is your reaction time slower but you may also be less risk averse. Maybe he and you are talking about people who have had a couple of Bud lights but I still don’t agree that people drive better or “safer” when they have had a few drinks. Plenty of personal experience in this regard.
The need to drink and drive is a day-to-day life issue for people? Okay, then.
Another article from the same site, this time by an assistant district attorney who used to prosecute DUI cases.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stein2.html
I don’t want to get into a holier-than-thou competition. Suffice it to say that I’ve been in gatherings with several members of this community where every person in the room would be above the legal limit of blood-alcohol content, and yet every person drove away afterwards (unless they sprouted wings after stepping out the door). I can also safely conjecture that no one here has ever tried to enter an airplane with a gun.
Woah! You guys are a pretty adventuresome lot. I’m pretty paranoid about drunk driving and have never been more than borderline DUI as far as I can remember.
Being no legal expert, I’m not sure what the legal conundrum is that the article is trying to point out. If the criminal act is defined as ‘Driving with BAC > .08′ then it should be immaterial whether any actual damage was done.
On a similar but humorous note, last Saturday my wife and I were returning after dinner at one of the Santana Row restaurants in San Jose and we turned smack into a DUI check point. (Note that this is a routine issue around the bay area during Thanksgiving weekend).
The police officer requested my drivers license and said “We are checking for people who are drinking and driving - you wouldn’t be doing either of those would you?” - I grinned and gave him my license and after a quick check he waved me away.
As I merged onto the freeway, my wife was quick to mention, that I should have pointed out to the officer that I was indeed doing one of them i.e. driving. I am glad she didn’t pipe in with that when the officer was around - that would have surely meant an invite into the trailer for a more detailed check.
For the record, It had been more than 2 hours since I had a martini so there was indeed a small chance of failing a thorough test.
yeah, one will feel like supporting the irresponsible views of rockwell if one has not been either on the giving or recieving end of a dui. i have and while once i was an irresponsible frat boy drunk driver, i am a changed man now. as an avid biker, i support b.a.d.d. see http://www.baddcentral.com
The BAC limit of 0.08 is way too low and it should be raised to a more reasonable level. That said, I don’t think they should get rid of the drunk driving law alltogether. I have never heard of B.A.D.D. before. Cool name.
Precisely the point the author makes. Blood-alcohol content depends on a lot of factors, and if you have consumed any alcohol within the past few hours before you’re tested, there is a definite probability that you will fail a proper test. Rules-of-thumb like one beer every two hours, or one martini every two hours, are extremely unreliable. This is what the author means by saying that the average person has no way of knowing for sure if he or she is breaking the law. If you really want to stay within the law, simply do not drink if you plan on driving any time soon.
The 0.08% limit is just a trap for people to walk into. If you’ve had any alcohol, rest assured you’re legally not eligible to drive.
I completely agree that it is difficult to know how close one is to the precipice. I was just observing that some necks on this blog crane a little more over the edge than my chicken neck does.
Craned is more like it. After two people I know got into the whole DUI mess and after attending many a traffic school (for other offenses), I rarely drive after my personal threshold of three (hard) drinks. (Here, the threshold doesn’t mean the BAC content but my own perceived ability to drive.) Either I crash at someone’s place or have the wife drive me back when I exceed the above limit (which is often especially with others on this blog).
Maybe the government should provide everyone with a Breathalyzer.
Therein lies the rub. Most reasonable adults would apply this criterion to decide if they’re capable of driving. However, the criterion that the law uses is the BAC, not your driving ability or lack thereof, which is the point of the whole discussion.
If your personal limit is 3 drinks, I’d bet you would still be a candidate for a DUI.
If you drunks want to estimate:
http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/alcohol.htm