Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Private Traffic Stops, Never Mind the Cops
Declan McCullagh of Politech provides a fascinating set of links and stories involving an institute--the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation--that specializes in getting government grants to do research that, wouldn't you know, gives government cover to take away more liberty when it comes to alcohol and drugs.
Seems that the institute got the Gilpin County Sheriff's office in Colorado to help them stop drivers at checkpoints to submit to--purely voluntary!--breath, blood, and saliva analysis.
The Denver Post's story on the incident, for which the Sheriff's office apologized when citizens reported feeling quite a bit of pressure to comply when stopped by blue jump-suited people accompanied by cops asking them for precious bodily fluids and the very breath of life itself.
McCullagh's reason archives.
|9.21.07 @ 11:20PM|#
No one is forcing you to drive through that county. If you don't like a county's particular laws, take a detour.
Eric Dondero|9.21.07 @ 11:40PM|#
Mainstream Libertarians are for keeping us safe on the roads. It is too extreme to say that the police shouldn't be able to test any driver for alcohol whenever they wish. Drunk Driving kills, so everything that is possible should be done to stop it.
|9.22.07 @ 12:05AM|#
It is too extreme to say that the police shouldn't be able
to test any driver for alcohol whenever they wish.
You call yourself a "mainstream libertarian", but I don't think you
know what that word means. "Mainstream statist" sounds closer to
the mark.
It is NOT extreme to limit such police tests. If you want to stop
drunk driving 100%, you will have to ban driving itself, and then
tear up the roads as insurance. But that is not a state of liberty.
I hate to break the news to you, but the world is not a safe place!
Liberty demands that we live in a risky world. The expectation that
we can be perfectly safe is juvenile.
cb|9.22.07 @ 12:32AM|#
No one is forcing you to drive through that county. If you don't like a county's particular laws, take a detour.
That's a valid point IMO. However, where the drivers properly
informed of their choices? If not, the solution is to inform
people, whether you're a part of it or not. Assuming of course that
wouldn't result in backlash or unwarranted pressure to comply,
which would make the operation either secretive or (illegally, I
presume) non-voluntary.
See how fixing information asymmetry makes voluntaryism work so
much better and gives you that warm, safe, free feely in your
jibblies?
cb|9.22.07 @ 12:34AM|#
Oops, typos. I meant "were," and a comma before "IMO." I'm going to keep "feely in your jibblies," though.
Mike Laursen|9.22.07 @ 12:57AM|#
No one is forcing you to drive through that county. If you
don't like a county's particular laws, take a detour.
Well, that's one way of dealing with the roadblocks. Another is to
demand that one's government not be allowed the power of
unreasonable search and seizure.
What's "reasonable", you ask? Clearly reason should be the
decider.
Mike Laursen|9.22.07 @ 1:02AM|#
It is too extreme to say that the police shouldn't be able
to test any driver for alcohol whenever they wish.
While the police are stopping any vehicle they wish to stop, would
you also allow them to search any of those vehicles they wish to
search?
|9.22.07 @ 1:38AM|#
I believe this is where somebody steps in and says "If you have
nothing to hide..."
I mean, that justifies anything in this post 9/11 world, right?
grylliade|9.22.07 @ 3:56AM|#
Mainstream Libertarians are for keeping us safe on the roads. It is too extreme to say that the police shouldn't be able to test any driver for alcohol whenever they wish. Drunk Driving kills, so everything that is possible should be done to stop it.
So, what is it exactly that distinguishes you from a true-red
Republican hack again? As far as I can tell, "mainstream"
libertarianism is code for "libertarians should bend over for the
Republicans, and say 'thank you' afterwards."
|9.22.07 @ 7:32AM|#
Mainstream Libertarians are for keeping us safe on the roads. … Drunk Driving kills, so everything that is possible should be done to stop it.
@Eric D:
WTF? Do you even know what liberty, as in libertarian,
means? And mainstream isn't necessarily the same thing as 'right',
'fair', 'best', or 'most reasonable'.
Personally, I don't even think that driving drunk should be a
crime. Consider the carrying of a loaded weapon: at this point,
there is only the potential for criminal/illegal activity.
It is not until a person or property is shot that a crime has been
committed.
DUI should be the same, IMO. Is it any less tragic that a totally
sober driver crosses the center line and hits a Soccer Mom Minivan
full of kids than when a drunk driver does the same thing? Again, I
ask you to consider the consistency of the rules: unless the sober
driver crosses the line they are merely a law abiding citizen
driving responsibly. The drunk driver is an otherwise law-abiding
citizen - unless they cross the line, run the red light, etc.
More than that, the BAL for DUI is.08 in most places (two beers for
180 lb man). Yes, "Drunk Driving kills..." but this guy is not
likely the third-time-DWI-suspended-license drunk driver that's
helped MADD to grow into the powerful anti-alcohol lobby that it
has become. So are we really making the roads any safer? Probably
not.
Oh - and then there's this Fourth Amendment thingy...
|9.22.07 @ 7:56AM|#
[John Lacey] said the researchers try to be sensitive to
those not wanting to participate, but they push a small subset of
those who initially refuse to reconsider - even offering
incentives.
"If we don't do that, the criticism will come out that we had so
many who were refusers," Lacey said.
In John Lacey's world, you can be a participator or a refuser; some
may be deciders. But GODDAMMIT don't you refusers think you're
going to make him look bad without a fight.
|9.22.07 @ 8:03AM|#
Eric Dondero,
It is too extreme to say that the police shouldn't be able to
test any driver for alcohol whenever they wish.
No, it's not. Here, I'll say it again: police should not be able to
test any driver for alcohol whenever they wish.
If that's really you and not a spoof, please go die in a fire.
Mad Max|9.22.07 @ 8:08AM|#
I suspect that whoever posted here as "Dan T." and "Dondero" was parodying the attitudes of these people.
Guy Montag|9.22.07 @ 8:48AM|#
I hate mind cops, even the "mind the cops" variety.
After seeing a documentry about this I moved to Crystal City to
prevent the John Anderton's of the world from taking over.
Could use some help! Who is with me?
|9.22.07 @ 9:39AM|#
Pi Guy,
Extending your logic means that I should also be able to freely
discharge a firearm randomly anywhere I want right up until I kill
someone. Reckless behavior is still reckless.
|9.22.07 @ 10:36AM|#
If the cops can't tell you're drunk by observing your driving,
then you're obviously not impaired, regardless of your BAC.
Also, I have never had a drink of alcohol, but drunk driving stops
still bother me because they waste my time.
Mike|9.22.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Tbone,
Reckless behavior may be reckless, but recklessness, in a purely
libertarian sense, should not be illegal. If your recklessness
doesn't explicitly harm another, then a purely libertarian take of
the situation would find no issue with it.
|9.22.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Notice Eric's post follows Dan T's trolling. There is something
called sarcasm that is sometimes used as a form of humor. In all
seriousness, the people doing this (the police "helpers", not Eric
and Dan) should be shot under provisions of the 4th right in the
New List of Rights and Duties. For those who don't know, when the
revolutionary government takes over the 4th right will be, "You
have the right to be left alone. If you can't mind your own fucking
business its is every other citizens duty to shoot you" The wording
is still a little rough, but its a work in progress.
From the fascist's website:
"Pacific Institute's headquarters are located in Calverton,
Maryland, with major research centers throughout the country.
Researchers at these locations COLLABORATE with one another on
specific projects and add valuable expertise to the organization."
(emphasis added)
Under the New List collaborater are to be shot on site. Also, if
you are a collaborator it is required to publish addresses where
you may be "reached" at any given moment. Compliance has been
noted.
|9.22.07 @ 11:50AM|#
The New List also requires fascist organisations to list their
co-collaborators. Once again, compliance is noted:
Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation
The Alliance for Drug and Alcohol Management, Ltd. (ADAM)
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
American Automobile Association (AAA)
American Legacy Foundation
American Lung Association
American Traffic Safety Services Association
Baptist Community Ministries
The Best Foundation
Bon Secours Health System, Inc.
California Wellness Foundation
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Developing Resources for Education in America, Inc. (DREAM)
Drug Awareness Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)
The Gallup Organization
General Motors Corporation
Good Samaritan Hospital
Gwinnett United in Drug Education, Inc. (GUIDE)
The Health Trust
Hope House
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
International Development Research Centre
Katherine Freund & Association, Inc.
La Familia Counseling Center, Inc.
Miriam Hospital
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
National Association of Beverage Control Agencies
National Organization on Disability
National Safety Council
Nissan Research and Development, Inc.
The Packard Foundation
Peer Assistance Network of America (PAN America)
The Pew Memorial Trust
Research Foundation of CUNY
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Southeast Center for the Application of Applied Technology
Students Against Destructive Decisions
The Trauma Foundation
The United Way
Remember this list when considering where to donate money or your
old car. The American Lung Association and United Way in
particular...
|9.22.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Extending your logic means that I should also be able to
freely discharge a firearm randomly anywhere I want right up until
I kill someone. Reckless behavior is still reckless.
Damned straight. That said, driving with a BAC of .08 is not the
same as driving with a BAC of 3.0 and our laws should reflect that
reality. I'm a better than average driver with a BAC of .08. This
is not to say i'm not impaired compared to me at .00 BAC. At a BAC
of 3.0 (yeah, I've been there) it would be unconscionable to get
behind the wheel of an auto. Some sanity, and
HONEST debate in the policy discussion on this
issue is long overdue. You know, maybe graph BAC vs. accidents to
help make a decision.
|9.22.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Libertarian or not, it's morally wrong for some other person, whether it's a cop or anybody else, to stop me unless I'm hurting or about to hurt somebody else. It's wrong.
|9.22.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Mike,
My liberty ends at the point where my jackassery is exceptionally
likely to infringe on the liberty of others. The preponderance of
evidence shows this to be the case in DUI accidents.
J sub D.
Hear, hear. However, analytical studies show that even .08'ers
radically overestimate their "ability" to drive impaired (presently
company excluded of course). I think 0.1 - 0.13 is fine. I
routinely drive after 2 or 3 22 ouncers (200lb male) without
thinking twice about it (or feeling impaired).
|9.22.07 @ 12:54PM|#
I don't think that's Eric Dondero.
I think that somebody out to discredit him among
libertarians.
Look at this statement: Drunk Driving kills, so everything that
is possible should be done to stop it.
That right there is an obvious attempt to push libertarians'
buttons.
I don't any use for Donderrrrooooooooooooo, but that's a shitty,
dishonest thing to do.
|9.22.07 @ 12:57PM|#
The New List also requires fascist organisations to list
their co-collaborators. Once again, compliance is noted:
Research Foundation of CUNY
phew, that was close!
Jennifer|9.22.07 @ 1:07PM|#
I think that somebody out to discredit him among
libertarians.
Whoa, talk about somebody who won't back down from a challenge.
|9.22.07 @ 1:26PM|#
These drivers are every bit as free to ignore the requests as
low-income homebuyers are to back out of that ARM they don't
understand when the terms change the day before the closing.
They just don't know that.
|9.22.07 @ 2:00PM|#
However, analytical studies show that even .08'ers radically
overestimate their "ability" to drive impaired (presently company
excluded of course).
No doubt. I'm not as good of a driver after two beers. With the
notable exception of Dr. Johnny Fever, whi is?
|9.22.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"If the cops can't tell you're drunk by observing your
driving, then you're obviously not impaired, regardless of your
BAC."
Anyone approaching one of these checkpoints would reasonably
believe that this was a bona fide sobriety checkpoint. The first
person a driver sees is a deputy and they are routed to a bunch of
people in blue cover alls (like the ones CDOT wears, maybe not
exactly, but close).
WTF? What is the typical driver expected to do? Well cooperate of
course. Cooperate with the nice bureaucrat, let him take your
bodily fluids on demand, just like a good sheeple. It's for your
safety and IFTC.
IMO we are riding on greased rails headed toward the most excellent
nanny state ever imagined. If you don't have anything to hide,
what's the problem? I imagine a future USSA where the living envy
the dead, because the dead enjoyed a few freedoms left before they
left this mortal coil.
|9.22.07 @ 3:07PM|#
""IMO we are riding on greased rails headed toward the most
excellent nanny state ever imagined."""
I don't think that's your opinion, but a rational observation of
the facts. Most of those running for office are fighting to be the
head nanny, Democrat or Republican. So far, Americans seem to want
it.
At some point the term nanny state will be way too nice.
Dan T seems very eager to yield to other peoples demands regardless
if they are right or wrong. Maybe his mistress abandoned him.
|9.22.07 @ 3:08PM|#
""With the notable exception of Dr. Johnny Fever, whi
is?"""
That was a funny episode.
|9.22.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Pi Guy,
Extending your logic means that I should also be able to freely
discharge a firearm randomly anywhere I want
at a spot a few inches from your face right up
until I kill someone. Reckless behavior is still reckless.
Considering the proximity of lanes of traffic, the above analogy
seems more apt.
|9.22.07 @ 3:27PM|#
For those who don't know, when the revolutionary government
takes over the 4th right will be, "You have the right to be left
alone. If you can't mind your own fucking business its is every
other citizens duty to shoot you" The wording is still a little
rough, but its a work in progress.
Wouldn't imposing a "duty" on others to shoot a busybody also be a
case of not minding one's own fcx#ing business, and thus be subject
to the death penalty itself? ;)
SIV|9.22.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Looking at their website Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation's mission seems to be mixing scientific research (no
doubt the sacred "peer reviewed" kind)with public policy.
I thought science-informed public policy is what todays
liberaltarian is all about.
|9.22.07 @ 3:50PM|#
I thought science-informed public policy is what todays
liberaltarian is all about.
It is one facet of libertarianism, no doubt. See my previous posts
on this thread.
Nash|9.22.07 @ 5:16PM|#
My roomate was actually stopped by these folks when heading out
on a camping trip.
The cops were the ones doing the pulling people over, so it
definitely was a non voluntary stop.
While he was there, there were 4-5 vehicles being searched by these
people. He told them he wasn't interested, and they kept
persisting. He finally told the woman who was asking for the search
that "No. I have to leave. I'm going to leave. Stop asking to
search and swab my mouth." She finally relented, but then said
"Well let me ask the officer if it's safe for you to go." The cop
said fine, and he left.
|9.22.07 @ 5:20PM|#
If the cops can't tell you're drunk by observing your
driving, then you're obviously not impaired, regardless of your
BAC.
Wrong. It takes very little in the way of coordination, planning,
or reaction time to drive down the middle of a lane. Avoiding
accidents, maintaining control of the car at the limit of adhesion,
instantly plotting escape routes and evaluating risks, remembering
not to look at what you're trying to avoid and to look where you're
going, threshold braking, and general judgement are different
matters. When the feces strikes the oscillating instrument, several
or all of those skills are very necessary, and within a split
second. In short, alcohol doesn't have much effect on most driving,
but when it matters, it can be the difference between "that was
close" and "I hope those sirens are coming this way."
|9.22.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Avoiding accidents, maintaining control of the car at the
limit of adhesion, instantly plotting escape routes and evaluating
risks, remembering not to look at what you're trying to avoid and
to look where you're going, threshold braking, and general
judgement are different matters.
Number 6, How would you rate the bottom quintile of sober, licensed
drivers in having and using these skills. I'm really not trying to
be a smartass, but my observations lead me to believe that 50% or
more drivers lack the skills necessary to operate an automobile in
a safe and judicious manner. From a bang for a buck perspective,
are we best deploying our traffic safety dollars judiciously? Yes
drunk driving is a hazard. Is it, at th .08-.12 BAC range, a
greater hazard than stupid or clueless driving?
You will never see this issue discussed in any state legislature.
We all know why.
Rick H.|9.22.07 @ 6:16PM|#
The last two comments were excellent points, well reasoned and
elegantly expressed.
We need a facile, snarky comment to break up the momentum - and I'm
just the guy for it!
|9.22.07 @ 6:23PM|#
We need a facile, snarky comment to break up the momentum -
and I'm just the guy for it!
Dammit Rick H. #6 and I were just about to solve America's road
carnage problems. Now I've completely lost my train of thought. All
future highway fatalities are on your head!
Bee|9.22.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Jsub -
Absolutely. I'll take a healthy middle-aged man with a couple of
beers in him any day over a stone-cold sober 84-year-old.
I'm tired of reading about geezers mowing down patio cafes and
outdoor markets. "Driving While Senile" is - in theory anyway - a
hazard which can be predicted, tested for, and prevented before
harm occurs. If we're going to have licensing and constitutionally
dubious "harm-prevention" schemes, paid for by me, I'd like to see
the very old at least tested by DMV anually.
|9.22.07 @ 6:45PM|#
"Extending your logic means that I should also be able to
freely discharge a firearm..."
Wouldn't the noise from the firearm possibly cause harm to
unprotected ears in close proximity to the discharge, or are we
using imaginary silencers like the ones in the movies?
|9.22.07 @ 7:27PM|#
These drivers are every bit as free to ignore the requests
as low-income homebuyers are to back out of that ARM they don't
understand when the terms change the day before the
closing.
That's not a particularly good analogy, unless the people pushing
those mortgages were accompanied by cops. Even then, it would seem
far more odd if a cop appeared to be pushing mortgages than if
(s)he seemed to be manning a roadblock.
|9.22.07 @ 7:44PM|#
When it comes to fucking with traffic: as Jimmy Durante used to
say: "Everybody wants to be a bureaucrat (with an inferiority
complex)."
(I paraphrased. For you whippersnappers here, what Jimmy really
said was: "Everybody wants to get into the act.")
|9.22.07 @ 8:37PM|#
J sub D- False dichotomy. Unlibertarian as it may be, I'm all in
favor of toughter restrictions on driving.
Also, the fact that there are bad drivers out there who are not
drunks doesn't affect whether or not drunk driving ought to be a
crime and/or how vigorously cops should pursue drunk drivers.
Please note that this is not an argument for checkpoints.
|9.23.07 @ 8:03AM|#
@Tbone, J sub D, Mike, et al:
"Extending your logic ... right up until I kill someone.
Reckless behavior is still reckless."
Yes, killing is very clearly an infringement of any reasonable
person's definition of personal rights, to be certain. As for
discharging a firearm at or near another person's face is more
closely analogous to a driver (drunk, sober, somewhere in between -
doesn't matter) crossing the center line, running the stop sign, or
even hopping the curb but not hitting another vehicle or a mailbox
or a utility pole - you know, being reckless - that personal rights
have been violated. If done accidentally (J sub D's lowest quintile
at least), it is merely reckless but that is still a violation of
personal rights because reckless behavior can cause others behave
differently and perhaps dangerously
|9.23.07 @ 10:14AM|#
F*&%ing mousepad... had to start pancakes and scrapple
anyway.
...dangerously. That applies for the firearm and driving cases
similarly. If you discharge a weapon safely, in situations where it
reasonable to expect people - drunk ones, stone cold sober ones,
doesn't matter - to discharge firearms, then the beans, well,
they're cool.
If one stops at red lights w/o skidding 60 feet (that's 18 meters
for those of you in the metric system), yield correctly at
intersections and merge lanes, and drive in a manner that is
clearly un-reckless (note, for reasons cited above, that I
believe that recklessness can be a violation of personal rights)
then should it matter if they are drunk or not? I don't think
so.
Think of it like this: NFL players are randomly and sometimes not
so randomly (like Ricky Williams) tested to see if they're smoking
pot. But if pot's as bad as is claimed, it seems that the athlete
would play poorly and eventually play himself out of the league
without any intervention. And pot isn't one of the first things
that come to mind when I think "performance enhancing" drug. So how
is a talented but high player doing his job worse than a less
talented athlete trying his ass off doing his job?
And so, I ask again: Is a driver under the influence - that is, BAL
>= 0.08 - driving safely and obeying the laws and codes of the
road worse than a poor driver trying hard and staying staying
between the lines? How about the ones sending text messages? Or
putting on mascara? Or dunking their McNugget in BBQ sauce? Or
playing with their XM satellite controller?
When the consumption of deep-fried fused chicken pieces-parts is a
crime, only criminals will consume deep-fried fused chicken
pieces-parts. But, as it stands now, McNuggets are legal and
slamming into car in front of you as you lick honey mustard off
your thumb is not legal because crashing into other
cars is reckless. Violates others' personal rights,
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
|9.23.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Pi Guy-And I answer again: the danger comes when an emergency
arises, not when a person manages to stop at a red light. (If the
driver skids-that is locks up the brakes-said driver has just
proven that he doesn't know how to drive.)
The pot issue is simply not relevant here. If nothing else, it's
different because drug testing isn't meant to show whether a person
is under the influence at the moment. Giving someone a test during
a traffic stop that determines if he has consumed alcohol in the
last 30 days would be analagous. (And equally stupid).
And playing "Ooooh...that driver is putting on mascara!" is also
not relevant. It's the same as a kid telling his mother, "Yeah, but
Jimmy violated his curfew by 5 hours!" True, perhaps, but not
germain to the discussion. But, for the sake of argument, I think
that a driver putting on mascara should have her license suspended.
The same for the tards that I've seen reading the paper on the
road. And whether a person is eating nuggets, playing with the
radio, or whatever absolutely should be a factor in determining
fault in an accident.
|9.23.07 @ 12:40PM|#
#6, I agree that DWI is and should be a crime. I question whether the resources expended and the liberties violated are justified in the name of public safety. The hysteria that groups like MADD promulgate is, IMHO, all out of proportion to the adknowledged problem of DWI. We're beginning to split hairs here, you and I.
|9.23.07 @ 12:41PM|#
"And whether a person is eating nuggets, playing with the radio,
or whatever absolutely should be a factor in determining fault in
an accident."
"a factor in determining fault in an accident"
"in an accident"
As should one's Blood Alcohol content. A factor, in an accident.
And not in and of itself, grounds for arrest.
CB
Guy Montag|9.23.07 @ 12:53PM|#
OT: NASCAR is on at 1300, ABC television.
Well, there will be a lot of drinking, a bunch of driving and a few
wrecks (I prefer very few or none), so maybe this is on
topicish.
|9.23.07 @ 1:13PM|#
"Wouldn't imposing a "duty" on others to shoot a busybody also
be a case of not minding one's own fcx#ing business, and thus be
subject to the death penalty itself? ;)"
In the words of Dennis Moore - This redistribution of wealth is
trickier than I thought.
|9.23.07 @ 1:28PM|#
In other news, the Canadian dollar reached parity with the US dollar this week. Does this mean we have to start respecting our neighbors to the north?
|9.23.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Opps, sorry. My link didn't have the punch line which is in part
2 or 3 of the sketch. But it is episode 37 (season 3):
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3439491/Monty_Pythons_Flying_Circus__Complete__High-Res(640x480)__englis
the above link is only provided for reference. It may not be legal
for download in your country. But, on the off-chance you are from
Sweden, have at it.
|9.23.07 @ 1:40PM|#
I should warn everyong that under the New List of Rights and
Duties (following the revolution)you might get your mouse-clicking
finger amputated if you illegally download any copyrighted works.
Just so ya know.
If you are in Sweden, you will need a bittorrent client such as
Bitcomet (free download) to make use of torrent files.
|9.23.07 @ 1:50PM|#
In other news, the Canadian dollar reached parity with the
US dollar this week. Does this mean we have to start respecting our
neighbors to the north?
Oops, wrong thread. I reiterate, I'm incompetent today.
Greg|9.23.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Just think, once the market develops for cars that drive themselves none of this will matter.
Zubon|9.23.07 @ 3:02PM|#
J sub D, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, no,
you have not been at 3.0% blood alcohol content. Note the order of
magnitude: 0.08% BAC is per se illegal, and that is about four
drinks in an hour for an average male. This means that 3.0%
requires 150 drinks in an hour. Most human beings die around 0.50%
0.30% is very possible, although anyone who is coherent at 0.3 has
developed a truly impressive tolerance to alcohol. There are
relatively few 0.30% BAC drunk driving arrests because few
non-alcoholics have enough tolerance to drive (not drive well,
physically do things like walk to the car and put it in gear) at
that point.
It is a fair point that there are many legal things are worse for
your driving ability than being at 0.08. Driving on four hours'
sleep is worse, as is two hours' sleep plus two drinks. Talking on
a cell phone gets you most of the way there, as does being older
than 65. Having the flu will do it.
|9.23.07 @ 4:07PM|#
J sub D, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that,
no, you have not been at 3.0% blood alcohol content. Note the order
of magnitude: 0.08% BAC is per se illegal, and that is about four
drinks in an hour for an average ...
I didn't say I drove like that. If I did drive in a condition like
that, I'd support putting me in jail! Maybe I wasn't clear
enough.
|9.23.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Oh Yeah, that should have read .30 not 3.0. my fuckup. Obviously 3.0 is impossible to survive.
Guy Montag|9.23.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Oh Yeah, that should have read .30 not 3.0. my fuckup.
Obviously 3.0 is impossible to survive.
Impossible for humans to survive, yes. However, I have heard that
the irish are born with that BAC.
|9.23.07 @ 4:54PM|#
Impossible for humans to survive, yes. However, I have heard
that the irish are born with that BAC.
Hey, wait a minute there I'm Irish and am extremely ... not
offended.
Eric Dondero|9.23.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Please note that the post above was not written by me. Someone here at the Reason Blog regularly posts stuff under my name. And I thought principled libertarians were supposed to be opposed to force and FRAUD. obviously not.
BAC > it should be|9.23.07 @ 6:59PM|#
I thought principled libertarians were supposed to be opposed to force and FRAUD. obviously not.
Not all true Scotsmen are liars from Crete, Mistah D.
|9.23.07 @ 7:35PM|#
Eric,
Two points:
1) The fact that it was a hoax was pretty obvious from the
start.
2) Your reputation is so in the toilet right now that it's pretty
much impossible to reduce it further.
Thus, I wouldn't sweat it if I were you, Mr "Freedom is obedience
to authority".
|9.23.07 @ 7:47PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
And I thought principled libertarians were supposed to be opposed to force and FRAUD
Well, that's one reason for your unpopularity. The other is that
you're a stupid little shill.
Not cool about people posting as you, to be sure. It's demeaning
for them.
|9.24.07 @ 8:10AM|#
"The pot issue is simply not relevant here."
It's completely relevant to my argument.
I am attaching greater emphasis on the actual performance of the
driver/player when the rubber hits the road/ball is snapped. You
are still attached to the puritanic notion that being under the
influence - now or recently - is a key indicator of how
someone will behave or perform, in the absence of actually having
committed another tangible, rights-violating offense or having
failed to cover the guy in their zone. I still contend that the
average and better than average drivers after two beers are at
least as capable of dealing with, as you say, emergencies as the
not-so-swell drivers under the best of conditions. I'll wager that
the same thing is true of the big, strong, fast, but baked athlete
with respect to the short, skinny, slow, guy giving 132%.
But, to get back on-topic here:
DWI checkpoints stop otherwise law-abiding citizens, "Let me see
your papers!"-style without any requisite probable cause. If a you
want to use BAL as a tool for helping to assess fault when an
actual personal or property damage accident has occurred or
even extending or increasing charges when no damages are incurred
(crossing centerline, hopping curb, other non-damage incidents),
then I'm okay with that. But let's not just trample on the
Constitution to ruin the life of a guy who had a two-martini lunch
in our zeal to perpetrate the War on Alcohol - uh, I mean, save
lives (and property as well, for that matter).
At the very least, a driver has the right to be left alone (Fourth
Amendment) in the absence of probable cause. It is reasonable to
deem crossing the yellow line or backing into a fire hydrant
reckless and, thereby, probable cause for further investigation.
Lawful search and seizure can ensue at this point.
DWI checkpoints are tantamount to going house-to-house, Marines in
Baghdad-style, and asking the person who answers the door, "Excuse
me, sir or madam. Have you been doing anything illegal? It
smells as though you have been doing something illegal
here. Please step out of the house. Let me see your papers."
I don't think that this is what the Framers had in mind...
|9.24.07 @ 9:39AM|#
I don't mind having a BAC of .1 or whatever on the books, but I
don't like that police can suspend probable cause to get you for
it. You can't just go around testing everyone.
If you can't get someone for Reckless, you really don't need to be
pulling them over 99% of the time.
severin|9.24.07 @ 10:24AM|#
Part of the story is being lost here. That is "why did they choose Gilpin County?". Gilpin County is the home to one of two legalized gambling areas in Colorado with the gambling town of Blackhawk on highway 119 (the one they had the stops set up for). PIRE intentionally chose that area in an effort to skew the results to make it seem like drunk driving is more prevalent than it is in most areas. They chose a weekend, did the survey at night, 10 miles outside of a town where the common practice is to give drinks away. They then turn around and try to use these statistics to "prove" their assertions that drunk driving is rampant. They suck and I am extremely disappointed that the Gilpin county sheriff co-operated with them.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245