Cracking Down on the Sober Driving Epidemic

Radley Balko has a nominee for the "most asinine neoprotectionist law on the books" award.

Comments

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

This seems an outgrowth of the "constructive possession" notion common in public school systems (always a fertile source of idiotic ideas). Some school districts now penalize students who happen to be in the same vicinity (read "party") as underaged persons using alcohol or drugs. In theory, a student could stop by momentarily at a house where a party was raging in some other part of the residence and be suspended or expelled for "constructive possession."

For schools, the issue is the bureacratic impulse, a cowardly desire to substitute "zero tolerance" rules for human judgement. School bureaucrats find it easier to hide behind expansive student conduct codes than to carefully examine individual situations and make reasoned decisions regarding behavior and consequences. It seems what was a lousy policy has become an even worse law.

[JDM]

Has anyone challenged this yet?

[J]

Wasn't there a law discussed or passed recently where owners of nightclubs, warehouses, or other places raves take place could get busted for making available cool rooms, water, etc. because it suggested they knew illegal drugs were probably being used on the premises?

[CodeMonkeySteve]

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging .. the right of the people peaceably to assemble" (void where prohibited by law)

[Mr. Nice Guy]

The law makes perfect sense. The more underage drinkers are separated from sober drivers, the more chance they die on the road.. hence less underage drinkers. Problem solved.

[thoreau]

That's not going far enough with zero tolerance.

If we're really going to be serious about this we should also make it a crime to be in the presence of a person who has been in the presence of an underage drinker.

That'll show 'em!

[Jason Ligon]

Make it a crime to be the parent of an underage drinker, and start enforcement with the members of the legislature.

[garym]

Sgt. Truemper says "We're trying to protect people." I'm just trying to figure out whether he's trying to protect the drunks from having their friends get them out in one piece, or whether he's trying to protect the friends from the dangerous environment outside a jail.

[s.a.m.]

One night in California, I was busted for minor in possession of alcohol. When I was caught, there was an open, half drunk beer sitting in the back of a pickup I was leaning against. Inside the pickup bed, a 21 year old friend was sitting drinking on another beer.

Needless to say, I fought it and won. The officer came to court that day and told the prosecurtor and judge that the beer was in my "range of possession." My lawyer had a good laugh then proceeded to make an ass out of the officer. The officer responded to my lawyer by telling him that had he not confiscated that beer and charged me, I might have gotten drunk, tried to drive home, and possibly kill myself and others and that my lawyer, in essence, was condoning this behavior. That night, my buddies and I laughed it all off over a case of beer and a bottle of jack.

[dead_elvis]

That law *can't* be constitutional.

[Lathrop V. Wenschbygger II]

"Wasn't there a law discussed or passed recently where owners of nightclubs, warehouses, or other places raves take place could get busted for making available cool rooms, water, etc. because it suggested they knew illegal drugs were probably being used on the premises?"

That's the RAVE (Reducing American's Vulnerability to Ecstacy) Act. I believe the proud brainchild of Joseph Biden D-NY. Allowing glowsticks and pacifiers in your club can get you shut down.

[Anvil]

It was Biden produced that brain fart, but blame the people of Delaware for electing that moron.

[kevrob]

There is one alternative the town council may have in mind for drunk teens needing a ride home. They want the kids to call their parents, thereby exposing the party to the buzzkill of adults, who will call the cops and shut the whole thing down. Junior and Sissy will also have to do some `splainin' to their folks. Whoever owns the property where the party was held get to come down hard on whoever - their kids, their tenants - threw the bash. The ringleaders could even get busted.

SADD is famous for their "contract" kids make with their parents to never drive after drinking, or ride with someone who who has imbibed. This law puts a fatal hole in that project. Also, besides the stupidity of banning drinking by three birth-years-worth of legal adults, how is an 18-20 year-old college student who isn't living near the parental units supposed to find a 21+ acquaintance to come get them? Did the local cab drivers pay for this law?

Some local teens, tire of bein' hassled by the man, held a "beer party" a few years ago, attracting police attention. The surprise was that the keg they were tapping only had root beer in it, and the cops were faked out.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/nov01/hoax08110701a.asp

Kevin

Kevin

[Rick Barton]

Uh huh, this insane law sounds like it could have come at the behest of a coalition of the PACs of the local body shops and local mortuaries.

[D]

In some Chicago suburbs, policy-makers seem to have more money than brain cells.

In another Chicago suburb, the school district's knee-jerk response to school shootings was as follows: Require each and every student to wear an ID all day and devote significant resources to enforcing this policy.

I suppose all city council and school board members love knowing that they are using tax dollars so that they can sleep well knowing that they are *doing something*.