The only persons being banned should be the ones not discussing articles mentioned. No one here seems to have read this article, or gave it any
thought. More wild, flaming accusations about someone who contributes to ATS while you people do nothing.
If you have such a problem with the post, offer a constructive riposte, and draw some conclusions to why you think the article is so bad, that it
deserves to be "banned" along with mnemeth.
Honestly, this is pretty bad. I've never seen so much raging ignorance.
This blog was posted on Nov, 2000. Interestingly enough, I just read an article on the same subject, in the recent issue of Reason magazine. I'm going
to post some excerpts of the article, that point out why this a compelling argument. Nobody is talking in absolutes here, these are opinions.
Abolish Drunk Driving Laws If lawmakers are serious about saving lives, they should focus on impairment, not
Last week Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo advocated creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The problem with the
current Texas law prohibiting "driving while intoxicated" (DWI), Acevedo explained, is that it doesn't allow him to arrest a driver whose
blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent without additional evidence of impairment.
Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year
decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive
erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a
roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists.
The roadblocks are also constitutionally problematic. In the 1990 decision Michigan v. Sitz ,the Supreme Court acknowledged that stops at sobriety
checkpoints constitute "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment but ruled that the public safety threat posed by drunk driving made them "reasonable." In
the years since, the checkpoints have become little more than revenue generators for local governments.
When local newspapers inquire about specific roadblocks after the fact, they inevitably find lots of citations for seat belt offenses, broken
headlights, driving with an expired license, and other minor infractions. But the checkpoints rarely catch seriously impaired drivers. In 2009,
according to a recent study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, 1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million
in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical checkpoint would
consist of 20 or more cops, yield a dozen or more vehicle confiscations, but around three drunk driving arrests.
These ever-expanding enforcement powers miss the point: The threat posed by drunk driving comes not from drinking per se but from the impairment
drinking can cause. That fact has been lost in the rush to demonize people who have even a single drink before getting behind the wheel (exemplified
by the shift in the government's message from "Don't Drive Drunk" to "Don't Drink and Drive"). Several studies have found that talking on a cell
phone, even with a hands-free device, causes more driver impairment than a 0.08 BAC. A 2001 American Automobile Association study found several other
in-car distractions that also caused more impairment, including eating, adjusting a radio or CD player, and having kids in the backseat (for more on
such studies, see the 2005 paper I wrote on alcohol policy for the Cato Institute).
Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it
belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk
These are compelling arguments. This is not baseless "anarchist crap".
I almost fully agree with this. It's not "abolishing drunk-driving laws" and simply allowing people to pound down booze behind the wheel as they
please. It is a logical argument, providing evidence why these "laws" are actually harmful, and that police should be focusing on the impairment and
reckless driving charges alone.
If a person is driving recklessly, then by all means, cite him and arrest him for driving under the influence. Otherwise, time is being
edit on 17-12-2010 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)