Comments on: Drunk Driving Permits

By: James

James — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 22:14:22 +0000

“Are you taking any medication” is in the top few questions any officer will ask during a traffic stop. I’m not talking about the roadblocks here, but about routine traffic stops for minor offenses. If you were to answer yes (which I highly recommend you don’t) the officer will initiate the process to determine if you legally qualify as someone they can charge with DUI.
Dan, I really don’t want to argue with you. I agree with you that silly drunk people should not be behind the wheel. I’m just trying to let others know that these laws are used for additional purposes going far beyond simply safeguarding the public and most of the public really has no idea how these laws work until it’s too late.

By: dan

dan — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:22:53 +0000

since there is no roadside blow test for Linisinipril and since it is known to cause drowsiness I must assume that in order to get a DUI one must be observably impaired. So you are suggesting that someone impaired enough (and knowing better) should NOT get a DUI? this boggles the mind.

I did not know about the Illinois statute. Ill check it out. thanks.

By: James

James — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:39:15 +0000

You can find the BAC statute in the ILL vehicle code 11-501.2 to my surprise it wasn’t 0.04 but 0.05, not much difference but I thought I should point it out.
Forget about the obvious prescriptions, the xanax etc. if you take daily blood pressure medicine such as Lisinipril and it says may cause drowsiness on the side of the bottle (which it does) you can get a DUI.

By: dan

dan — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:58:18 +0000

First of all, I’d love to see a real case involving .04 as DUI. Not just ‘my brother’s cousin’s friend’ anectdotes. I dont see a single statute using .04.

Second, of course there should be real occurrences of DUI for citizens using legally prescribed drugs! you want someone with seven demerols in them weaving down the road eyes half closed in a lovely dreamy state? or someone who is unusually sensitive to Demerol (I wish I was) nuked on a single pill ? It says on the bottle to be careful. the pharmacist tells you to be careful. ‘caution might cause impairment’. well doh! if you take a legally prescribed drug and are detected as driving weird then of course you should be charged. You don’t get detected unless you are doing something to be detected.

This is the counter-example to ‘millions of people drive under the influence and are ok”. the person who gets a DUI for driving under the influence of a prescribed drug is impaired. you can’t have it both ways dude. p.s. Demerol is just an example. You can substitute morphine, codeine, cyclobenzapriene or charlie sheen. (in some states charlie sheen may already be illegal consult your doctor and local law enforcement).

By: dan

dan — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:43:41 +0000

good. we all agree. Now do you have an alternative to policing being a business other than subsidizing the police budget via higher taxes? No? I didn’t think so. You can’t escape this one. Don’t even try to escape by saying that you can get rid of police roadblocks and other ‘business’ functions because that wont work at all to reduce budgets. they are revenue-generating functions by your own admission. you don’t reduce budgets by getting rid of revenue. So come up with a way to cover the police budgets without these revenues. You can’t. So raise taxes. go ahead and raise taxes.

By: James

James — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 06:37:39 +0000

As for my earlier points. I’d really like to hear your explanation for the national advertising campaign and roadside signs that advertise 0.08 BAC as the legal limit while police routinely cite Citizens for 0.04 BAC as being DUI. That doesn’t even mention the rare, but real, occurences of DUI’s being cited for Citizens using legally prescribed drugs. Yes, I’m not sure you know this but it is true. You can be legally taking a Doctors prescribed substance and end up with a DUI.

By: James

James — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 06:26:22 +0000

” Policing is a business ” Thanks for admiting it and verifying my points. If the Police were really there to “Serve and Protect” it would not be a business.
Sadly, you made some points which are relevant today and aren’t acted upon.
“carrying an illegal weapon is a crime. hanging around and looking menacing isnt.” and as quoted there are no police roadblocks i.e. no police simply stopping and searching these ‘menacing’ bangers and yet they have no problem stopping any and all Citizen drivers, no matter their behavior, with roadblocks.
It truly is a business and Citizens who drink a bit have money to pay and the gang bangers only cost the system dollars as we incarcerate them, pay for their upkeep and medical and dental needs, and eventually turn them loose again.
As you yourself admitted, “Policing is a business”.

By: dan

dan — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:14:01 +0000

Ill start with 5
5) of course there are no ads for gangbangers! its well known that it is illegal. clearly not everyone knows about drunk driving because so many plead ignorance or mistake. The very arguments here advocating against shows that some people dont think its wrong or think it shouldnt be wrong.
6) there are criminal charges instead. carrying an illegal weapon is a crime. hanging around and looking menacing isnt. Drinking and driving is also prohibited. whats the point
7) there are plenty of things that used to be permitted before but we realized that was a problem. just because we didnt do it that way in the good old days doesnt make it right. or wrong. by your argument we should have just cast everything in stone back in the 1950s.
8) I have no clue what point you are trying to make
9) you and others are calling it a big business as if thats an excuse. there are fines and $$ penalties for everything.There are fines all over the highway code. And all over municipal codes. Policing is a business. why would you think you could just single this one out? Don’t want it to be a big business? then push for higher taxes lol. getting rid of DUI fines won’t make that much of a dent. they will just up the admin fees somewhere else.

By: Charles Platt

Charles Platt — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:50:10 +0000

“you are also not allowed to have sex with a minor.” There is no nationwide agreement on the definition of age of consent, and internationally, the disparities are even greater. This is precisely the same point which was made originally about “drunk driving.” The definition has changed and is not based on anything tangible. Dan, you have persistently ignored this central issue. You just keep repeating your vague generalization that there is nothing wrong with preventive law.

The initial change in DUI legislation prompted by MADD may have been motivated by a well-intentioned desire to save lives, but it has led to violations of normal due process, and intolerable prohibitions on valid forms of legal defense, itemized in the URL that was originally supplied. Did you read that, Dan? You have not addressed these specifics either. You are just happy with the way things are, and you seem to content to repeat this endlessly.

James’s point that DUIs raise more revenues is well taken. There is absolutely no doubt that where I live, the primary goal of local police is to see any kind of infraction that will justify a breath test (or, even better, an excuse to call in a drug-sniffing dog and seize the vehicle and all cash that it may contain–but that’s a separate issue). Citizen safety is of virtually no interest. “Protecting the children” is of virtually no interest (although always a useful excuse).

By: James

James — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:39:35 +0000

Dan,
I beg to differ on several points.
1) In my opinion it is not right to set up roadblocks to interfere with the normal activity of the citizenry.
2) There are indeed highly publicized ads regarding DUI.
3) DUI is widely publicized here in the USA as being 0.08 BAC when in fact the police WILL arrest you at the 0.04 BAC level.
4) Gangs are indeed a huge problem in Chicago and members are easily identified. Police are not tasked with taking them off the streets in the same manner as drunk drivers.
If drunk drivers were treated the same way, the only drunk drivers who would be sought after and arrested would be those who had injured or killed someone.
5) There are no ads warning gangbangers to not be part of a gang or suffer being exposed at a roadblock.
6) There are no fines associated with being a gangbanger such as there are fines for drunk driving.
7) There were no laws against drunk driving until the late 1950′s while there were laws regarding accidents, injuries and deaths on the road that seemed quite capable of dealing with those that did harm.
8) Today’s DUI laws incorporate not only punitive criminal fines, but also punitive fees regarding the Sec. of State and counseling.
9) It’s a big business.

By: dan

dan — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:19:45 +0000

I had not trouble reading the post. I have no trouble reading yours either. Your points are simply on the other side. The problem with your points is they…mhm…appear disingenious. You make the point that society in general drinks and drives without mishap. So what? its a cost-benefit thing. the ones that create mishap cost too much. So socienty prohibits. This is not a new concept. You may dislike preventive measure but society is full of them. you are also not allowed to have sex with a minor. The presumption is you might have a negative effect on them. But some manage to engage illegally (or merely immoraly if they are over a certain age in some places) in sex with these people who then go on to have perfectly normal lives. Do we take the chance? No. we prohibit some things.

As for the roadblocks for gangs surely you jest? If gangs are a problem in your hood the guns are already there. A roadblock would be useless. Not to mention your constitution’s prohibition on such a search. A DUI roadblock doesnt make everyone blow. It just mkes those that are suspect do the blowfish thing. They already got over a specific probable cause issue. How would you differentiate at this theoretical gangbang roadblock? Or would you search everyone?

Calling it a business interest is nice, but its just rhetoric. So is the ‘compelling public opinion’. Yes. pretty much. It got tougher to drink and drive because people decided it was a good idea. You can’t say people like it in one paragraph then say its not in their interest in another. its not in your interest. cool. we get that. But if they decide one thing don’t try to argue that your way is their interest. won’t fly.

By: James

James — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:03:16 +0000

I made a great effort to read and understand your post. I read it twice. I’m tempted to ask if you were drinking when you wrote it. Please try to separate your points with paragraphs. Also, it seems you repeated points and only have a loose knowledge of drunk driving laws.
Society, in general, drinks and drives, usually with no mishap. It’s revenue generation that has proliferated the arrest rate in DUI cases. In the USA a first time offender can expect about $15,000.00 worth of expenses and 3 years of limitations before resuming a normal life.
This is a business enterprise, supported by mainstream advertising, compelling public opinion to accept it as normal.
If I were to suggest setting up roadblocks to prevent gangbangers from entering my neighborhood there would be widespread outcries against profiling. Gangbangers kill a lot of people here in the Chicago area. But there is no money in locking up these people, whereas there is plenty of money in DUI’s. So a DUI roadblock on Super Bowl Sunday is ok where you cannot set up a roadblock to keep illegally armed gangbangers out of my neighborhood.
Please understand I’m not advocating drunk driving. I am just tired of the pretense that all the DUI efforts are “for the people” when they clearly are not in the mainstream people’s interests at all.

By: Beat

Beat — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:59:09 +0000

Illegal/Legal is a yes/no question. Impairment is not so easily measureable, so what can we do? Some arbitrary border has to be defined. It probably does not really matter if the border is 0.1 lower or higher, as long as it’s somewhere in the “probably safe” area.

By: Beat

Beat — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:51:37 +0000

drunken drivers kill people (or do we have to argue about that too). There must be a way to measure drunkenness, even when it’s not very accurate. So you are basically whining abount not being able to get two things you at once, because the measurement is “inaccurate, unfair, blah blah you nameit”.

Why should a policy be wrong, just because it cannot account for all possible impairments? That’s just a lame excuse for being unresponsible while driving.

Stop whining, drink your beer, take responsibility, call a cab.

By: J

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:05:00 +0000

While i like your idea of trying to reduce the chances that people who shouldn’t be caught up in the net of current drinking laws, I think your proposal is too complex. At the core of it, people know before they begin to drink that they are not impared by alcohol at all. They also know when they will need to travel and if a car is available to them to use. While it would be nice to be able to say its okay to drink a little before you need to drive a car, the little bit of alcohol cushion you model would offer is really just not important to have available. An adult who would like to take a drink can, before they take one, review their plans, make sure they won’t need to drive, and get themselves into a responsible situation and then enjoy what they want to drink. This is what it means to be an adult. To make the more important choice. And the more important choice is always to think of yourself as a person in concert with others. Its not unreasonable to ask adults to create a safe situation in which they can then drink. And its not unreasonable to ask adults to be that slightly more responsible. Its less responsible to tell an adult its okay to go into a well-defined cushion area where some alcohol and some driving will be okay, when in fact they are grownups already and should already know, even without laws, that when they allow themselves to enjoy some alcohol they should not be driving. While most drunk drivers don’t cause problems or at least don’t get caught, its no so bad that we have this “worry area” set up for them in the frame of zero percent to .10 percent (or whatever the limits are). This “worry area” is a good thing, it makes them think twice before they drive and drink. For most adults they only need to think once. But for those who really don’t want to exercise as much control over themselves and their personal wants then this bit of worry about getting caught is a good thing. It takes out those who do need to think twice and then not drive drunk. You’re offering those who have even less self control than those who had to think twice before not drunk driving an elaborate way to get a little more of a chance to exercise a little less self control. The people in that group are a smalll percentage of the population, this law would cater to them only. And its so complex, and the burden of creating a way to manage these additional endorsements on a drivers license and the extra bit of wrangling in court over those who were in dispute if they were really not legally drunk or not seems a little bit much. The bottom line is that drinking isn’t that important in any given moment. Its always something that an adult can thoroughly plan out. Theres no such thing as “emergency drinking” where one had to inject alcohol against their will or in response to something. There isn’t any valid reason to say you had to drink. Without the need to actually have to drink, ever, it all moves into the realm of personal choice. And in that realm, asking an adult to be responsible and not drive when they have alcohol in their body isn’t unreasonable. Nor is asking them to postpone their drinking until they do not need to drive is also not unreasonable. To ask them to stop drinking and wait until their body has processed the alcohol completely before they drive is also not unreasonable. If they don’t want to sit and wait it out at the place they are at untill they are completely sober and able to drive, they are an adult and knew before they began drinking at the place they are at that they might not want to wait till they were comepletly sober before they left, its still not unreasonable to remember that drinking is totally voluntary on their part and can always be stopped when they know they won’t want to wait till they are sober again to leave where the are. They know this in advance. Its not unreasonable to ask adults to manage their desires about something like this, something that is totally in the realm of personal choice, where no one demands one drink, where knowledge if the effects of alcohol are already known to the person. Its not unreasonable to ask adults to allow themselves to review what they already know about drinking and then to manage their desire to drink such that there isn’t ever any problem that they will find themselves on a road driving drunk. And they will never have to worry if they are in blood test range or exceed it. They can drink anytime they want, they also already know all i’ve written here. So whats wrong with asking adults to enjoy drinking when they are not going to drive and to not drive until their body no longer has alcohol in it? This is within the ability of every adult and doesn’t restrict them from enjoying alcohol, it just asks that they always think ahead and plan properly. This isn’t unreasonable at all. Now, of course if drinking is made mandatory then some changes will have to be made to accomodate this new situation, but until there are laws which require drinking that don’t provide adequate time for the human body to process all the alcohol out before they must drive again i don’t see much need to change the laws at this time. Do you?