Posted on 05/07/2005 4:32:18 AM PDT by billorites
WITH SPRING blooming, you decided to treat that “special someone” to a romantic dinner at your favorite restaurant. The evening had started off well enough. A fine meal. The perfect companion. A bottle of wine. The two of you hadn’t driven far from the restaurant when you saw it: a police roadblock. No problem, you thought. All you did was split a bottle of wine over a long meal. Since you weigh 180 pounds, your blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) is .03 percent at the most. And the legal arrest threshold is .08 percent — more than twice yours. Unfortunately for you, police have begun arresting people with a BAC at just a fraction of the legal limit. One Florida man recently ended up in jail for driving with a BAC of .02 percent — the equivalent of about one drink. The grandson of a former Supreme Court justice, who’d had a little wine with dinner, was arrested in Washington with a BAC of .03 percent. And just a few months ago, a Florida man who admitted he drank a few beers hours before spent a night in jail even though his BAC was a flat .00 percent. These are more than just isolated incidents. They are harbingers of a growing trend. It gets even more ridiculous. Let’s say you didn’t finish your bottle of wine. In most states it is illegal to recork the bottle and take it home. In the states that do allow it, the unfinished bottle often has to be resealed in paraffin, placed in a stapled-shut doggie bag and locked in the trunk. Politicians looking to make names for themselves are advocating even tougher controls. Lawmakers in three states have gone so far as to call for the installation of breath-testing devices in every single car. If they have their way you won’t make it out of the parking lot until you test yourself; whether or not you drink is irrelevant! No reasonable person excuses drunken driving, but it is absurd to equate those who get behind the wheel after abusing alcohol with the 40 million Americans who drink responsibly before driving. Scientific evidence proves that this legal behavior is far safer than driving while talking on a cell phone, even with a hands-free device. Studies from the University of Utah, The New England Journal of Medicine and elsewhere show that drivers using a hands-free cell phone are more “impaired” than drivers at the legal limit of.08 percent BAC. Drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents have an average BAC of .19 percent, more than twice the legal threshold. To get that drunk, your steak dinner would have to include a whole bottle of wine for yourself, plus at least five cocktails. This kind of alcohol abuse — not a couple enjoying a bottle of wine over dinner — is the real source of today’s drunken-driving problem. Not surprisingly, our measures to crack down on those abusers are failing. In December, Congress ordered an audit of the nation’s drunken-driving programs after noting that we have seen “no discernible progress” over the last six years. That’s the same period during which the noose has tightened around responsible drinkers. In addition to multimillion-dollar “zero-tolerance” advertising campaigns, the legal limit for drinking and driving was lowered from 10 percent to.08 percent BAC. An honest look at the evidence will lead government auditors to conclude that this approach has failed, and that the real problem has been reduced to what Mothers Against Drunk Driving calls “a hard core of alcoholics.” These people will not be persuaded by PR campaigns, and according to government research they go out of their way to avoid highly publicized roadblocks. Time and again you hear about people arrested for their 10th, 15th or 20th driving while intoxicated. One man was recently arrested for his 34th. Common sense says that our scarce resources should be used to hunt down and arrest these habitual offenders, and that once caught they should be punished severely. MADD founder Candy Lightner put it best when she said, “if we really want to save lives, let’s go after the most dangerous drivers on the road.” Our collective failure to adequately deal with alcohol abusers who drive drunk should not be used as an excuse to punish moderate consumption of adult beverages. Responsible adults who share a bottle of wine with their dinner deserve privacy, not persecution. John Doyle is executive director of the American Beverage Institute, an association of restaurants.
I agree re "hard core". The former husband of my best friend has had DUI arrests many times over the years. Hasn't had a driver's license in 8 or 9 years. Has three DUI arrests currently working their way through the system and he is STILL driving around - often so drunk he can't stand up when he opens the truck door. What really makes me crazy, is that the police officers know him, and know his situation. At least some of them are turning their backs when they see him driving.
follow the money.
That is just plain wrong that the cops that know him let him get away with this.
On the other hand, a person going to jail just because he/she admitted they had drank a glass of wine at dinner or some such and whose BAC is well below the "legal" limit is just as wrong.
That has nothing to do with public safety. It is just "ramboism" with the cop making the arrest and a revenue generator for his/her dept.
"Whisky bottle,
brand new car,
Oak tree YOUR in my way!"
Ever been to a cop bar and see them all get in their cars and drive home? How about the cop on the motorcycle that killed himself and his wife in Austin Texas. That was after he rode his bike inside the bar, not one of the cops tried to stop him.
I guess the badge has its advantages </sarc>
BINGO! We have a winner!
The beverage 'institute' (is that a place to learn how to imbibe?) is obviously biased, but his points are still valid.
The MADD crowd are formidable because they are generally white suburbanites (i.e., neighbors of many politicians), have plenty of time and independent money to spend on the cause, and (unfortunately) they have a flood of unending emotion spurring them on.
For the responsible drinker, it's a bad cocktail when you combine MADD with lawmakers and law enforcement types who like nothing so much as a 'defenseless' target (i.e., one who won't fight back). So, we end up at the inevitable conclusion of the legislation-and-enforcement fever of the 80s and 90s. Roadblocks for any purpose (DUI, 'safety,' seatbelts) are the most shocking example of abuse operating under the guise of enforcement.
Ask any 'normal' person who's had their first DUI - the financial costs (fines, legal, insurance) and the ordeal of court dates, treatment weekends and trying to keep/obtain work driving privileges. For better or worse, real jail time is a rarity but the plot is revealed quickly: a DUI cottage industry has grown. Locking offenders up costs money - fining them earns it. Unfortunately, we can read frequent stories about the guy charged with a 19th or 20th DUI offense. They are often destitute and have long had their licenses suspended or revoked. Still, they filter through the system time and again since they aren't a revenue producer. Why aren't they off the streets? Could it be because the roadblock was set up on a nice 4-lane boulevard in the suburbs and not by the railroad tracks next to the coke plant?
And no, I haven't had a DUI.
bikepacker67 wrote:
I guess the badge has its advantages </sarc>
--> Sadly enough your right, even i thought of going thru the legal hassles to get a "badge" just to have one. I could care less about being in law enforcement but a badge gives you a little step above the rest at times.
You know this guy really hits this. I am a very petite individual and it would take me drinking a whole lot more, than what I currently do, to reach that magic .08. If I am at or near a .08, I wouldn't be able to walk right let alone get behind the wheel of a car(just my situation).
Some people may be a bit different, but for me I know where my limits are and wouldn't be anywhere close. It is just wrong for cops to arrest people for having a drink or two. And if they haven't broken the the law...leave them alone.
Built a house one time for a cop. Came in on a sunday morning to do some final punchout work and found a truck and a boat stuck and jacknifed in the ungraded lot out front. Upon entering this unfinished home, I found him and his five buddies sleeping on the slab floor. They said they were so drunk from fishing that this is far as they could make it!
I am troubled by the ''Road Block'' method of investigation. If they can stop your car and check your breath, when will they be allowed to check you for paying your taxes on time or licensing your pet with the ASPCA at these CHECKPOINTS
Ever seen a "deputy's mom" badge they have in Texas? That is also a free pass.
Hey, yachts and Beemers are expensive...
>>right to the lawyers
and insurance companies.
If drinking and driving are illegal, why are there parking lots at bars??
Why no DUI checkpoint at the exit of Pro sports games.
its all BS....anyone of us has been behind the wheel at over .08......we just never got caught...YET..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.