🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec11.052557.20184@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

   In article <EJH.92Dec10180513@khonshu.colorado.edu> ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:

   >Wrong. Driving while under the influence is illegal. Period. Just like
   >shoot a gun in a shopping mall is illegal. It doesn't matter if you
   >hit anyone. It's still illegal. And it's still wrong.

   Technically, it is "illegal", since it violates a law passed by
   the government. However, I don't see why driving safely is "wrong"
   or a "crime" under any circumstances. Firing a gun in a mall will
   hurt or risk hurting innocent people. Since you made the comparison,
   could you explain how driving safely hurts people or risks this?

I would be very happy to explain it. Firstly drinking alcohol impairs your
reaction time. This is a well-proven fact. Surely you do not dispute
this?

Secondly, drinking alcohol impairs your judgement. Do you dispute
this?

These effects increase with the amount of alcohol that you drink, and
the amount of impairment varies from person to person. However, given
the fact that it does impair the judgement, allowing people who have
been drinking to decide if they're able to drive safely is not very
smart. Therefor a blood alcohol limit is established more or less
arbitrarily.  So much for alcohol limits while driving. I'm sure you
don't deny that people who are drinking and driving could well be
endangering the community.

Of course, your question was interestingly put. How does driving
safely hurt people? Well, I guess it doesn't. But drinking and driving
cannot be described as driving safely by any stretch of the
imagination. Or are you one of those people who insist that you can
drink and drive safely? If so, then there's no point in continuing. It
is a matter of definition. As far as I'm concerned, drinking and
driving can never be driving safely, although you might get home
safely, the fact that your reaction time is impaired means that you're
not driving safely. If some little kid comes darting out in front of
you on her bike, you can't stop as fast. It's as simple as that.
Driving safely is difficult enough, and by itself does not ensure that
you would be able to stop in time. To further impair your driving
skills before getting behind the wheel is morally wrong. You are
needlessly putting others at risk. 

Here's something you wrote in another post on the same topic:

    A breath test (like any other drug test) could reasonably be considered
    a "search", in the Fourth Amendment sense. The Amendment clearly 
    refers to the "right of the people to be secure in their persons."
    By implication, such tests consist of self-incrimination, which is
    prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. 

Yes, I agree completely that a brethalizer is a search in that sense.
However you did agree to this limited search (again, it can only be done
when you are actually driving, not if your in your home, or walking
down the street, etc.) when you got your driver's license. What states
do not require this? As for drivers from those states, driving is
covered by state law. And no one has ever succeeded in overturning the
right of a State to do DWI checks, although I think some have tried.

    Section Nine of Article One, section
    Two of Article Four and the Ninth Amendment imply a right to freely
    travel from place to place (which, today, is possible only by use
    of public roads.) The practice of requiring a person to waive one
    right (search annd self-incrimination protections) before exercising
    another (freedom of travel) is of very doubtfull legality.
You are not at all required to waive one right before exercising your
right to travel. Are you under the impression that the only way to go
anywhere is behind a steering wheel? Ever hear of buses, planes,
trains, other drivers, feet, bicycles, boats, skateboards,
roller-blades, swimming, stilts, unicycles, skis, snowshoes, ice
skates, taxis, limos, and matter transporters? (OK, they don't have
matter transporters yet). 

Travel from place to place is not limited to public roads! In DC I
could get on the subway, go to National Airport, take a plane to
Dublin, take a train to Roslair Harbor 200 miles South, get on a boat
to LeHarve France, take a train to Paris, get on another plane, go to
Bombay, take a ship to Duban, S.A., a train to Capetown, a plane to
Rio, another plane or boat (your choice) to Tierra Del Fuego, get a
job cooking in Antartica (taking a plane there), catch an Aussie ship
from there to Sydney, get a job on a freighter as far as Hong Kong,
hop on a plane and fly back to L.A., then take a 5 day Amtrack trip
back to D.C., which would allow me to see the world, touch all 7
continents, meet a lot of fun people, drink a lot of beers, and never
touch any kind of public road. What more do you want?



--
	Don't blame me, I voted against Amendment 2!

Edward Hartnett				ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu