🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <EJH.92Dec11111034@khonshu.colorado.edu> ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:
>   ...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?

No, however it is a question of degree: We accept as completely legal
many forms of impared judgement and reaction time (car telephones, 
conversations, even violent arguments, with passangers, etc...)
Since these do not automatically constitute a danger to the public, I
think I could reasonably consider this level of imparment "safe". Therefore
drinking alcohol, despite its imparing effects, can still permit "safe"
driving (i.e. driving as safely as people in other, legal conditions.)
Your argument does not explain how a person in this state should be
considered a public threat.

>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.

Well, no matter what laws you pass, these will ultimately still be
the people making that decision. I'm in favor of punishing them 
very strictly if they are wrong (e.g. if they endanger others); 
while you want to punish them even if they drive safely and present
no threat to anyone.

>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.

You, your self admitted that the effects of alcohol differ from
person to person. I'd also hope you agree that a small amount of
alcohol does not prevent safe driving (for example, one beer drunken
an hour or more in the past.) From these facts, it would seem that
drinking and driving safely is possible (under limited conditions) and
what constitutes an unsafe level of drinking cannot be measured by a
uniform, absolute standard (since it varies from person to person.)

>Or are you one of those people who insist that you can
>drink and drive safely? 

By my own standards of "safe", no. And, as a result, I avoid driving
if I have had _anything_ to drink whenever possible. However, I can
(and have) drive "safely" by the government's standards after one
or two drinks and a period of a few hours (i.e. when I have no other
options.)

>If so, then there's no point in continuing.

From the above you will have to decide that for your self.

>As far as I'm concerned, drinking and
>driving can never be driving safely...

In which case, why not eliminate the DUI and DWAI laws, and simply
enforce the reckless driving laws? As far as you are concerned, anyone
drinking and driving will automatically be driving recklessly, so 
no additional law is required to arrest them. All I am arguing for,
is proof in court that the accused's actions were, in fact, reckless
endangerment. If you are correct, then it should be quite easy for
the police to prove this of anyone they stop for drunk driving. If
I am correct, this would not be the case for people with (say) under
0.02-0.06% BAC, depending on the individual. No matter which of
us is correct, what I propose will subject the real offenders (i.e.
those who are endangering others) to strict criminal charges.

>...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.

However, this also applies to a half-awake commuter going to work in
the morning. We have no laws to specifically deal with this, although
I suspect tired commuters are more common the equally impared drunk
drivers. It would seem the laws reflect not only impared driving but
socital approval or disapproval for the casue of the imparment. 

>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?

Maryland and California (the only other States I have ever had a license
from) make no mention of this, when they issue a license. So I assume
they do not pre-suppose such an agreement. Further, the Supreme Court
(on other subjects) had has ruled that one cannot be legally asked to 
waive basic rights, in order to do something that is more-or-less
unaviodable. (E.g. you can not be required to waive your right to 
freedom of speach as a condition for employment by the government.
The later is clearly a privilage, but there are limits on the 
conditions that can be attached.) While this principle has not
been uniformly applied to all rights, it still should not be trivially
ignored (especially since the Court considers the Fourth and Fifth 
Amendment rights in question to be "fundamental", e.g. ones to which 
this principle would probably apply.)

>    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). 

Public transportation is often unavailable at night (especially on
weekends), walking over 15 miles (e.g. 4 hours making good time) is 
not realistic, nor are the other means you cite (perhaps, also, do
to income: Can everyone afford a taxi?). In considering 
individual rights, the Supreme Court often looks not at what is
theoretically, but what is realistically possible. So, requiring
one to waive a right in all realistic circumstances is the same
as violating that right.

>Travel from place to place is not limited to public roads! In DC I
>could get on the subway, go to National Airport...

However, you cannot get to Georgetown _within_ the District of Columbia
(more to the point, given the number of bars there, you can't leave)
on the subway without walking a mile and a half (half an hour for me)
or taking a bus (which doesn't run all night). Nor can you take
the subway _or_ the bus to many suburbs (Patomac and the rest of
Montgomery Co., MD except downtown Bethesda and Rockville, for example.)
Worse, Washighton has among the best public transportation systems
in the nation. Here in Colorado, the realistic means to travel 
freely, without using public roads, are even more limited.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder