🚀 go-pugleaf

Frank Crary said:
>You seem to ignore the possibility that someone could drive after
>light drinking, without endangering others. I'm simply saying that
>before such a person is punished (more severely than simply 
>revoking his license, in my opinion) there should be evidence 
>provided that he was actually a public threat.

So, you would support revoking people's licenses for driving after
"light" drinking, or did I misinterpret your parenthetical remark there?

As for proving that the individual was a public threat, join the real
world, Frank.  Drunk driving trials would be a pain in the ass if we didn't
have specific laws available with clear penalties... for about a month.
Then, there would be enough court cases to again set the precedent that
a certain BAC is enough evidence for a reckless endangerment conviction.

>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. 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.

No, Frank, free travel from place to place is most certainly *not*
possible only by use of private vehicles on public roads.  I know
that's not exactly what you stated above; however, that's the only
case where the police might be checking you for intoxication.
Do you have feet?  You can always take a Greyhound... if you can afford
a month of insurance around here you can certainly afford a Greyhound
ticket to another state if you want.

Oh... now that I've deleted the bit about knife-throwing in restaurants,
I just realized something.  You're willing to accept that this is
reckless endangerment... but want the "right" to drive after a few
drinks if you as an individual believe that you're safe.  (And, if
prosecuted, they'd have to prove that you as an individual were unsafe,
yes?)
  OK, how's this then:  I absolutely guarantee I can miss you with a
decent rifle.  So: what if I set a target across the highway from me and
start shooting at it with, say, a nice Lee-Enfield bolt-action .30 caliber,
across all the lanes of traffic?  I wouldn't hit anyone.  I can say that 
without a shadow of a doubt.  Say I'm doing this without any intent to 
either endanger *or* frighten anyone... this is just what's convenient for 
me.  Now, when they haul my butt off to court, as they most assuredly will, 
how should they proceed?  Do they need to prove that I was endangering 
people?  How should they do this?  Set up a shooting gallery, and test my 
skill?
  Basically, my point here is that *some* people may be able to perform
a particular action without endangering the rest of the population.
However, you have to set a cutoff somewhere.  There's enough people
accused of drunk driving for the government to have set a specific BAC
at which the average citizen is presumed to be recklessly endangering
others.  The crime has been given a specific name (DUI and DWAI) so
that guidelines for punishments appropriate to this particular crime
can be set.  Sure, it'd be nice to be able to have some computer or something
that checks you out and says "oh, it's all right, this guy's a stud.  Heck,
he could drive with a BAC of .10% and not be any more dangerous..."
and you're on your way.  That's not the way it happens now, and there's
no way to implement something like that.
						-Robert.-