U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Drinking and Driving vs. Drunk Driving
Source:
Eric Peters Autos
URL Source: http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/11/ ... -and-driving-vs-drunk-driving/
Published: Nov 2, 2015
Author: Eric
Post Date: 2015-11-03 08:11:23 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2677
Comments: 12
It is important to make distinctions. To know exactly what we are talking about before we “do something” about it. For instance, drinking and driving and drunk driving. There is a distinction to be made here. An important one. Why on earth should it be illegal – a crime – merely to have been drinking and driving? Emphasis on merely. Put another way, why should it be a punishable offense to have been drinking when one’s driving can’t be faulted? Unless of course the object of the exercise is to impose a kind of low-rent Prohibition – to punish people for drinking – this makes no sense at all. But it does seem to be the object of the exercise. Which is why the law increasingly package-deals the consumption of alcohol – any alcohol at all – with “drunk” driving. Those under 21 (who may not legally buy, possess or consume alcohol) can be convicted of “drunk” driving if they are found with even a single empty beer can in the car at a “sobriety checkpoint.” It does not matter whether the driver even drank the single can of beer. The presence of the empty can is sufficient. For those over 21, the definition of “drunk” is nearly as hysterical. In every state, you are automatically presumed to be a “drunk” driver if your blood alcohol content is .08 regardless of your driving. Mark that. Your actual driving is not the issue, as far as the law is concerned. It is not necessary for the arresting officer to even assert that he saw you driving erratically, much less prove that you were. Even if you got him to concede in open court that he’d been following you for miles as you drove down a curvy mountain road and could not point to anything about your driving that indicated that you were other than in full control of you vehicle before finally pulling you over for a seatbelt violation or because the little light over your license plate was out – and subsequently, you “blew” a .08 in the Breathalyzer – it would not matter. You are a “drunk” driver. You could win the Indy 500 – sure proof that no matter what proof your blood might be, you are a damned fine driver but if your BAC is over whatever the arbitrary number is (currently, it is .08; it used to be .10 and before that, it was .12) then legally speaking, you are a dangerous, reckless, irresponsible, out-of-control “drunk.” Your faultless driving is not admissible evidence that while you may indeed have been drinking, you weren’t “drunk.” This is crazy. Like Carrie Nation. But the law is lazy. It does not want to be burdened with the obligation to prove that you – specifically – have had “too much” to drink. That would need to be established on a case-by-case basis, because each individual varies in his driving ability as well as his ability to handle his booze. A person of low-average ability behind the wheel who has had nothing to drink but nonetheless wanders across the double yellow in every curve is legally acceptable (or at most, if a cop witnesses it, may get cited for a minor traffic offense) while the high-skilled driver who stays in his lane even though he has had a couple of beers gets arrested at a “sobriety checkpoint” solely because his BAC is over the ever-diminishing allowable threshold. The former faces a small fine and gets to drive home, wandering all over the road. The latter faces thousands in fines and goes to jail. Because the law wants a one-size-fits-all (and thus, necessarily dumbed-down) standard that is based on a bait-and-switch. Driving is no longer the focus. That would require observation and evidence, which was as it used to be. If you were driving erratically – across the double yellow, for instance – that was the necessary probable cause for pulling you over to investigate further. But if you weren’t driving erratically then a cop had no legal basis to pull you over because he had no probable cause. If your driving could not be faulted, the presumption was you were a competent driver. Whether you’d been drinking was immaterial. As it ought to be. This reasonable standard has been replaced by shockingly unreasonable random stops without any probable cause whatsoever and the conflation of arbitrarily decreed trace amounts of alcohol in one’s system with drunkenness. The sell is that more “drunks” are captured this way. In truth, they are merely catching more people who’ve been drinking. It’s not quite the same thing. If the argument is that people who drink (even a little) and drive are as a general rule “drunk” by definition (no matter their individual driving) and the only criteria necessary to establish a criminal case is the presence of small traces of alcohol in their system (or even just a single empty can of beer on the floorboards) then why shouldn’t people who are over the age of say 65 who – in general – have weaker eyesight and slower reflexes and a higher likelihood of being afflicted with dementia and so on – likewise be presumed dangerous behind the wheel, regardless of their competence behind the wheel? Arrest them all! Of course, grokking this point requires a conceptual faculty, the ability to discern principles and apply them to particulars. Most Americans lack this, courtesy of government schooling – which trains them to react emotionally instead. This makes it easy to demonize demon rum without (for the moment) demonizing older people as a class. Their turn will necessarily come. Because one thing does follow another. Most people, unfortunately, do not comprehend. They target fixate on the emotional jihad du jour. Right now it is “drunk” driving. Perhaps tomorrow it will be elder driving. Or some other goat group. Government schools have done their work, brilliantly. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Next article: Speeding vs. Reckless Driving
Why am I not surprised that the premise of this article is so obvious yet you fail to grasp any of it? Driving is no longer the focus. That would require observation and evidence, which was as it used to be. If you were driving erratically – across the double yellow, for instance – that was the necessary probable cause for pulling you over to investigate further. But if you weren’t driving erratically then a cop had no legal basis to pull you over because he had no probable cause. If your driving could not be faulted, the presumption was you were a competent driver. Whether you’d been drinking was immaterial. As it ought to be. This reasonable standard has been replaced by shockingly unreasonable random stops without any probable cause whatsoever and the conflation of arbitrarily decreed trace amounts of alcohol in one’s system with drunkenness. The sell is that more “drunks” are captured this way. In truth, they are merely catching more people who’ve been drinking. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Pffft! My post was 100% on the money. "If your driving could not be faulted, the presumption was you were a competent driver. Whether you’d been Correct?
The presumption when you get a license to drive is that you will follow the rules . There is no inherent right to drive on public roads . Each State sets it's own rules . That's just the way it is.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise. “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” – Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Oops. You left out this part: "The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise i it." "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."
"The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise i it." "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." in other words ,you have the right to drive as long as you follow the rules and laws that apply . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You have the right to travel. If you choose to travel by car, states have the power to regulate that right by requiring a driver's license, registration of the vehicle, and appropriate insurance.
You need set up a macro for that phrase when responding to him/her.
You need set up a macro for that phrase when responding to him/her. LOL! Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
All revenue raising activities. It is all about MONEY.
If it was they'd just tell you to send it in (like property taxes) and not waste time with licensing and registration.
"Drinking and Driving vs. Drunk Driving"
Why do we have one-size-fits- all speed limits?
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
(Edited)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
"Why am I not surprised that the premise of this article is so obvious yet you fail to grasp any of it?"
drinking speeding was immaterial."
#4. To: Deckard (#2)
#5. To: tomder55 (#4)
There is no inherent right to drive on public roads...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#6. To: Deckard (#5)
"Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579",
#7. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#6)
"Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579", Oops. You left out this part:
#8. To: tomder55 (#7)
"in other words ,you have the right to drive as long as you follow the rules and laws that apply ."
#9. To: misterwhite (#6)
Oops. You left out this part:
#10. To: Roscoe (#9)
Oops. You left out this part:
#11. To: misterwhite (#8)
If you choose to travel by car, states have the power to regulate that right by requiring a driver's license, registration of the vehicle, and appropriate insurance.
#12. To: U don't know me (#11)
"It is all about MONEY."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]