KipEsquire of A Stitch in Haste conducted an economic analysis of zero tolerance to drinking and driving and concluded it was an appropriate “corner solution” to the problem. His reasoning is sound but his facts are flawed.

Why does that seem to go against the “conventional wisdom” about BAC?

Because the organizations who are creating these laws have been lying to all of us about the number of drinks it takes to reach a certain BAC level. They want you to believe it takes six drinks in a two hour period to get to .08. As a result many well intentioned people are having two or three drinks over a two to four hour period and finding themselves labelled as “dangerous criminals” when they broke no law, nor endangered no one.

Just as in the movie “Minority Report”, anti-alcohol organizations would have us believe that we have to arrest people for something they *might* do, not what they have actually done.

It is science-fiction nightmare come true. And it’s time for all of us to put a stop to it. Please join us.

Jeanne Pruett
President and CEO
Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc.

The Washington Post profiles various local residents who saw their lives turned upside down, sometimes losing their marriage or livelihood, after being arrested under driving-under-the-influence laws which mandate automatic license suspension for first…

T

That having been said, the question remains: even if said uncertain data shows that certain laws have a “positive” effect on specific instances, does that data then justify unjust or imbalanced legislation? For example, if putting people in prison lowers murder rates, then, does that justify torture, considering that torture might decrease murder rates even more? Or is there a tipping point, at which we say yes, certain actions may bring desireable results for some, but those actions are morally unjust?

For example, what if, in your city, there were 3 times as many rapes against black women than there were against non-black women. So, the legislature, in an effort to curb rapes against black women, made the punishments much harsher for that crime than rapes on non-black women…and they started removing typical legal protections, like bail, etc., but only for rapes on black women. And they made it so that it was easier to be charged with rape on a black women than on other women. And then, they told the courts that, in cases of rape of black women, the court should “be most favorable to the prosecution”.

Now, of course, the actual crimes are similar. Rape a white woman, an asian woman, a black woman, it’s the same. But the legislature has put forth imbalanced and unjust legislation, all to curb the high rates of rape against black women.

Is this “ok”? Even if correlative data shows that the laws are cutting down on black rape? Is it OK to strip people of the constitutional rights, in order to acheive a social goal?

No, we would probably all agree that it is not.

Then why is it, if I get pulled over for driving eratically, and I have a BAC of .00, then I get a $100 ticket and go on my way, but if I get pulled over for driving eratically, and have a .08 BAC, then I go to prison and end up having thousands and thousands of dollars in fees levied upon me? Both crimes are the same: driving eratically. But this imbalance of justice is being fueled by emotion and, as you call it, “correlative data”.

No amount of correlative data justifies unjust and imbalanced laws.

On the minus side, more draconian laws and higher gas prices have negative consequences too.

As for gas, that just shows an inelastic demand curve. Obviously at some price there will be a change; same with criminal laws. Or so I reasonably hypothesize.

Ah, but I never made such a claim. You however, suggested that the laws actually decreased DD fatalities, or had some direct effect on the numbers of people driving drunk.

But if you don’t want to play, that’s cool.

And yes, I doubt price increases (at least, up to a certain point) will/would reduce consumption of burgers/alcohol/gasoline/cigarettes. For instance, with gas prices so high this year (high as far as what we’re used to here in the US), gas consumption did not significantly decrease. There reports on this in several national and regional newspapers. No it’s not direct evidence, and yes it’s totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

I think the point many folks here are trying to make is that writing yet more laws is not going to solve the current problem and may in fact be making the problem worse - either by the numbers or in actual direct effects.

Sort of like the BMI problem. Change the definition, you get more or less fat people. Change the dui limits and you get more or less drunk people. . . all without actually changing the numbers of people who are driving while impaired (or are actually morbidly or even mildly obese).

Good night, everyone. Time to head home.

In life we often have to make decisions, even public policy decisions, under conditions of uncertainty.

Do you doubt increases in price reduces consumption of, say, hamburgers? Any direct evidence other than correlative statistics? I don’t think we can do much better in this dep’t, though I’m all ears.

I do know the difference.

I wasn’t making an argument, I was just saying where it fits into the law.

John H.
narphonax.com/blog

Ok, Roach. You started with “There should be a constitutional amendment permitting people to drive drunk. This is a sacred right. Any interference with it violates our natural rights to increase the risk of fatal accidents whose consequences we can escape with underinsurance and the bankruptcy code.”

Without a sarcasm tag, that looks very much like a typical fark-style trolling move, particularly as it had nothing whatever to do with the meat and substance of the matter at hand.

But hey, that’s ok.

Anybody else see a resemblance between Serpent and Roach, besides the obvious?
(See? Sarcasm.)

In any case, outside of the rhetoric, you haven’t shown us that any direct evidence that the DUI laws are saving any lives. Keep calling me stupid if you want, but you’re still missing the point.

I do freely admit that I skimmed through the article with a less than 100% attention span. I didn’t get the impression from the article that it was about the high cost of DUI convictions versus anything else. All I took away was a few poor little me stories about people (with the exception of the .09 BAC woman) who put themselves and others in danger needlessly. My comments were in response to my perception of the articles message.

With that said, I agree with your stance that DUI laws are unfair/unbalanced with other actions that may have the same effect (like cell phone talking, putting on make-up, etc) while driving. That’s not the message I took away from the article. It’s a risk I take by doing this kind of stuff while I’m working…;)

Someone above asks why not just punish reckless driving, especially when it causes accidents. The goal of this whole system is optimal deterrence, I should think. In that case, one of the cost factors is ease of prosecution. It is much easier to show BAC than really reckless driving (though less so in the age of dashboard mounted police cameras). In any case, this is a proxy. It’s a good proxy for recklessness and danger. And it’s easier (i.e., cheaper) to prove up in Court.

The point of this whole thing is not perfect justice. It’s optimal deterrence. And ease of prosecution is a relevant fator.

Bronwyn you (stupidly) called me a troll first for not drinking Radley’s Kool-Aid.

And others, why are you so suspicious of field sobriety tests. I’ve actually passed one. A cop told us he uses them. What makes you all experts? How many have you administered, passed, or failed.

I like Ms Dani’s suggestion. Tight limits on blood-alcohol levels but only fines for small-scale offenders (drive after 4 six packs and I pretty much want you in jail whatever the other circumstances) and only harsher penalties for those whose driving is discernibly erratic or who persistently offend.

It’s not without problems, but it looks more sensible all round from where i’m sitting.

What was “over the top” about it? Did you actually read the whole thing? Or did you skim it, then assume it was championing drunk driving? It was simply reporting on facts: the fact is, the outrageously high financial costs surrounding a DUI conviction are ruining lives. Nowhere in the article does it say that these people should be let free. Actually, the article itself stops short of actually criticizing the imbalanced DUI laws that lead to these ruined lives…which, while I was disappointed, was good, considering that the piece was not an op-ed column.

I could understand your “over the top” criticism if the article had actually said “we should repeal DUI laws! Look at all these poor saps!” But it didn’t. Actually, the tone of the column didn’t even seem to lean towards the side of the anti-prohibitionists at all. If anything, it seemed like the author was leaning more towards a cautionary tale, than towards a sympathetic plea. So, tell me, Roach:

1) Did you read the entire article (it was the Wash Post, not the Times)

2) What is “over the top” about reporting facts?

I spoke for myself, as I can speak for no one else, and posited that your hypothesis (assumption grounded on little evidence) may be incorrect.

MEOW! hissss

And what if I have a .08, and am driving perfectly, putting nobody in harms way, and I get to a police checkpoint. The cop smells beer on my breath, I blow a .08, and I end up going to prison. Meanwhile, as the cop is spending is time arresting me, some crazy-ass, albiet sober, driver is fumbling with his CD’s, talking on the phone, and cutting people off. Until he gets to the police checkpoint, wherein he puts away his CD’s and telephone, stops cutting people off, and makes nice with the officers. They let him through, and he goes on his way, free to drive like a maniac again. But at least I’m in prison.