home

Say Hello to the DUIBlog

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:49:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Say hello to DUIblog---"Bad DUI Laws, False Evidence and the New Prohibition...It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government."

The blog is written by DUI guru Lawrence Taylor, attorney, Fulbright professor and author of the authoritative textbooks on DUI laws.

Check out the entry "MADD, DUI and the New Prohibition."

...where are we headed with MADD in apparent control? A federal .05% DUI standard is on the horizon and, in fact, has already been adopted to some extent in a few states. "Zero tolerance" for adult drivers is clearly on MADD’s agenda. And then?

In 1999, MADD’s National Board of Directors unanimously voted to change the organization’s mission statement to include the prevention of underage drinking. Not underage drinking and driving -- just drinking. Let me say that again: MADD has now formally shifted its focus away from "drunk driving" and towards the broader "problem" of drinking. Can a new era of prohibition be far behind?

Other good entries: DUI Marijuana and DUI Entrapment.

The DUI police were out in force New Year's weekend. Even if you weren't one of the ones stopped and arrested, there's a lot of information on this site you should know about.

< Republicans Abandon Effort to Revise Ethics Rules | No Way Off the No-Fly List >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Say Hello to the DUIBlog | 36 comments (36 topical)
    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:31:18 PM EST
    And the problem with outlawing drinking and driving is...??? JC

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:37:37 PM EST
    Drinking and driving has already been outlawed, JC.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimcee on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:21:03 PM EST
    I think DWI (DUI) is a very serious offense but I also feel that some of the pro-scriptions (check points, etc)that the police use to arrest those that break those laws are a bit abusive to our 4th admenment rights. But hey! What do I know.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:35:02 PM EST
    I didn't read much of that blog. I did, however, read enough to see some misinformation on there. HIV/AID CANNOT be transmitted through saliva. HEPATITIS C CANNOT be tranmitted through saliva. Hep B can - but it isn't as dangerous as C. Granted you don't want any of them! But let's just take pause here... There are valid issues... a person subjected to a breathalizer test could possibly be exposed to Hep B & tuberculosis, which isn't a good thing but c'mon!!! Hepatitis C? HIV?!?! Hepatitis C can only be transmitted ONE WAY. Direct contact with feces and there have been countless test on HIV/AIDS transmission - the chances on you being infected from saliva are ZERO. If not, the chance is so miniscule that you wouldn't know the difference. The ONLY way to be infected orally is if you have open sores in your mouth. Also: (without going into detail) If HIV/AIDS does reach the stomache -- it is killed by stomache acids.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:49:59 PM EST
    Not to change the subject back to, you know, the actual subject, but: Larry the Litigator has the important point that the neo-prohibitionists do not want you to understand. The only reason the state regulates your blood alcohol content is that too much blood alcohol impairs your ability to drive. To the extent that it does not impair your ability to drive, it's irrelevant to the law as currently written. The question is whether groups like MADD should have the clout to get the law rewritten to ban driving with any blood alcohol level above 0.00%. Even then, drinking would still be legal, but even if the best available evidence shows that your blood alcohol level does not impair your ability to drive, they still want to prohibit it. Not because it affects your driving, but because it's alcohol.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 09:16:16 PM EST
    So just don't drink and drive. What am I missing here? JC

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 09:49:31 PM EST
    The words that immediately come to mind are: "cry me a river." The DUI entrapment story was relatively compelling, but otherwise: who cares? 1. The cops are beating people, engaging in racial discrimination, etc. etc. Unfair DUI enforcement is the least of our problems. 2. Drinking and driving is unquestionably a serious social harm.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 12:24:29 AM EST
    What you're missing here is that it's the nature of many not-for-profit groups to change their mission goals as they become accomplished. This is no different. Take March of Dimes for example. After the cure for polio, they changed gears, and now they're big into pre-natal care. Personally, I like the idea not not drinking and driving. Not especially complicated. Sit around an hour for every drink you have and you're good to go. But who wants a bar or restaurant full of people say, "No thanks, I'm letting it wear off"?

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#10)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 07:16:04 AM EST
    The (obvious) problem with any one-size fits all limit is that it will invariably fail. There will be folks who will drive well at 0.1 and folks that drive poor at 0.05. My solution would be to scrap DUI and add alcohol as a mitigating point in the satellite crimes associated with DUI. I may drive better at 0.1 than my elderly neighbor does at her best. There should be some minimum standard of safe driving that applies to everyone. For example; a cop pulls you over for weaving and driving poorly, and writes a ticket for reckless driving and jails you under suspicion of intoxication. The judge can then add some extraordinary fines or jail time for reckless driving while intoxicated. This could apply to any infraction, parking for example, to felonious acts like manslaughter. As was earlier noted there is a slide that might take us to 0.0, as a politician arguing for our right to drink and drive would extremely unpopular.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 07:28:54 AM EST
    Pigwiggle's right. BAC is irrelevant. Punish the criminal act, like vehicular manslaughter or reckless driving, not BAC. Where is the outrage when a sober speeder kills a grandma, while the cops are busy harassing every driver at a random checkpoint on the onramp? I'm sick of all the random checkpoints and invasive police behavior. Unless I'm speeding, swerving, etc...I shouldn't be harassed by the police. I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again, The most dangerous phrases in our society are "There ought to be a law" OR "Somebody ought to do something". If having two glasses of wine with dinner and driving home (safely) is a criminal act, this isn't a free country.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#12)
    by TChris on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 07:42:10 AM EST
    Like many organizations that have achieved their original goals, MADD's only purpose at this point is to perpetuate its own existence.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#13)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 07:53:29 AM EST
    If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk. I just saw a commersial for the DDA (designated drivers assoc.). Is this an answer to MADD?

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 08:13:02 AM EST
    as per usual I am of two minds on this issue. as someone who has lost a loved one in a drunk driving accident, i think pulling people over and ticketing them for having a certain level of alcohol in their system is valid. i also like the increased encouragement of designated drivers - as someone who does not drink, i pull this duty a lot. the purpose of drunk driving laws are to prevent injuries and fatalities, and waiting until someone actually hurts or kills someone to punish them or ticket them does not make sense to me. on the other hand, i know from my cop cousin and uncle that cops do have dui quotas (at least in my state). this is wrong - it encourages cops to harass. i was pulled over a few years ago while driving at night. the cop came to my window, nearly blinded me with his flashlight, and then said, 'dang. i was hoping you were drunk'. he wanted to fill his quota, not prevent drunk drivers from killing people. i am not for criminalizing drinking (or smoking) but i am for the encouragement of people to do it responsibly and for consequences if they do not. for instance, if a cop doesn't have a quota, that cop might only pull people over who were swerving, driving recklessly, doing 20 below the speed limit, driving by braille, or otherwise displaying evidence of driving drunk. there would be less cops pulling over sober people and more cops available to take actual drunks off the road.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 08:45:25 AM EST
    My understanding is that a BAC of 0.05 has essintially no effect (and may actually improve performance), "impairment" starts at about 0.12, and most drunks who cause accidents have a BAC of over 0.15. Lowering the legal limit for DUI has no effect on the accident rate. But lowering the BAC for DUI makes the MADD types feel good and enhances the bottom line.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 08:47:27 AM EST
    My sympathies for your loss kelite. But I must disagree. Specifically, BAC is no way to measure impairment. As pigwiggle said, some may be fine at 0.4 or 0.8, others may not. It is not a fair standard. I'll admit I have a reverse bias. I was driving with a friend, who I knew not to be intoxicated (I wouldn't have gotten in the car if he was). He wasn't speeding, swerving, going to slow or anything. We got stopped at a random checkpoint, he blew .01 over the limit, and got locked up. He lost his license, paid thousands in fees and fines, his life thrown in a tizzy for a few months. For what? He wasn't a threat to anybody. I also get nervous when we start with "he/she MIGHT do such and such". Too much like thought crime for my taste.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:59:07 AM EST
    my point is, kdog, there needs to be a limit in place because we can't wait until people are dead or the car is crashed or whatever. i think taking away the quotas would solve a lot of the harassment issues, and free up cops to deal only with people who are displaying signs of drunk driving. i don't think i am just acting based on emotions alone - i mean, the person i lost was stupidly driving drunk and killed herself and her girlfriend. it's not like it was some random drunk. link

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#18)
    by cp on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:36:41 AM EST
    sorry boys & girls, but you are all wrong, with respect to the issue of "impairment". whether you have one drink, or a dozen, weigh in at 250 or a spritely 110, you are impaired, period. now, that isn't to say you are falling down drunk, but your vision, judgement and reaction time is most assuredly impaired. you are not operating at 100%. this is a medical fact. don't take my word for it, check with the ama. whether your impaired is better than someone else's 100% is another issue entirely. btw, in va, we have what's known as "the open bottle" law. drinking while driving is illegal here, regardless of larry's pronouncement to the contrary. further, if you have an opened container of alcohol in the front seat, that is considered prima facie evidence of drinking, and is sufficient to get you arrested. interestingly, this law only came into existence a few years ago. prior to that, va was the wild, wild west with regards to drinking and driving. the most vocal opposition to this law was not, as you might reasonably expect, from restaurants, bars or other purveyors of beverages, but from the members of the legislature itself. turns out, they were incensed at the thought of not being able to drive around richmond, whilst swilling a bottle of whiskey, and running people over. the nerve!

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#19)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:50:58 AM EST
    cp- “sorry boys & girls, but you are all wrong, with respect to the issue of "impairment". whether you have one drink, or a dozen, weigh in at 250 or a spritely 110, you are impaired, period.” I refer you to my earlier post. “I may drive better at 0.1 than my elderly neighbor does at her best. … There will be folks who will drive well at 0.1 and folks that drive poor at 0.05.” Impairment was a given, the question is how impaired is too impaired.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#20)
    by cp on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 12:23:17 PM EST
    "Impairment was a given, the question is how impaired is too impaired." frankly, any impaired is too impaired. when it comes to piloting a 2 or 4 thousand pound hunk of metal, flying along at 60 or 70 miles per hour, you don't have the luxury of time to make life or death decisions. for the average driver, 35 mph requires quick reflexes. oh, for the record, i am also in favor of taking away licenses from those who are unable, due to the infirmaties of age, to demonstrate minimum driving competency. interestingly, the faa and icc take a rather dim view of pilots and truck drivers flying or driving, within 8 eight hours of their last drink. at minimum, they can lose their license, at maximum, cause a great deal of death and destruction. the average vehicle probably can't cause as much damage as the average 747, or tractor trailor, but why take the chance?

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    California Driver Handbook - Actions Resulting in Loss of License DRUGS AND DRIVING Much of what has been said about alcohol also applies to drugs. The state’s drunk driving law is also a drug driving law. It refers to “driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.” If an officer suspects that you are under the influence of drugs, the officer can require that you take a blood or urine test. Persons who refuse these tests are subject to longer license suspensions and revocations. The use of any drug (and the law does not distinguish between prescription, over-the-counter, or illegal drugs) which impairs your driving is illegal. Many medicines can affect the way one drives. Alcohol can enhance some of the dangerous side effects of many drugs, even those that are prescribed by your physician or purchased over the counter. Check with your physician or pharmacist if you are not sure you should drive after taking any medication. Read the warning label. link

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 12:48:51 PM EST
    Sorry, I meant to add some comments to the above before I posted. Anyway, I've lost a half-dozen or so friends due to them or others driving impaired on drugs and/or alcahol. In my youth I, and everyone else in my car and other cars, miraculously escaped permanant harm from my stupid drug and/or alcahol impaired actions behind the wheel. Now that I'm older, I've been able to be honest with myself and face up to the truth that despite what any law says, driving impaired will contribute to accidents and to all the easily avoidable horror that they cause. I don't rationalize the danger of choosing to drive impaired anymore. I think it's called maturity.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 01:18:28 PM EST
    well, i don't neccessarily think that people who drink and drive are selfish jerks or whatever. i just think people convince themselves that they're fine. i had a friend who was convinced he drove better stoned (as in, after smoking marijuana) than he did sober. the problem was, he couldn't view himself or his actions from outside his own viewpoint. the truth was, he drove much slower stoned (not in a good way) and he tended to be pretty laissez faire about street signs and stop lights. no, he's not dead - but he did wreck two cars before he decided that riding the bus or taking a cab stoned was much more fun anyway. i have never met an intoxicated person who didn't assure me that they were 'fine to drive home'. i have even had an intoxiated person try and convince me to let them drive my car, despite my sober state and status as the designated driver. many studies have shown that even small amounts of alcohol effect the brain. some uk study i found through google said that people with a .08 bac were 7 times more likely to have a car accident. so, yeah, sorry - i support locking your butt in jail if you drink and drive. even if i don't think you're a jerk.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    correction... no necessarily a jerk. morst people who drive drunk are being selfish and irresponsible and stupid. some people are just are unable to realize that they are impaired. sorry, had to clarify that.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#25)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    “frankly, any impaired is too impaired.” The absurdity of zero tolerance. So, there is some minimum standard for safe driving. I mean, we have some objective criteria for deciding when a person can or cannot drive do to age or physical impairments. In your zero tolerance world a physically impaired person that just meets this minimum criteria is acceptable to drive. However, even after a single drink, well above the minimum standard, I would be subject to fines and imprisonment. Again, absurd.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 01:25:43 PM EST
    We all agree no one should drive "impaired". I'm more afraid of the lady doing her make-up in the rearview than a guy with two drinks in him, but that's neither here or there. Bottom line though, continually lowering the BAC limit will not stop drunk driving, but it will drag many people through the legal system who were never a threat to anybody.
    when it comes to piloting a 2 or 4 thousand pound hunk of metal, flying along at 60 or 70 miles per hour
    One could argue this is an inherently unsafe activity, impaired or not. The overcrowding of the roadways contributes to accidents as well, and the vast majority of accidents don't involve drink or drugs.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 01:42:37 PM EST
    I sorta miss my old bar days t-shirt: DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers. Met a lot of drunk chicks with that. -C

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 04:05:58 PM EST
    We all agree no one should drive "impaired"...Bottom line though, continually lowering the BAC limit will drag many people through the legal system who were never a threat to anybody. ...kdog kdog wtf First you say no one should drive impaired. Then you say that those who are driving impaired shouldn't be arrested for it because they weren't a threat to anybody. Isn't the reason no one should drive impaired is exactly that, that they are a threat?

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 04:49:08 PM EST
    kdog is saying that; a) not all people who drink are impaired, or too impaired to drive. b) it is against the law right now to drink and drive, regardless of how impaired you are. c) because kdog does not wish to break the law, kdog will not drink and drive at this time. d) however, if the law were to change, kdog would drink and drive only if he felt he was not too impaired to do so. i have a sneaking suspicion that he feels that preventative law like this is an infringement on his rights. however, i personally think the last person who is capable of deciding whether or not they are too impaired to drive is the person drinking. and i think that, much like pilots and truck drivers (as cp pointed out), people who operate cars and trucks etc. should be free of alcohol. therefore, i am grateful that kdog does not drink and drive and hopeful that the law will not change (either to get harsher or more lenient). kdog; i generally agree with much of what you have to say. but in the instance, we are definitely on opposite sides of the table.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 06:20:58 PM EST
    you sure they were chicks, cliff?

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:57:40 AM EST
    ricky - Well, I almost got fooled once at a bar in San Jose but a bartender warned before my Crying Game moment. S/he sure could dance tho. -C

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:45:59 AM EST
    No worries kelite, I do see your point. I was in a bad wreck once caused by a sober driver, so I tend to see all the "impairments" as kind of equal, drink, drugs, cellphones, playing with the radio, etc. If I knew someone killed by a drunk maybe I'd feel differently. You pretty much summed up my thoughts, driving drunk is illegal and should be, but lowering the BAC limit (in my opinion) will not prevent drunk driving deaths, only drag more people through the system who weren't a threat to anybody. I also do realize this opinion isn't popular, but it's how I feel. You will never be able to take the danger out of driving through passing new laws.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:14:52 AM EST
    i can agree that lowering the bac limit will do little to nothing to solve anything. i think the biggest issue is the quotas - take those away and let the cops get actual criminals, not just padding for their reports.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:52:26 AM EST
    kdog OK, OK. I think I get it now. You are against driving "impaired," per se, but feel that BAC is an unfair measure of impairment. I don't agree, but what else is new. FWIW, I also don't want BAC levels to come down any further. Got another question for you, do you feel smoking dope impairs your driving?

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:57:12 PM EST
    frankly, any impaired is too impaired. Then we might as well just ban driving and be done with it. Have you taken a narcotic painkiller in the last day or two because of severe back pain? Then you are "impaired," and by cp's logic, therefore "too impaired" to drive. Did you avoid taking that narcotic painkiller just so you could drive "unimpaired?" No dice - you are now "impaired" by the severe pain you are experiencing, and so are still "too impaired" to drive in cp's judgement. Are you driving at night? Then unless you have the genetically-enhanced vision of a cat, you are "impaired" and therefore "too impaired" to drive, headlights notwithstanding. Also, none of us should be allowed to drive in the rain, to say nothing of snow or ice. I suppose by the prinicple of ironic reciprocity, though, cp has no problem with talking on a cell phone while driving. And BTW, the fact that the FAA and/or ICC adopt extreme positions vis-a-vis drinking and driving doesn't make those positions correct. This is just another argument from authority, a la "God must exist because so many people believe in Him," and it's just as illogical. Smarter trolls, please.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    Smarter trolls, please. huh? so you think we should not have any drunk driving laws? or you think we should only prosecute drunk drivers after they've had accidents or killed people? or do you think the law should stay as it is? or what? what do you think the law should look like? should there even be any dui laws? what do you think is fair?? 'cause trashing someone else's opinion while not discussing your own views or ideas at all is something trolls do.

    Re: Say Hello to the DUIBlog (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 09:05:09 PM EST
    DUI laws are nothing more than a big money game. Anyone caught in this trap should help to organize this mass of people in order to gain power and effect change to these laws. There is power in the masses, and there are a mass of people who are being unconstitutionally penalized as a result of DUI arrests based on temperance motivated BAC levels and greedy state and legal entities.

    Say Hello to the DUIBlog | 36 comments (36 topical)