The main problem with “drunk” driving laws is you don’t have to be drunk to run afoul of them. You only need to have had something (alcoholic) to drink. There is an important difference there.
The problem is that it’s more difficult to pin the “drunk” driving tail on the donkey whose driving doesn’t indicate he’s drunk. The question naturally forms: If the driver isn’t driving in such a way as to suspect he’s drunk then why punish him as if he were? The answer is as simple as it is vicious: Because if not, then people who drink and drive (but who aren’t drunk) would “get away” with it.
You may at this point discern the underlying Puritanical motive – which is not to assure the public is protected from drunk drivers. If it were, efforts would focus on drunk drivers.
It is to persecute anyone who has had anything at all to drink before driving. Or even nothing at all. An empty can is enough, if you’re not of legal drinking age.
But why should that – and that alone – warrant punishing someone for “drunk” driving? See that last about the Puritanical motive, which is expressed secularly these days by control freaks just as ardent as the Prohibitionist Puritans were a century ago. The latter railed against dissolution – and blamed alcohol for it. It did not matter that most people who drank alcohol were not dissolute.
Then – as now – one size fits all.
It being much easier for the authorities to presume everyone is guilty of something than for the authorities to be obliged to presume everyone is innocent until someone has given specific reason to think they – individually – might be guilty of something.
Now, it is true that some people become terrible drivers after they have been drinking even a little alcohol. But this is chiefly because they are already terrible drivers. A little alcohol makes them worse, certainly But it does not mean everyone is worse when they have ingested a little alcohol. 
To understand this better, think about a person who hasn’t got a lot of stamina. Climbing a couple of flights of stairs can be a challenge for such a person. It is not a fault, but it is a fact. On the other hand, an athletic person can easily bound up a couple of flights of stairs without much effort. Should stairs be banned for all because there are some people who have difficulty walking up a couple flights? More finely, should the person who has no trouble bounding up a couple of flights of stairs be punished if he uses the stairs rather than waits for the elevator?
Sense says no. If by sense we mean that which is reasonable. That which is justified, according to the facts.
“Drunk” driving laws fall very short of reasonable. The best evidence for this assertion being the fact that it is not required to produce any suspicion let alone proof that the accused’s driving suggested drunkenness (i.e., impairment) beyond an accusation that the person may have been drinking.
In fact – to put a very sharp point on it – the accused’s driving may have been excellent in every quantifiable way and admitted to be in court, but if the accused’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was measured as being some entirely arbitrary number (it is currently .05 in many states where it used to be 0.08 and before that was .10) then he will be convicted of “drunk” driving.
The injustice of this ought to be obvious, but we live in blinkered times. They are similar to the time when it was a “crime” to be caught drinking, period. No driving involved. It is much the same now as then in that you can also be arrested for “drunk” driving when you are parked – and asleep, in the back seat. Once again, because it is too much trouble for the cops to ascertain – to have to prove – that the individual was drunk and had been driving. It is sufficient that he had been drinking – and never mind that he is trying to sleep it off in the backseat.
Some – mostly “conservative” types, who seem to have a cognitive dissonance problem – will draw themselves up and say it’s all necessary because absent the severest consequences for drinking and driving – even if it’s just a drink and your driving is fine – drunks would have a free pass.
That this is nonsense ought to be obvious.
In the first place, because if their driving indicates drunkenness, then that would be obvious and the first cop who saw would pull that driver over. Not every driver. This is reasonable, as not being in control of your vehicle constitutes an objective measure of incapacity (whether as a result of drinking or for some other reason).
It is not reasonable to stop every single driver.
In the second, because anyone who actually does lose control and causes what isn’t an “accident” would obviously have been the cause and for that reason can be held responsible for his actions. That, too, is reasonable. Because it is just.
Drunk drivers – the actually drunk ones – would not get a free pass. No nore so than rapists or murderers or thieves (excepting th government) do. But those who’ve merely had a drink would not have to worry about being arrested for what isn’t “drunk” driving, except in the most absurd, arbitrary and legalistic sense. For the same reason we don’t – yet – presume everyone is a murderer or rapist until they prove they are not.
“Conservatives” were once people who understood that it was better to err on the side of innocence than to presume guilt. But that was a long time ago. They are all for presuming everyone’s a “terrorist” – especially anyone who isn’t utterly deferential to the government’s enforcer class.
The Puritans of the Left-side persuasion are just as hysteric and jihadi when it comes to their presumptions; anyone who remembers what it was like during the “COVID” era remembers.
Maybe one day, respect for the ancient liberties will be recovered.
But it’s probably going to be a long time until then.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
I think it’s absurd that we have such a thing as dry counties in this country. If a cop decides to pull you over for whatever reason and see any alcoholic beverage in your car even if it’s unopened, they will steal your drinks and claim that you are bootlegging. And we call America the land of the free?
RE: “If a cop decides to pull you over for whatever reason and see any alcoholic beverage in your car even if it’s unopened”
Don’t forget/not know: if you have empty cans/bottles, they’ll try and bust you just the same as if they were full. Even if, they have mold on them from 2 months ago. YMMV?
…Land of the flea.
….Home of the slave.
Our overlords – and, their minions – truly are, bastards.
‘One bastard goes in, another comes out!’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09-GbpOd9T4
Did y’all know there’s such a thing as ‘super extreme DUI’? Yes, its true! I read it in the Lügenpresse:
Well that’s just bananas.
A driver was stopped for going too slow on State Route 87 last week and when he couldn’t complete a field sobriety test, reportedly told officers to give him a DUI. Officers later found 22 bottles of “99 Bananas” alcoholic shooters in the vehicle.
The stop happened on Jan. 23 at about 3:30 p.m. after dispatchers received a call reporting a hazardous driver traveling northbound on Arizona 188 near Jake’s Corner.
According to authorities, the vehicle turned onto Arizona 87 and was located by Arizona Highway Patrol state troopers. Troopers observed the vehicle traveling approximately 45 mph in a posted 65 mph zone. The vehicle was unable to maintain its lane and was observed swerving from side to side and into the emergency shoulder.
When troopers contacted the driver, he reportedly told them he had consumed alcohol. Troopers observed multiple signs of impairment. The driver was removed from the vehicle and field sobriety tests were conducted. During the investigation, troopers observed several indicators of impairment and determined the driver was unable to saaaaafely complete the tests. The driver told troopers, “I can’t do that, give me the DUI.”
The driver was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. A preliminary breath test showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.375. Troopers also learned the driver’s license had been suspended the previous month following a prior DUI arrest.
During an inventory of the vehicle, troopers found 22 bottles of “99 Bananas” alcoholic shooters, along with multiple open and partially consumed alcoholic beverage containers. Troopers also located six prescription medications, each of which warned against consuming alcohol or operating a vehicle.
The driver was booked into the Gila County Jail on charges of aggravated DUI, super extreme DUI, open container and disorderly conduct.
https://tinyurl.com/4n64hfh9
* takes another toke of liquid resin and blows a perfect smoke ring *
Defendant: “I would remind this court that super extremism in the pursuit of inebriation is no vice.”
That story reads like the Babylon Bee. 99 bananas, lol. Going too slow on Hwy 87 is a virtue in winter. Been on it where the visibility was less than ten feet and 25 MPH was all I could safely drive. No one passed me and I saw cars in the snowbanks. From Flag to Payson, what used to take an hour now takes all day. Perhaps he was watching for elk or just recently boosted.
That Indian could hold his liquor!
Anybody else notice the trend of anti-alcohol stories getting pushed by the medical world, the “Dry January” push, the “No Safe level of Drinking” nonsense and of course the ever present “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” PSAs. (Ignore those healthy “Blue Zone” folks who drink every day. Honestly wonder if some of this is coming from The current administration, given the hostility to alcohol displayed by the President, who NEVER drinks?
Back the logic up a bit.
Why is drunk driving any more of a crime than speeding or pulling a California stop? Whose rights have been infringed? Who has been harmed?
“Sobriety” checkpoints are obviously NOT designed to catch drunk drivers. They only call them “sobriety/DUI” checkpoints, in order to get the cocksucker-atives (and everyone else) to agree to otherwise unwarranted, UNCONSTITUTIONAL searches.
It’s not about drunk driving. I grabbed some numbers in my state off the internet. There’s no way cops are not aware of these.
Labor Day Weekend 2024 (4 days): State police made 514 DUI arrests, but issued 24,865 “other citations,” which include speeding, seatbelt, and child seat violations.
Independence Day Weekend 2024 (5 days): State police made 556 DUI arrests, while issuing 28,429 citations, including 7,975 for speeding, 876 for seat belts, and 225 for child seats.
That averages about 50:1
Checkpoints Efficiency: Studies on specific checkpoints have shown rates where only 1 out of every 161 drivers stopped was arrested for DUI.
Taking Independence day, that means 89,516 drivers were stopped for no reason other than driving on a certain road at a certain time.
That’s a lot of independence.
“Independence Day” is a sick joke at this point, and probably has been for a long time. It’s long past the point where ordinary citizens need to BOYCOTT this now fake “holiday” do not spent any money, do not attend any parades or fireworks displays, and not give the AGWs any opportunity to collect revenue. If you display a flag, only display it upside down or better yet fly the “Jolly Roger” instead.
Fuck the “250” celebrations they are suddenly promoting all over the place, do not attend any sporting events, do not stand for the “anthem” (Colin Kapernick was not wrong about that) and if they ask you to salute, flip them the bird.
The irony is: drunk driving laws don’t even get incompetent (or impaired drivers) off the road.
Former friend of my brother. Intelligent, smart guy. Should be on top of the world. However he is an addict, alcohol just one of the things, will likely never get it under control for good. Multiple drunk driving arrests (and a few convictions) in Illinois. About to lose even the ability to only drive back and forth to work (somehow functions enough to stay employed somehow). Even had an interlock on his vehicle, but he is a charmer that can get others to blow on it to start the car when he is too “drunk”. This is a few decades ago, before connected state computer systems too.
Moves to Indiana, tells them he has never had a drivers license ever. They believe him and give him a clean license. So he is “legal” again for a bit, until he gets another DUI or two, I don’t remember. It took Indiana a while to figure out he lied about never having a drivers license. By that time he rolled his pickup truck and it ended up in a lake. Somehow he gets out and flees. Doesn’t even remember what happened. A few days later his truck is found in the lake. Of course the police have no idea if he is in the lake or not. Divers sent out to look for him in the lake. Wasted thousands of tax dollars. They didn’t think to just go to his address and see if he was home……
So he is one of the reasons they use to bring in the surveillance state. He is “gaming” the system they claim. No, he is just smarter, even as a drunk, than anyone working in government. So instead of dealing with him, nope, they punish everybody.
He lives in Michigan now, and I imagine he still drives. No, he doesn’t have a license and will likely never be able to drive legally again, but yeah, they can only stop him when he is in jail. He isn’t in jail very often, because he has young children…… Plays them like a fiddle.
The system is the problem, not the solution.
>In fact – to put a very sharp point on it – the accused’s driving may have been excellent in every quantifiable way and admitted to be in court, but if the accused’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was measured as being some entirely arbitrary number (it is currently .05 in many states where it used to be 0.08 and before that was .10) then he will be convicted of “drunk” driving.
I got kicked off a jury once, for pointing this out. Empaneled, I responded honestly to the judge’s inquiry. Deputy public prosecutor exercised peremptory challenge.
My question: If we are required to vote the way you tell us, why have a jury at all?
I conclude that, at least in this case, “trial by jury” is a farce. JMO.
You have more power as a juror than you realize. Keep your opinion on judging the law itself to yourself. Juries have more power than most people realize. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION ON A JURY. You will never be told this, but juries DO have the absolute right to judge the law itself.
The “key” is, you cannot tell other jurors or the judge of your intentions. You may be found in contempt of court for attempting to “judge the law” itself.
The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is one such organization that can help
Yes, I learned that after the fact.
I was very naive at the time, and personally inclined to be open and forthcoming with everyone I meet. One skill I have taught myself, however, is how to engage in “zero disclosure” conversation at length, without the other party even realizing what I am doing. It can be very useful in certain situations, the specifics of which I leave to your imagination.
Long conversations with lots of platitudes can be “semantically null”. This is a very useful skill to cultivate.
Absolutely true anarchyst,
Jury nullification is your right despite what the judge says. Key is as you mentioned to keep it quiet until you actually get on the jury. Been on jury duty a few times but never got chosen; too bad cause I was hoping to get on a drug case so I could declare the defendant not guilty.
The time I almost ended up on a jury, they made us watch a propaganda film made by the ABA. The film said that we would have to swear under oath that we would only be allowed to judge the facts of the case, not the law itself.
The actual oath only required us to uphold the US and State constitutions.
“The actual oath only required us to uphold the US and State constitutions.”
Which would necessitate finding against the “law” since the vast majority of them are in denial or defiance of the constitution(s). Every gun control law, most driving laws, most of every thing they do assume this is a god damned democracy, and they can make any law with a vote.
Recently in Tennessee, close to 500 drivers were arrested for DUI despite having NO alcohol in their systems. They were ground up by the system until the scam was exposed.
The piggies thought that they had a good thing going until they got caught. Of course, “qualified immunity” will see to it that none of them are punished; their communities paying out from taxpayer coffers.
How do we get back at such criminality? Abolish immunity for ALL public officials…
“How do we get back at such criminality? Abolish immunity for ALL public officials…”
That’ll only happen, when the boots finally crush the bootlickers’ tongues.
Here in WA the current legislature session will certainly pass the .05 limit.
Once again “do something” overrides “enforce the existing law/remove the truly dangerous”. All this will accomplish is a bigger money grab from the working tax paying stiffs. Meanwhile the vibrant crew from other lands literally gets away with murder on the highways here. Multiple DUIs, then they kill someone on DUI three and get 42 MONTHS in prison ‘cause can’t be too harsh on the minority folks. (Neighbors niece the victim). Manager at work rear ended a stalled car on the freeway, totally drunk plus pot, empty booze bottle on the floor. Killed four, only a DUI penalty. Yep, “person of color” plus a good lawyer and that was that.
A .05 or .08 line in the sand makes absolutely no difference when the truly irresponsible are not held accountable then harshly punished. Frankly most deserve a long drop via rope.
Since we are in this mess- I’m no lawyer but I was a cop, I will say the best course of action I would do is to respectfully decline ALL sobriety tests on the roadside and talk minimally, and keep movements to a minimum. They will order you out of the car so just stand and do nothing. Or sit on the curb and decline any vehicle searches. Getting you out of the vehicle is so that you can put on a show for the camera. They want to see you sway, trip, hold the car to support yourself, slur your speech, ect. They try to get reasonable suspicion to arrest you and take you to the station for the official breathalyzer. If you never give them a show, they most likely wont arrest you since a DUI lawyer will get it thrown out, and they risk a false arrest suit. We actually stopped a DUI lawyer and this is exactly what he did when he was found randomly stopped on the road slanted for no reason at night. I could smell alcohol on his breath too, but nothing could be proved on camera and he admitted nothing. The solution (since he was a local in the town) was to give him a lift home, keep his keys for 12 hours, and legally park his car. He found this acceptable. I’ve seen taxis or friends/relatives called to pick up apparently impaired people who declined or could not be tested roadside due to age/language/health barriers. And some people just dont have good balance. I could barely administer those tests, I had to practice a bunch…which proves the BS. Why do I need to practice this to not trip or sway or mess it up as a relatively young athletic male? People in the police academy would have thought I was slightly impaired except they had been watching me for 11 hours already through the training and knew I took nothing.
“Maybe one day, respect for the ancient liberties will be recovered”
You know as well as I do that things will only get more controlling in the future. The only thing that will get us back to ground zero would be an all out catastrophe like a nuclear war or a meteor strike. These events would set us free of government control until government gets a chance to re-organize itself.
That’s true, Euro –
Probably not in my lifetime. But maybe at some time in the future. I feel a debt to futurity to encourage that time, because generations prior to my existence did the same for me.
Remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGO-SldLrNA
I feel the pain, but also recall “the prime directive”.
I’ll see your Shatner and raise you a Mustaine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVhJy-CR64Q
Tell me something. It’s still We the People…… rrrrright?
Reposting my comment from another thread:
MADD is an evil organization. From the absurd “legal drinking age” to the ever decreasing “legal limits” to “you papers please” “sobriety” checkpoints they have been leading the charge to the Police State, including wanting to police what you do in your own home using “drunk driving” as an excuse. I despise these nanny state Kens and Karens with every fiber of my being.
Can we please load them all into a giant Thunderdome along with AIPAC, PETA, PNAC, ADL (along with endless others). Many enter – NO ONE leaves. Shooting them straight into the sun works too.
I will add this: “Liquor Control Boards” and there police have always been the leading edge of the Police State. They endlessly intimidate mom and pop restaurants and bars, particularly if it it is near a college, they have ZERO respect for private property and will forcibly enter a house where they suspect “underage” drinking is going on and force breathalyzers on alleged “underage” drinkers (5th amendment rights go right out the window there). Prohibition never really ended they are just using different methods.
The US has never in any meaningful way been a “free” country and slowly but sure there are a few more people waking up to the reality it has always been a lie.
Something we agree on. Well said.
Though shooting them into the sun would be energy intensive, I’d dip ‘em in gravy train and feed ‘em to a pack of starving chihuahuas.
And apologies to the poor chihuahuas…
They’ necessarily have to be starving… and the gravy train should help with the bitter taste.
All the gravy, butter, and seasoning will never help the bitter after taste of that meal.
Even its founder, Candi Lightener, disavowed it. FWIW, she was also busted for DUI.
Me, I’m a proud member of DAMM – Drunks Against MADD Mothers.
Hi Douglas,
Yup. The whole idea of presumptive impairment based on a single, dumbed-down standard that is tangential to the issue of functional impairment is obnoxious in the extreme. Mike Tyson at 60 is still a man who can out-fight probably 99 percent of 25-year-old non-professional boxers. Just the same, a driver who is skilled and competent is still a much more competent driver with a few beers in him than a sober, but marginally skilled driver. This is just common sense. Why would any reasonable person care whether a man has been “drinking” if his driving cannot be faulted?
Of course, common sense is no longer wanted.
To further amplify your argument, Mr. Tyson would not only easily defeat most 25 y.o. young men, fit and presumably in their physical prime, but even quite a few boxers about that age. He simply has superlative instincts and skills. I recall some years ago Formula One legend Jackie Stewart taking a stock car (I believe it was a Plymouth Roadrunner) around at Darlington, SC, and it was as if he’d grown up running moonshine past the “Revenooers!” There always will be folks who can handle machinery and vehicles even substantially impaired. One of the guys in my Dad’s old B-47 Squadron, from way back when I was “borned”, stationed at then-Lake Charles AFB, LA, kept a fifth of “Jack” in his kit bag when on “Alert”. As he told my Dad, “Lee…by the time we get to the target, I’m gonna be the happiest sonofabitch left alive on Earth!” I believe this was the same pilot that, upon receiving a promotion that would have him mostly “flying a desk”, Stateside, buzzed the airfield at Ton Son Nhut at 100 feet…UPSIDE DOWN, as he flew in for his “hose down”. Air Force pilots and Marine/Navy Aviators know what that’s about.
While I might agree that an arbitrary BAC level doesn’t necessarily prove “impairment”, it’s the only way that I know of that the Law can impartially enforce against the crime of driving while intoxicated. Of course, much of what folks have been propagandized to believe is the “science” of investigating Drunk Driving isn’t “scientific” at all. That includes the so-called “Field Sobriety” tests, which are not medically valid as tests of impairment at all! Given that there are groups of drivers that couldn’t reasonably pass them but that are still quite capable of operating their vehicles, never mind that often they’re administered disingenuously (i.e., no matter how well you objectively perform, the officer will “fail” you) and/or incompetently, any attorney that practices DUI cases will advise his clients to absolutely refuse to perform them, no matter how “huffy” or angry the officer gets.
What happened to no victim no crime
Hi Angelo,
That concept – no victim/no crime – was an ancient anglo-saxon concept that’s been replaced by Talmudic legalism. The latter defines as actionable “offending” whatever “the law” is – simply because it is “the law.” It is irrelevant – under Talmudism/legalism – whether any harm has been caused. It is not necessary to produce a victim. It is only necessary to establish that “the law” was broken.
Indeed, this is why the most and only important difference of Christianity vs Judaism, Islam, etc., is the concept of forgiveness. Which has been he secret weapon which made western civilization great, and why its now failing everywhere. Small injuries are simply forgiven, and vengeance belongs only to the lord.
Christianity has been every bit as puritanical and legalistic as Judaism and Islam so give me a break. CHRISTIANS were the ones who brought and enforced Prohibition on the US, laws that have only been instituted by Islamic theocracies elsewhere in the world. And the “forgiveness” you extol has always been conditional on the individual groveling before the the religious authorities for his/her “sins”, and often given to those who DON’T deserve it but they said the right “magic words”.
Christian apologetics is so tiring.
People CLAIMING to be Christian, but by their actions you know who they really follow. All religions have something to teach us, but all religions are run by humans with all their foibles. The search for divine truth is what matters.
And Christ didn’t demand groveling before earthly authorities. Only asking before God.
A certain gender was all in for prohibition, once they were allowed to exercise demonicratic “rights”.
Karen’s are going to Karen.
Any fool can write a rule an another fool will follow it. Thoreau
Always wonder where MADD got all their funding. Guessing big bro.
Organized religion in general tends to be…problematic. It’s dumbed down, there’s a great deal of pressure to conform, and the toxic/controlling/superficial elements seem to float to the top while the deeper & more important messages get lost. It’s not always all bad…there is something to be said for things like community…but it is by no means always good, either.
More & more as I get older I’ve found myself leaving it behind. I’ll think my own thoughts at home, thanks.
Religion at least used to be an important counterbalance to the power of the State…lately it has become craven & servile. No balls.
CHRISTIANS were the ones who brought and enforced Prohibition on the US
Baptists and Bootleggers, as the book argues.
But JP Morgan has the right of it. “A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason.”
The good reason was the public demand. The real one was just as today, the gov was run by controligarchs.
The Cons in Congress have a solution for all this! Kill switches in all new vehicles, and as of 2027 it would seem? Said bill has passed the House. My one rep did not vote for it. Someone who deems your driving “unsafe” can now brick your vehicle right where you are, and so what if you are in BFE at -40 below in the dead of Winter? Or cause an accident when you suddenly are stopped. You were not driving sssssaaaaafely, and that is all that matters. You want to be saaaaafe, don’t you??
Good point. In cold country, running the engine in your car is a survival strategy. Will the interlock kill innocent people trying to keep from freezing to death? I’ll bet it happens.
Rep Debbie Dingell’s infamous Section 24220 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law mandated that NHTSA issue a final rule by November 15, 2024, requiring passive alcohol sensors and a kill switch. It didn’t happen. Because as Rep Thomas Massie pointed out last week on the House floor, the technology doesn’t exist.
Former NHTSA administrator Ann Carlson, of all people, explained why: Carlson said there were close to one billion separate daily driving journeys in the United States. “If it’s 99.9% accurate, you could have a million false positives,” Carlson said. “Those false positives could be somebody trying to get to the hospital for an emergency.”
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-agency-opens-push-mandate-anti-drunk-driving-technology-2023-12-12/
Well, it’s not 99.9% accurate. Trying to sense an unknown concentration of alcohol vapor at an unknown distance, and then converting it into an estimated blood alcohol content at an unknown ratio after gaseous diffusion, is NEVER going to be even 90 percent accurate, let alone 99.9% accurate which is still grossly unacceptable with a million false positives a day.
Clowngress might as well seek to repeal the tides. Nature remains unmoved by their feeble harangues, as their rum-fueled orations to an empty chamber echo impotently into the night.
They cannot repeal the tides, but will gladly imprison and kill people for observing them. Lawyer laws only work on people and their things.
535 King Canutes. If all they did was foolishly command the Sea to retreat.
It looks like Massie beat us to the punch…
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2026/01/no_author/us-house-of-representatives-refuses-to-kill-the-automobile-kill-switch-mandate/
Well…we are screwed up here I suppose. Some stretches of road driving like you are in a game of Frogger saves your struts and shocks from the newest pot holes and frost heaves from the long Winter. Never mind the moose. Just last evening someone hit a moose out in BFE. Marks still on the road. Gee…do you want to swerve and avoid the moose and get your vehicle bricked, or hit the moose and pray you don’t end up paralyzed or dead?
I guaran-damn-tee you that will get hacked, pronto, and used by rapists to brick the vehicles of comely white girls.
I would only quibble with the title, there is nothing “silly” about something so satanically evil. And now that the witch hunt has destroyed American small town bar/saloon culture, they’re branching out to “impaired” driving, because drugs. And since drugs aren’t as detectable, they’re demanding and usurping more tyrannical powers. A pox on them all.
Point taken, Ernie – you’re absolutely right. Evil is never silly. It is just evil.
In my neck of Dixie, the po po set up “checkpoints” which are publicized well in advance. Any self-respecting sot would know to avoid them.
Dui should only apply if the person is dangerous running over things going in other lanes not by some made up number I don’t even drink so why should I be subject to DUI stops DUI checks are unconstitutional must have probable cause of a crime to stop someone and it’s all about who you are if your a favorite of government 50 DUI is ok but is your not liked straight to jail.
There’s a cop around here a real bitch got a DUI out of state off duty with county cop car and nothing even happened to that bitch anyone else straight to jail.
There should be no distinction for DUI. If you’re driving in way that is a danger to other motorists or pedestrians or roadside buildings that is the offense (as it where). How does it matter why?
They fall into the same arbitrary nature as hate crime laws. They are modifiers to the real crime. If you kill someone because he or she is gay how is that worse than if it’s just over $50 the guy owes you? It makes some people more equal than others.
So it is with DUI. If you’re exhausted and kill someone you will get a lesser sentence than if you’ve had a drink. How does that matter? If my child was killed by someone who was just fumbling with their radio I’d want the same punishment as if it was DUI or any other reason, vehicle-related or not.
The actual crime is homicide, assault, theft, property damage. The extenuating circumstances are where favors are done to protect or punish people who have special friends or the better lobbyist.
But with DUI it’s more than just politics, it’s money. There isn’t really the same Puritanical impulse on drinking but the money and job security it generates for the police and government is too lucrative. Same with drugs and tobacco. They give lip service to Just Say No but if people really did kick their vices the whole “justice” system would collapse. They’d have to do real work and would only need 10% of them to do it.
Well-said, Valorie!
What matters – what is objective – is whether harm was caused. If it has, then it is self-evident the cause of harm must be held responsible. But f no harm has been caused, how can it be coherently spoken of to hold the not-cause of any harm “responsible”?
A lot of people steal an easy living off DUI laws. Average of $13K out of pocket. That includes installation of an ignition interlock, Alcohol “education,” high risk insurance. Welfare for lawyers too, since most of these cases are boilerplate plea-bargains.
https://noduicolorado.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/cost-of-dui_fact-sheet_lo.pdf
The actual harm caused by “drunk” drivers BECAUSE they were drunk is miniscule in the aggregate. Sure, someone at a 2.5 bac runs over kids at a bus stop (don’t get me started on mandatory attendance laws for GovCo minimum security indoctrination camps) at heads explode with demands for a “crackdown”. At that point all GovCo tyrants in waiting cream their jeans.
This is just an adjunct to Vice Laws in general which are nothing more than Criminal Justice [sic] System Full Employment Bills. It’s a jobs program for the otherwise unemployable. “Don’t be a Thug. Here’s a gun and a badge. Now you’re a Law EnFORCEment Officer.”
Amen, Mark –
True story – which I have told before: Back in the ’90s, I attended Bob Bondurant’s school. This was an “insider” event held for car journalists, so we got to hang out with Bob after class. Bob enjoyed a drink or two. I saw him enjoy a drink or two. Bob was a far better – safer – driver with some drinks in him than nine out of ten people are sober. Just as I am a far better driver than my sober ex mother-in-law. She was a nice lady but a terrible driver. Yet she could cause multiple accidents and just get tickets. But I would get arrested – without having caused any accidents – if I “blew” a certain arbitrary BAC number at a “checkpoint.”
About 15 years ago the State of NC put out a press release. In it they stated the previous year’s traffic fatalities included 24% that “involved alcohol”. “Involved alcohol” means that ANYONE involved in the fatality had a measurable amount of alcohol in their system. It didn’t have to be the driver at-fault. ANYONE. It certainly didn’t mean the driver had a BAC above the arbitrary limit set for being “drunk”.
It also means that 76% of fatalities involve NO alcohol.
So, if over 3/4 of deaths are caused by sober drivers who is to say that the driver who had a measurable amount would not have made the same mistake had they been sober?
The real problem is that people just can’t drive. GovCo teaches, in the GovCo schools, 90+% how to drive and certifies, at the DMV, 100% if drivers that they CAN drive. Then 50% of new drivers have a crash in their first year of driving and the blame goes on them…not the GovCo lackies that taught and “certified” them.
F-GovCo.
Amen, Mark –
A competent driver with a couple of beers in him is still a better – safer – driver – than an incompetent driver who has had no beers at all. This is so obvious yet so many refuse to admit it’s true. It is incompetent drivers who are the cause of most “accidents.” Not people who’ve had a bit to drink.
I hear you, Eric.
I once hitched a ride (long ago) @ ~3AM NB NJ Turnpike with a guy driving an MG Midget. Noticeable alcohol breath odor, but not intoxicated. Turned out he was an SCCA rally racer, and really did know his own car.
He was “doing the ton,” as the Brits say (100 mph) in the #1 lane. Semis in the #2 lane, guardrail to the left of us. It definitely got my attention, but I felt perfectly safe with him at the wheel.
Unlike one or two other hitchhiking situations, where I took the first opportunity to get out of the car, because the driver, though cold sober, was incompetent to the point of being a danger to himself and others. AMF, as the saying goes…
If only former NJ Gov. Corzine had been so lucky. With a stone cold sober State Police driver on April 12, 2007, Corzine was critically injured in a car crash on the Garden State Parkway. The state police vehicle he was in was traveling over 91 mph, and he was not wearing a seat belt. So Fate punished him with severe skeletal injuries. But no, neither he nor the driver got a ticket for their reckless behavior. It’s not illegal when ‘they’ do it.