DUI checkpoint!

[Logan]

I'm all for "freedom over security" but too often it's used (imho) as an excuse to be an ****** (But no one likes talking about that second part).

Oh well, back to brewing

Yeah, unfortunately your right. I'm in college and the majority of the time I hear about privacy over security type talk it is usually in pursuit of covering up some type of illegal activity. But then you get into the entire discussion on whether the laws are justified in the first place... On and on...

 

[Pugilist]

Always some that say the cops take advantage, abuse their power etc. There are VERY good reasons for DUI checkpoints. I think if you are responsible and have nothing else in the car to be worried about, a 2 minute conversation with an officer and being on your way is worth it.

Read a few of these, I suppose its good these drivers didnt get "inconvenienced" or "harassed"?

http://www.duipictures.com/dstory.htm

 

[beala]

I've never really thought about this issue until this thread, but now I have to say I'm pretty convinced DUI checkpoints are a breach of our rights. As others have said, it's no different than any other type of random, unwarranted search, all of which we are explicitly protected from under the constitution. So far, I have not seen an adequate response to this argument. The responses I've read so far:

1) The ends justify the means.
2) Don't drink and drive, just be responsible, etc
3) I know someone who was injured/killed in a drunk driving accident, and you'd change your mind if this happened to you.

My thoughts on these:
1) This is possibly the best response out of the three, but still inadequate. As others have pointed out, this sort of reasoning is a slippery slope. If this can be used to defend DUI checkpoints, why can't it also defend any other type of random search? Should officers be able to search pedestrians at random for illegally concealed weapons? How about a weekly search of a randomly selected group of houses in your city? This type of reasoning could quickly lead us to the police state.
2) This isn't really an argument at all, but maybe what these people are getting at is something alone the lines of "if you don't break the law, then you have nothing to fear." This type of reasoning is obviously fallacious though because it can be used to justify denying us our most basic rights. For example: "no one really needs the right of habeas corpus, because if you don't break the law, you'll never need to use it."
3) Finally, this argument is just an appeal to emotion, lacking any sort of logical basis.

 

[Hopleaf]

"but maybe what these people are getting at is something alone the lines of "if you don't break the law, then you have nothing to fear.""

Not in the least. My point was that it seems that people tend to spout off about their rights and ignore their own personal responsibility.

 

[srm775]

I've never really thought about this issue until this thread, but now I have to say I'm pretty convinced DUI checkpoints are a breach of our rights. As others have said, it's no different than any other type of random, unwarranted search, all of which we are explicitly protected from under the constitution. So far, I have not seen an adequate response to this argument. The responses I've read so far:

Well, the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't agree with you. In a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz the Supreme Court ruled that a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint was not "unreasonable" and did not violate the 4th amendment. Similar cases have been brought to the Supreme court and the the 1990 Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz has continued to be upheld and applied.

1) The ends justify the means.

My thoughts on these:
1) This is possibly the best response out of the three, but still inadequate. As others have pointed out, this sort of reasoning is a slippery slope. If this can be used to defend DUI checkpoints, why can't it also defend any other type of random search? Should officers be able to search pedestrians at random for illegally concealed weapons? How about a weekly search of a randomly selected group of houses in your city? This type of reasoning could quickly lead us to the police state.

The slippery slope argument is a common fallicay of logic in arguments (i.e. it's an argument with inherant faults). Arguing that because the police can stop you on the street for a sobriety checkpoint doesn't necessarily equate to ATF/DEA/FBI storming your house at a random. Also, the ruling has been around for more than 17 years and Sobriety checkpoints around even longer and there hasn't been mass executed search warrants on "entire city blocks" ... it doesn't seem like a logical conclusion to think that it will start.

Also, operating a car is a privilage not a right. Your operating of a car is on public roads, thusly the good of the "public" or masses must be weighed against the right of the individual. Since at the time, drunk driving offenses caused an estimated 25,000 deaths and nearly 1,000,000 (that's six zeros) injuries compared with the inconveniences of a few minutes for each driver, the court felt it was a justified means to an end. Drunk Driving fatalities have fallen to just under 17,000 in 2005, so it would appear that checkpoints (along with other methods such as saturated patrols) have worked.

 

[Evan!]

Also, operating a car is a privilage not a right. Your operating of a car is on public roads, thusly the good of the "public" or masses must be weighed against the right of the individual. Since at the time, drunk driving offenses caused an estimated 25,000 deaths and nearly 1,000,000 (that's six zeros) injuries compared with the inconveniences of a few minutes for each driver, the court felt it was a justified means to an end. Drunk Driving fatalities have fallen to just under 17,000 in 2005, so it would appear that checkpoints (along with other methods such as saturated patrols) have worked.

The correlation between checkpoints and falling death rates has been disproved. There has been a concerted crackdown on drunk driving for years; as that has taken place, the rates have been falling. In places & times where checkpoints are utilized, the affect on these rates hasn't been statistically significant. I know it would "appear" that they have worked, but further investigation proves otherwise. Other tactics, including stricter policing of dangerous driving and more education, have been the main driving force here.

Furthermore, the point must be raised that the BAC limits are artificially low (talking on a cellphone while driving is more likely to cause an accident than having a .08 BAC, multiple university studies have concluded this). While I support crackdowns on dangerous driving of ALL sorts, that certainly doesn't mean that any and all hideously unfair punishments and enforcement tactics are necessarily justified. If I run off the road and injure someone because I'm talking on a cellphone, it's no different than if I run off the road and injure someone because I have a .08 BAC---but the punishment for the two scenarios varies wildly. This is compounded even more when it comes to prevention---meaning, if I get pulled over for swerving because I'm talking on a cellphone, the worst offense I might get written up for is reckless driving, which might entail a fine and some license points...but if I get pulled over for swerving because I have a .08 BAC, then I go straight to prison, I lose my license, and end up having to pay about 10 grand in court fees and fines. I cannot think of a scenario where such an injustice is tolerated, except one such as this, where a bogeyman (booze) is singled out solely because it's easier to identify as the cause than other forms of impairment. And to me, that's f*cked up in all sorts of ways.

 

[Brewpastor]

I went through a check point once with a SS column still strapped in the bed of my pick up. I was coming home from the brewery and had been bottling all day. The officer asked me if I had been drinking and I said, "No, I work at a brewery and can no longer stand the stuff." He laughed asked about the think in the back. I told him it was a still and he laughed and told me to have a nice evening. Absolutely true.

 

[Evan!]

Always some that say the cops take advantage, abuse their power etc. There are VERY good reasons for DUI checkpoints. I think if you are responsible and have nothing else in the car to be worried about, a 2 minute conversation with an officer and being on your way is worth it.

Read a few of these, I suppose its good these drivers didnt get "inconvenienced" or "harassed"?

http://www.duipictures.com/dstory.htm

People die from lots of different things. Pulling heartstrings and forcing emotion into an argument that needs neither is irresponsible.

 

[Pugilist]

There are proven fatalities with the use of cell phone, texting as well as normal talking. NJ made is making it a primary offense starting March 1st. Meaning an officer can stop someone who passes them speaking on the cell phone. Before it was secondary, meaning I could not stop Mrs. Airhead in her gigantic SUV with 5 kids in it while she was on the phone.

I agree with Evan in the fact that the fines for DUI are EXTRAORDINARILY high. Who is making the revenue? I think the states and the municipalities, rather than sending it to be used for things like educating teens, or getting habitual alcoholic offenders help. Some fees go to that, but probably less than 5%.

Some officers are overly gung-ho in my eyes too. They stop Mr and Mrs Jones on the way home from the restaurant and give them sobriety tests when they had two glasses of wine with dinner.

Again, no civil rights are being violated, no officer is looking in your trunk, ripping the headliner out, etc. He is using observation and sense of smell speaking to you through the window. If you dont appear to have been drinking, or smell like alcohol, you are on your way. The people that scream my rights are being violated and "cops are on a power trip" are 99% of the time ones who have either had 1 or more DUI's, or have the baggy of fun stuffed in their sock.

 

[beala]

Well, the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't agree with you. [...]

The ruling of the courts bears no relevance to this issue. Unless you're going to reveal and defend the reasoning of the courts, this is a meaningless appeal to authority.

The slippery slope argument is a common fallicay of logic in arguments (i.e. it's an argument with inherant faults).

Granted, one should always be cautious of slippery slope arguments, but they are not inherently fallacious (ie there's no such thing as the 'fallacy of the slippery slope'). What is a fallacy is positing that random searches are justified in some cases and not in others. This is called the fallacy of special pleading, which is what you're committing.

Arguing that because the police can stop you on the street for a sobriety checkpoint doesn't necessarily equate to ATF/DEA/FBI storming your house at a random.

I never said they were exactly the same. I did say that the relevant features were the same. That is, it's a search without probable cause or warrant.

Also, operating a car is a privilege not a right.

Correct, but do you know what is a right? The 4th amendment.

Your operating of a car is on public roads, thusly the good of the "public" or masses must be weighed against the right of the individual.

My friend would call this 'vulgar utilitarianism' and i'd have to agree. There are many measures that could be put in place that would increase the public good, while only doing little harm to an individual, but this is never justification for carrying out those measures. For example, one may argue that Bill Gates has enough money to go around, so we just should seize a few million of it and distribute it evenly throughout the populace. Bill Gate's quality of life probably wouldn't diminish if he was missing a few million of this several billion, but it's still wrong to do so.

Drunk Driving fatalities have fallen to just under 17,000 in 2005, so it would appear that checkpoints (along with other methods such as saturated patrols) have worked.

They may have fallen, but that doesn't prove causation as you sneakily pointed out yourself. Even if you could prove causation, I'd still reject this as vulgar utilitarianism. Further, someone here cited statistics showing checkpoints to be woefully ineffective.

 

[Desert_Sky]

I am so proud of some of you and hang my head at others-where emotion runs rampant, logic is silenced.

Complacency of civil rights abuses breeds tyranny- a much bigger problem than they sought to 'cure'.

Not minding a little 'inconvenience' is a very slippery slope.

My cat died from a free sample packet of gravy and beef in a bag of dry cat food.
But where is the indignation of my government to randomly test my or my pets food? But have a toddy at dinner with the wife on a night out-NOW THERE'S A PROBLEM! We should arrest you put you in jail, fine you, make you take classes, force you to random tests, take your license to drive to work for 6 months, and publish your bad name in the local paper. You louse!

I have no sympathy for illegal search and seizure, or lack of suspicion stops, no matter what the underlying reason is.

You give up YOUR rights, I'll keep mine, thank-you. I'll bear arms to keep mine.

~HH ashamed of some of his compatriots~

+1

I agree.

 

[srm775]

The correlation between checkpoints and falling death rates has been disproved. There has been a concerted crackdown on drunk driving for years; as that has taken place, the rates have been falling. In places & times where checkpoints are utilized, the affect on these rates hasn't been statistically significant. I know it would "appear" that they have worked, but further investigation proves otherwise. Other tactics, including stricter policing of dangerous driving and more education, have been the main driving force here.

Where has the correlation been disproved? Just saying it, doesn’t make it so. In fact, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) finds otherwise. In the December 2002 issue of Traffic Injury Prevention, the CDC examined 23 scientifically-sound studies from around the world and the results showed that where checkpoints were implemented resulted in a drop of 20% of alcohol-related crashes. Saturated patrols and education (which others would argue comes from checkpoints) have been significant factors, but to say that checkpoints are ineffective just isn’t true when the statistics show it does have a fairly significant effect.

The fact of the matter is that sobriety checkpoints provide two things: 1) arrest of those driving impaired (about an avg. of 1% of all drivers checked); 2) Education and PR (they show a visible police action which dissuades people from drinking and driving [several OPs, as well as myself, admitted they wouldn't have a couple extra if they know there is going to be a checkpoint]).

Furthermore, the point must be raised that the BAC limits are artificially low (talking on a cellphone while driving is more likely to cause an accident than having a .08 BAC, multiple university studies have concluded this). While I support crackdowns on dangerous driving of ALL sorts, that certainly doesn't mean that any and all hideously unfair punishments and enforcement tactics are necessarily justified. If I run off the road and injure someone because I'm talking on a cellphone, it's no different than if I run off the road and injure someone because I have a .08 BAC---but the punishment for the two scenarios varies wildly.

Perhaps. But there are also very stiff penalties for careless operation of a vehicle resulting in a fatality. It's called criminally-negligent homicide, vehicular manslaughter and a host of other criminal charges from carelessness and negligence. And, if you think those aren’t applied in cases everyday, then you are quite mistaken.

This is compounded even more when it comes to prevention---meaning, if I get pulled over for swerving because I'm talking on a cellphone, the worst offense I might get written up for is reckless driving, which might entail a fine and some license points...but if I get pulled over for swerving because I have a .08 BAC, then I go straight to prison, I lose my license, and end up having to pay about 10 grand in court fees and fines. I cannot think of a scenario where such an injustice is tolerated, except one such as this, where a bogeyman (booze) is singled out solely because it's easier to identify as the cause than other forms of impairment. And to me, that's f*cked up in all sorts of ways.

So, are you saying that the penalties for driving impaired are unreasonable? That’s actually a first in this entire thread.

Well, if you get pulled over and issued a ticket for talking on the cell phone, most reasonable people hang up the phone and continue on their way. The next day they go out and get a hands-free phone device or stop talking on the phone in the car. It isn’t an equitable comparison of responsibility/irresponsibility of someone who drinks too much and drives to some one who talks on the phone while driving. They may both be irresponsible but the degree to which they are isn’t even remotely the same.

 

[Pugilist]

People die from lots of different things. Pulling heartstrings and forcing emotion into an argument that needs neither is irresponsible.

I don't agree. If you reread what I posted maybe you would understand. Those people would not have been killed on those roads if the operator of the vehicle had been stopped and caught before they continued down the road and killed them.

People do die from lots of different things. Heart attacks, falls, strokes, aneurysm's, cancer. Which one of these or any other examples equates to someone irresponsibly getting behind the wheel while drunk and crashing into them? Any death is tragic, one that is caused by another is wholly different.

 

[srm775]

The ruling of the courts bears no relevance to this issue. Unless you're going to reveal and defend the reasoning of the courts, this is a meaningless appeal to authority.

Are you kidding? It does have significant relevance. Since the Supreme Court of the United States is, in fact, the supreme authority on the interpretation and application of the Constitution and that case deals directly with sobriety checkpoints and the 4th Amendment it has every bit of relevance. You directly stated that sobriety checkpoints violated the 4th amendment and since the Supreme Court said it didn’t then you are wrong. By the way, it is meaningless appeal to authority only when the authority and the issue at hand aren’t related. In this case, they clearly are related.

Granted, one should always be cautious of slippery slope arguments, but they are not inherently fallacious (ie there's no such thing as the 'fallacy of the slippery slope'). What is a fallacy is positing that random searches are justified in some cases and not in others.

Again, the Supreme Court ruled it wasn’t unconstitutional. Therefore, it isn’t unconstitutional.

This is called the fallacy of special pleading, which is what you're committing.

I think you’re confused on the meaning of that fallacy.

I never said they were exactly the same. I did say that the relevant features were the same. That is, it's a search without probable cause or warrant.

If this can be used to defend DUI checkpoints, why can't it also defend any other type of random search? Should officers be able to search pedestrians at random for illegally concealed weapons? How about a weekly search of a randomly selected group of houses in your city? This type of reasoning could quickly lead us to the police state.

Your exact argument was that one could lead to another, which is a slippery slope argument. There is no data as of yet to believe that that DIU checkpoints will lead to searches of private residences. Furthermore, there is no logical reason to believe that it will lead to that type of scenario.

Correct, but do you know what is a right? The 4th amendment.

Umm …. Ok. Did I ever say it wasn’t?

They may have fallen, but that doesn't prove causation as you sneakily pointed out yourself. Even if you could prove causation, I'd still reject this as vulgar utilitarianism. Further, someone here cited statistics showing checkpoints to be woefully ineffective.

See my other post about the CDC. Search on Google, you’ll find plenty of legitimate studies that support it.

 

[maltMonkey]

People do die from lots of different things. Heart attacks, falls, strokes, aneurysm's, cancer. Which one of these or any other examples equates to someone irresponsibly getting behind the wheel while drunk and crashing into them? Any death is tragic, one that is caused by another is wholly different.

Serial killers murder people. Should police be allowed to do random house searches to determine if people are serial killers?

 

[Buford]

Are you kidding? It does have significant relevance. Since the Supreme Court of the United States is, in fact, the supreme authority on the interpretation and application of the Constitution and that case deals directly with sobriety checkpoints and the 4th Amendment it has every bit of relevance. You directly stated that sobriety checkpoints violated the 4th amendment and since the Supreme Court said it didn’t then you are wrong. By the way, it is meaningless appeal to authority only when the authority and the issue at hand aren’t related. In this case, they clearly are related.


Again, the Supreme Court ruled it wasn’t unconstitutional. Therefore, it isn’t unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court at one point in history also ruled that segregation was constitutional even with the 14th Amendment in place. Just because the SCOTUS is the self-appointed arbiter of what the Constitution means doesn't mean that they have never gone back and reversed their own decisions later. Also, just because they are the SCOTUS doesn't mean they are always right or fair. Kelo case, anyone?

 

[beala]

You directly stated that sobriety checkpoints violated the 4th amendment and since the Supreme Court said it didn’t then you are wrong. By the way, it is meaningless appeal to authority only when the authority and the issue at hand aren’t related. In this case, they clearly are related.

This sort of blind faith in the courts is dangerous. Just because the supreme court ruled one way doesn't necessarily make it right. That is an appeal to authority of the worst kind. The courts also ruled to make abortion legal. Does that mean ethicists should just throw up their hands and give up debate? If you want to play this game, though, there were multiple ruling before the most recent that declared it a breach of rights. Further, the most recent wasn't even unanimous. There was, in fact, a dissenting opinion.

http://jimbovard.com/blog/2007/10/24/drunk-driving-checkpoints-vs-freedom/:

"In 1925, the Supreme Court declared, “It would be intolerable and unreasonable if a prohibition agent were authorized to stop every automobile on the chance of finding liquor, and thus subject all persons lawfully using the highways to the inconvenience and indignity of such a search.”"

"In 1984, the Oklahoma Supreme Court banned the practice in that state, declaring that drunk-driving roadblocks “draw dangerously close to what may be referred to as a police state.”"

I think you’re confused on the meaning of that fallacy.

You're claiming privacy applies to households but not vehicles. This is special pleading. Whatever the definition, you're being inconsistent about the topic at hand.

Your exact argument was that one could lead to another, which is a slippery slope argument.

No, I never claimed we would end up in a police state if checkpoints are allowed to continue. I merely cited counter examples to why your claim is absurd. If we assert that warentless searches are permissible, we must follow that claim to its logical end. Any other conclusion is simply inconsistent.

And once again, slippery slope arguments aren't inherently fallacious. You still have yet to show why you disbelieve mine.

See my other post about the CDC. Search on Google, you’ll find plenty of legitimate studies that support it.

Even if this were true, it wouldn't sway me. This type of utilitarianism is completely untenable.

 

[Pugilist]

Serial killers murder people. Should police be allowed to do random house searches to determine if people are serial killers?

That is not even remotely relevant nor applicable to anything I have said.

 

[Logan]

There is talk over "well if your on a cell phone its just a slap on the wrist". Please someone correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. But, I don't think citing a different danger as an example of why the laws for drunk driving are flawed is sound logic. Sure there are plenty of dangers on the road that aren't enforced like drunk driving - to me that says something is wrong with those laws more than it does drunk driving laws.

I personally believe drunk drivers aren't punished enough. Lawmakers have gone for the shotgun spread feel good tactics. A lot of our laws "sound good" on paper but are woefully ineffective in practice. For that reason when have artificially low BAC limits, ridiculously high drinking age, and inefficient check points.

IMO the government needs to focus less on a general public "crackdowns" (which often impede upon innocent people). Instead they need to focus on education and tougher punishment for those that do get behind the wheel drunk.

I won't cite any studies here because you can find all of this information with a quick Google search. If you do a little research there are plenty of studies and arguments for why current laws don't work (mostly thinking of the drinking age here).

 

[Jesse17]

Again, the Supreme Court ruled it wasn’t unconstitutional. Therefore, it isn’t unconstitutional.

No, this means the Supreme Court interprets it as not being unconstitutional, and we must obey because they are the highest authority in the land. Being the highest authority in the land however, doesn't make you 'right', it just means we must obey. Anyone that argues against this, would have to agree with the idea that Jews should have been massacred in WWII Germany, because Hitler said so, and he was the highest authority in the land at the time. If we don't question authority, then no law/conviction/ruling would ever be overturned, and we might as well have a communist dictatorship!

Your exact argument was that one could lead to another, which is a slippery slope argument. There is no data as of yet to believe that that DUI checkpoints will lead to searches of private residences. Furthermore, there is no logical reason to believe that it will lead to that type of scenario.

The key word here is, one COULD lead to another. The idea here is that it sets a president! Once you get use to something, it's not a hard stretch to justify doing a little more. Stuff like this builds on itself. We banned automatic because "Who needs something like that, and besides it's OK, because we're not banning ALL guns." Now the socialist republic of California has been banning simi-auto weapons, because "they look like automatics, and could be used to scare people".

The people that scream my rights are being violated and "cops are on a power trip" are 99% of the time ones who have either had 1 or more DUI's, or have the baggy of fun stuffed in their sock.

I'm calling BS on this one! I know PLENTY of pro-civil rights, pro-freedom, and pro-constitution people who are enraged by check points, and I know VERY few people who have DUI's and next to none that smoke pot or any other drug!

This is just another..."If you weren't doing something wrong, you shouldn't mind" argument IE. Guilty until proven innocent!

 

[Pugilist]

You are right jesse, 99% was a pretty extreme measure. I meant too the extreme liberal end (hillary clinton) that exclaims their rights are being violated if a police officer stops them driving 60mph in a 25 school zone. The same ones that bash Bush every chance they get and state that our military is murdering innocent children in Iraq and Afghanistan.....I am getting off on a major tangent here.

My point is I STRONGLY support every citizens rights under our constitution, bearing arms (I own 23 guns), freedom of speech, etc. BUT! If traffic being slowed and stopped to weed out people driving drunk saves the life of one American citizen, shouldn't that be enough?

 

[PeteOz77]

This is really a fantastic discussion/debate we have going here.

I am very impressed with the arguments presented from nearly all of the people giving their opinions here. No one has sunk to the level of getting personal or intentionally insulting anyone else. Let's keep it that way!

Having been arrested twice for drunk driving during my misspent youth, I feel that I am MORE than qualified to state the following:

The penalties for drunk driving are NOT harsh enough.

I drove drunk for 3 reasons

I was young and dumb
I doubted I would get caught (I was right 99.99% of the time)
I could afford to get caught. (I made good money and I didn't have to drive for work.)

Now, if the penalty had been 3 month jail time and lose my license for 5 years, I might have rethought my options before driving drunk. Instead THe first one cost me $700 and I lost my license for 30 days. BIG DEAL! Second one cost me 30 days in jail but the let me out to go to work. I worked a LOT of overtime in 21 days (time off for good behaviour) I only really had to sleep there. Fine was $1300 BIG DEAL!

I decided to quit drinking for nearly 2 years because I wasn't happy with the direction my life was heading. I drink as much as the next guy now, but I don't drive drunk. The 2 DUI's were a wake up call that I chose to heed, but the penalties really didn't have much to do with that decision.

So, I am going to argue both sides of this issue, with only one sentence on each

I know people that have been found guilty of a LOT worse crimes.. where someone actually DID get hurt (Assault/Battery, Vandalism etc) where the penalty was a LOT less than the current DUI penalty

If the powers that be really consider DUI to be such a menace... make the penalty so harsh that only a FOOL would do it.

 

[McKBrew]

Who revived this thread???????

 

[uglygoat]

necro posted up from the depths.

is it true, the toilets swirl the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere?

 

[PeteOz77]

Who revived this thread???????

Shouldn't be too hard to figure out, rather than asking... just look at the date on the posts.

Seems lngarrett brought it back to life yesterday. And there has been some very good discussion since that point.

Is there a problem?

 

[PeteOz77]

necro posted up from the depths.

is it true, the toilets swirl the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere?

Let me go check..... Water swirls down the sink drain clockwise.

As for the toilets.. they don't really "swirl" here. The bowl starts out with a much lower water level, then when you flush, water GUSHES into the bowl and the waster is forced down.

Go ahaed, ask me about the deadly spiders and snakes here...

 

[Logan]

The penalties for drunk driving are NOT harsh enough.

100% agree. I think if drunk driving hurt more than the wallet it would be much less accepted. It is far too socially acceptable still. When comedians can still tell jokes on Comedy Central about hilarious drunk driving stories thats a pretty strong indication of society's aggregate opinion of it.

That being said - check points don't change the opinion, lower drinking age doesn't either. Time in a 8x8 room and social ostracism would be far more effective.

 

[Jesse17]

If traffic being slowed and stopped to weed out people driving drunk saves the life of one American citizen, shouldn't that be enough?

IMHO no it's not. This is why; we keep trading 'freedoms' and 'rights' for 'safety'. As Ben Franklin said, "He who trades his freedom for security, shall neither have, nor deserve either."

Or another way to think of it is this: You know all those 'buzz' phrases like "Freedom isn't free." or "...people who died for my freedom" well, those don't just apply to soldiers who died in war. Those also apply to the people who die as a result of not letting the government violating our civil liberties in order to protect a few.

I'm not trying to offend anyone who has had a loved one killed by a DUI, or make light of it. I know those people didn't have a choice to stand up for our freedoms, but neither have the 1000's who have died in war after being drafted.

I'm not willing to give up ONE SINGLE right in order to 'feel' safer.

As it's been said before in this thread, we're not talking about whether or not drinking and driving is right...it's not! What I'm talking about, is not trading our rights and freedoms for 'security'. Even if it doesn't seem like a big trade now, I truly believe it's setting a president for the future.

I used the gun example in my last post about setting a president, because I wanted to use one that HAS ALREADY happened. But, what about this:

We have DUI check points. Then we have some more Muslim terrorist attacks on our nation. Some CIA intelligence says that there's a chance that a Muslim immigrant has a suitcase size nuke.

How hard do you have to push yourself to imaging the government starting complete searches of your vehicle at check points everywhere, justifying it by saying, "Well, we've stopped vehicles at DUI check points for years. All we're doing now is checking their papers to make sure they're citizens, and looking in the trunk while we're at it."?

Well, that sounds reasonable enough. Except, after 6 or 8 months of that then they'll say, "We still haven't found the nuke, so we're searching homes now."

I mean come on! Look at what they did with the phone tapping in an 'interest of national security' after 9/11.

Again, I feel sorry for everyone who has lost a loved one in a DUI, but I also feel sorry for everyone who has lost a loved one because of a gas explosion, and I'm not about to vote for allowing a city inspector to randomly inspect homes for gas leaks once a month.

At some point, you just have to draw the line and say NO! Otherwise every new violation/restriction of our rights due to 'special circumstances' will just continue to whittle away what makes this a free nation.

/end rant

 

[capcrnch]

I've gotten stuck in checkpoints twice. Both times I had to test.

The first time I passed after 1 test. I hadn't had a drink in a couple days, so I was good.

The second time, I failed and failed miserably.
Which was weird, because I hadn't had a beer in 2 days!
I complained, was given another tester, blew fine.
Just to be sure, they made me blow a 3rd time and I came up with the same result again (zero)

The cops were really cool. They didn't have to listen to me when I cried about not having a drink, but they did. I was well spoken, alert, upright and polite. That, plus the very high rating made then look twice and thank God they did.

99% accurate and I get stuck with the 1%? Figures.

 

[shafferpilot]

I'm glad my thread has made this positive turn-around. I fully admit the original post was pretty over the top, but it's hard to convey sarcasm and "toungue in cheek" when typing a post.

I have two problems with checkpoints:

1. Despite the rulings of the supreme court, I feel that "illegal search and seizure" applies to checkpoints. "If one person it saved, isn't that enough?" Well, no, that's not enough at all. If I swerve one time, pull me over and ask questions. If I dropped my keys in the bar parking lot at 1am, make sure I'm not drunk before I get out on the road. If I speed, change lanes without signalling, roll through a stopsign, make a last second turn onto a sideroad.... fine, pull me over and check me out. BUT, don't pull me out of my car, make me stand on one leg, recite the alphabet, and stair at the pen you're whipping around me head, because that's a violation of my rights to person and property. It's not the car that matters!!! It's ME, my right to not be examined or questioned without my lawyer representing me.

2. I don't like people dying as a result of drunk driving. If checkpoints were the best way to stop people from doing it, I'd be willing to talk about it.... BUT IT ABSOLUTELY IS NOT!!! In my state it takes 20 to 25 officers to run a checkpoint. On average, in my state, they arrest 5 to 6 people per checkpoint. That is a HUGE waste of resources. So while that guy three blocks from the checkpoint doesn't get killed by one of those 5 or six drunks, 5 other people are dying in other places in my state, because someone decided that making a public appearance of being tough on DUI offenders out-weighs the realities of the issue. So, even if we are willing to give up our rights, we should still be anti-checkpoint!