SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Aramike · 05-16-09, 04:23 AM

I believe that such measures as "Stop, Test, Arrest" and drunk driving checkpoints are an ABSOLUTE violation of civil rights. Forget about the fact that people who are slightly over the legal limit of .08 aren't the ones killing people - what about the fact that, in this country, we shouldn't be forced to produce "papers" during our travels from one location to the next. This practice seems Stalinist, in a sense.

Also of consideration, considering that my blood alcohol content was .06 and, as such, I was completely legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle, what is the justification for saying that a mere two-one-hundreths higher I would be incapable of doing so? The limit itself seems arbitrary. The reason I mention this is the fact that not all people react the same way to all BAC levels. As a result, would it not be more pragmatic to judge the situation on how an individual is driving rather than resorting to a hard-and-fast number? In other words, if you're driving erratically and show to have a certain BAC, you'll be arrested. If you're driving normally and have a similar BAC, you won't. Obviously a limit would be created as a standard for simply being incapable of operating a vehicle.

My point is, should someone who's right at the legal limit but driving completely safely be subject to the same penalties as someone who's twice the limit and driving erractically?

Everytime I've heard of a reduction in the legal alcohol limit, I ask myself, why? What's the point? The people at .10 aren't the problem. Reducing it a couple of percentage points, therefore doesn't address the problem. I've concluded that organizations that advocate such reductions (such as MADD) aren't neccessarily against drunk driving - they are against drinking as a whole.

Why do I suggest this?

Because one would think that keeping an officer from booking a safe driver slightly over the limit at, say, .09 would be smart due to that same officer being available to help spot the dangerous drivers who sneak through.

Which leads me to my ultimate point: doesn't programs such as "Stop, Test, Arrest" and drunk driving checkpoints actually reduce the force available to stop dangerous drivers? True story - while I was pulled over, I saw at least three cars pass who were swerving quite erratically.

Too bad the deputy was busy checking out someone just because...

05-16-09, 04:23 AM	#2
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	I believe that such measures as "Stop, Test, Arrest" and drunk driving checkpoints are an ABSOLUTE violation of civil rights. Forget about the fact that people who are slightly over the legal limit of .08 aren't the ones killing people - what about the fact that, in this country, we shouldn't be forced to produce "papers" during our travels from one location to the next. This practice seems Stalinist, in a sense. Also of consideration, considering that my blood alcohol content was .06 and, as such, I was completely legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle, what is the justification for saying that a mere two-one-hundreths higher I would be incapable of doing so? The limit itself seems arbitrary. The reason I mention this is the fact that not all people react the same way to all BAC levels. As a result, would it not be more pragmatic to judge the situation on how an individual is driving rather than resorting to a hard-and-fast number? In other words, if you're driving erratically and show to have a certain BAC, you'll be arrested. If you're driving normally and have a similar BAC, you won't. Obviously a limit would be created as a standard for simply being incapable of operating a vehicle. My point is, should someone who's right at the legal limit but driving completely safely be subject to the same penalties as someone who's twice the limit and driving erractically? Everytime I've heard of a reduction in the legal alcohol limit, I ask myself, why? What's the point? The people at .10 aren't the problem. Reducing it a couple of percentage points, therefore doesn't address the problem. I've concluded that organizations that advocate such reductions (such as MADD) aren't neccessarily against drunk driving - they are against drinking as a whole. Why do I suggest this? Because one would think that keeping an officer from booking a safe driver slightly over the limit at, say, .09 would be smart due to that same officer being available to help spot the dangerous drivers who sneak through. Which leads me to my ultimate point: doesn't programs such as "Stop, Test, Arrest" and drunk driving checkpoints actually reduce the force available to stop dangerous drivers? True story - while I was pulled over, I saw at least three cars pass who were swerving quite erratically. Too bad the deputy was busy checking out someone just because...