We know better.... -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:46:53 02/15/02 Fri
Author: Donk
Author Host/IP: 79.indianapolis-24rh16rt.in.dial-access.att.net / 12.85.15.79
Subject: We know better....

Whatever serious research has been done on drinking and driving, none of it points to the current means and methods used to establish DUI as a legal condition. The whole discussion is shot with misconceptions and voodoo science, leaving it simply a moral mandate of some over others.

Impairement is the issue, yet the focus is alcohol content. Why isn't impairement the focus? Probably because the law trips over itself -- not fully solved by broadening the definitions to include anything that impairs ability. Except, of course, immaturity, irresponsibility, sleepiness, and inattention. To be sure, the whole issue is so crowded with opinion as to be meaningless.

Science has shown that a .08 blood alcohol level is practically meaningless in all respects. It is so low that there is no reliable inferrence as to what that alcohol is doing, yet the authorities simply ignore this fact. Sugar and intestinal yeast can produce a .08 level, and the person involved would experience transitory dizziness. Yet, the authorities ignore this possibility.

If we revisit the evolution of blood alcohol content, we might remember that the .1 level was to set a standard to better define arbitrary measures of impairment, ostensibly discovered through probable cause. That is, something other than impairement has brought a citizen into contact with the police. The .1 level provided some objectivity, but even then, the science was questionable. If .1 was questionable, then .08 is absurd.

Very little is objectively known about the dynamics of inebriation, so establishing any BA level as particularly meaningful is merely opinion. Perhaps one reason why problem drinkers/drivers persist is because their bodies can tolerate high levels of alcohol until they are either put under stress or they go to sleep. So, many accidents happen because a drinker goes to sleep without any other apparent impairement and a person who is otherwise unimpaired becomes impaired when stress releases sugar and alcohol into their bloodstream.

Anybody who has ever had to deal with drunks would recognize the way behavior deteriorates as a situation develops, so any confrontation will produce a high BA level which would not have existed otherwise. That is why it could be argued that the test itself produces exactly what it is meant to measure.

There should be strong programs against impaired driving, but arbitrary hocus pocus and bad science are not good foundations for these efforts. Bad law is bad law and law based on unfounded opinion is bad law.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Looks like part of my petition to me -- Southern Gent, 20:53:38 02/17/02 Sun
- Re: Looks like part of my petition to me -- Donk, 08:50:49 02/18/02 Mon
  - Re: Looks like part of my petition to me -- Southern Gent, 18:33:38 02/18/02 Mon