Armando V Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Hello, new to the forum and to objectivism and could use your thoughts on this something that's been nagging me lately. I live in Phoenix, AZ, where we have a zero tolerance law in place. Anyone who's drank ANY amount of alcohol and drives is arrested (if noticed) 3 days and fined something in the neighborhood of 2-3 thousand in addition to a 6-12 month rehabilitation school (which you pay for). Now I know that whatever risk I take is entirely my choice (regarding myself) and shouldn't be up to anyone else, the problem here is that I may put others at risk, therefore violating their rights? Is the government then justified to pass this law if it is to protect your right to your life from others that may choose to endanger it? A problem I see with this though, is that not all the people who've drank will be necessarily intoxicated or unable to drive safely. .08% BAC seams to be the standard in most other places, as I understand it anything under that is not considered intoxicated and therefore you don’t get fined and/or arrested. Essentially anyone who is under that, say .03% (here) will still be treated in the same manner as someone who is really far gone and clearly shouldn't have tried to drive. It seams to me that the ones under this limit are being unjustly arrested... though how would one judge how 'intoxicated' one is?. Although I personally know when I can and when I shouldn't drive, I can see how it may not be the same for everyone. As I notice, Rand wasn't very enthused with the idea of justifying an action by 'feel' (and rightly so), so how exactly could one determine objectively if one should drive after drinking? Should it be avoided all together? regardless of how 'sober' you may feel? is it morally wrong then to drive after drinking even if you don’t 'feel' impaired? I look forward to your responses. ~ Armando Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 A problem I see with this though, is that not all the people who've drank will be necessarily intoxicated or unable to drive safely. Exactly. Zero tolerance is like instituting a 20 MPH speed limit on freeways: a nakedly authoritarian invasion into the lives of peaceful, innocent individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) What if I just took some NyQuil? Will I get thrown in jail? Edited May 30, 2008 by KevinDW78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 What if I just took some NyQuil? Will I get thrown in jail?Yes if zero is 0.0. Some place take zero to be 0.01 for that reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 These types of government schemes are just another way for them to steal money from honest, hard-working people. Where I live, instead of this zero tolerance nonsense, they've got what's called a DWAI (driving while ability impaired) for those who pass the breathalyzer and field sobriety test, but officers suspect have had anything to drink. (Driving while ability impaired...I guess that could be a mother yelling at her children in the back seat or me on the antihistamines I take daily to be able to breath? Both impair you somewhat, but the question is, does it impair anyone to the point they're not able to drive? I hardly think so.) Basically, with the DWAI, you're prosecuted just like a DUI, but if you pay your fines and take your classes, and take whatever else they shove down your throat, it's taken off your record. These new laws are not in the public's best interest, nor do they keep the public safe. They are simply new revenue generating ideas the government has come up with for taxpayers. And like all "sin taxes" who is going to complain or raise a big stink about it? Although I have not been able to find any sources to confirm this, the rumor around town is that DUI revenue is the number one source of revenue for the county I live in. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if it were at least in the top 3. It's hard to find anyone in town that either hasn't had a DUI/DWAI or knows someone, first hand, that has. I would also like to point out that I am fully aware of the dangers of people driving drunk. It's obvious that driving drunk is a problem, I just doubt how much of a problem the government makes it out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 First of all, remember that 0.08 BAC isn't even a legal limit in most places. Even in places that claim that is a limit they can charge you even if you have a lower BAC if the officer thinks you are "impaired". In Oregon you can't even get an arrest for DUI off your record even if you have end up having a BAC of 0.00 (and this has in fact happened to people). This is all really just neo-prohibitionism, and 0.08 is really a low number anyway. In fact, when it was lowered to 0.08 in states, they noticed that there was a bump in your typical responsible women getting arrested after long lunches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 This is a question about what the traffic regulations should be. Even in a capitalist society if a road were privately owned there would be traffic regulations established by the owners. Whether any resulting fines go to the local gov't or the road owner, or if your right to drive that road gets suspended or not, the driving experience would be similar under both gov't and private road schemes. If given a choice, I personally would prefer to drive on roads with a zero tolerance alcohol policy. Remember the principle that "the moral is the practical"? This is a better way to keep drunk drivers off the roads, so it is moral. A zero tolerance policy makes it easier for you to decide not to drink and drive because you don't have to make any judgements about your driving skills degree of impairment. It has the advantage of being very easy to understand and implement, wheras the BAC measurement requires a blood test or a Breathalyzer. In fact, because this law is based on the principle of measurement-omission (alcohol impairs driving to some degree, but measuring the degree of impairment is not important) it is actually more objectively enforceable and a better law. People often frame their response to this question by thinking of their own rights and their own inconvenience when they really should contemplate driving when its the other drivers who are partially impaired by alcohol. You may trust your own judgement about your ability to drive, but do you trust other people's judgement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) Hello, new to the forum and to objectivism and could use your thoughts on this something that's been nagging me lately. I live in Phoenix, AZ, where we have a zero tolerance law in place. Anyone who's drank ANY amount of alcohol and drives is arrested (if noticed) 3 days and fined something in the neighborhood of 2-3 thousand in addition to a 6-12 month rehabilitation school (which you pay for). Now I know that whatever risk I take is entirely my choice (regarding myself) and shouldn't be up to anyone else, the problem here is that I may put others at risk, therefore violating their rights? Is the government then justified to pass this law if it is to protect your right to your life from others that may choose to endanger it? A problem I see with this though, is that not all the people who've drank will be necessarily intoxicated or unable to drive safely. .08% BAC seams to be the standard in most other places, as I understand it anything under that is not considered intoxicated and therefore you don’t get fined and/or arrested. Essentially anyone who is under that, say .03% (here) will still be treated in the same manner as someone who is really far gone and clearly shouldn't have tried to drive. It seams to me that the ones under this limit are being unjustly arrested... though how would one judge how 'intoxicated' one is?. Although I personally know when I can and when I shouldn't drive, I can see how it may not be the same for everyone. As I notice, Rand wasn't very enthused with the idea of justifying an action by 'feel' (and rightly so), so how exactly could one determine objectively if one should drive after drinking? Should it be avoided all together? regardless of how 'sober' you may feel? is it morally wrong then to drive after drinking even if you don’t 'feel' impaired? I look forward to your responses. ~ Armando It occurs to me (unless I am mistaken) that "zero tolerance" DUI laws are applied to only people that are under the legal drinking age and are found to be driving. So you have the case that the individual has already violated the law by drinking at all and is compounding that by then driving. A quick search of the net seems to confirm that Arizona's "zero tolerance" law is one of these. Edited May 30, 2008 by punk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew1776 Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Remember the principle that "the moral is the practical"? This is a better way to keep drunk drivers off the roads, so it is moral. You have just inverted the principle. If a zero tolerance policy is a practical way to deter drunk driving and because it's practical it's moral you would be operating under the assumption that "the practical is the moral" which is backwards. People should be punished for infringing on other people's rights or acting in a dangerous manner. Swerving around on a road, speeding, ignoring traffic lights, etc. all of these things are a clear example of someone endangering others. Having a .08 BAC (or a .02 BAC for that matter) does not necessarily mean an individual is a threat to others. People often frame their response to this question by thinking of their own rights Well duh... they really should contemplate driving when its the other drivers who are partially impaired by alcohol. People should be punished if they are impaired and present a danger. Degree of impairment is seen by the individuals driving habits not by some made up number (especially zero). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarwinsApostle Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) You may trust your own judgement about your ability to drive, but do you trust other people's judgement? Well, the answer to that is an obvious "no", but even so... what does this have to do with laws and morality? There are countless situations in which important matters are left up to people's judgements. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. This is inevitable in a free society, and in the situations in which their judgement is wrong or someone gets hurt, then the law deals with it. The bottom line is that there is nothing immoral about having alcohol in one's system. It becomes an issue when their behavior has the potential to affect others. Prescription drugs can have a negative affect on one's driving, as can cell phones, radios, and children, but it's not until these things prove too much for a driver to handle can the government morally step in. It's wrong to punish the innocent... bottom line. Edited May 30, 2008 by DarwinsApostle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armando V Posted May 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) This is a question about what the traffic regulations should be. Even in a capitalist society if a road were privately owned there would be traffic regulations established by the owners. Whether any resulting fines go to the local gov't or the road owner, or if your right to drive that road gets suspended or not, the driving experience would be similar under both gov't and private road schemes. If given a choice, I personally would prefer to drive on roads with a zero tolerance alcohol policy. Remember the principle that "the moral is the practical"? This is a better way to keep drunk drivers off the roads, so it is moral. A zero tolerance policy makes it easier for you to decide not to drink and drive because you don't have to make any judgements about your driving skills degree of impairment. It has the advantage of being very easy to understand and implement, wheras the BAC measurement requires a blood test or a Breathalyzer. In fact, because this law is based on the principle of measurement-omission (alcohol impairs driving to some degree, but measuring the degree of impairment is not important) it is actually more objectively enforceable and a better law. People often frame their response to this question by thinking of their own rights and their own inconvenience when they really should contemplate driving when its the other drivers who are partially impaired by alcohol. You may trust your own judgement about your ability to drive, but do you trust other people's judgement? Yes, being that there is no way to judge objectively just HOW impaired you are then shouldn't it be be law that we dont drive while having consumed alcohol? Here in phoenix in 2006, 35% of the fatal accidents involved someone who had drank alcohol, although not all accidents are avoidable even when perfectly sober, it seams likely that some of those could have been avoided had the person made the decision not to drive in the first place. The one issue that still bothers me is that some people just might be fined and arrested unjustly with Zero Tolerance in place, particularly those who had something like Nyquil or even some breath freshner which contains alcohol. A leeway of .01 should work in order to avoid some of those mistakes though. ~ Armando Edited May 30, 2008 by Armando V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 It occurs to me (unless I am mistaken) that "zero tolerance" DUI laws are applied to only people that are under the legal drinking age and are found to be driving. So you have the case that the individual has already violated the law by drinking at all and is compounding that by then driving. A quick search of the net seems to confirm that Arizona's "zero tolerance" law is one of these. That's good to know, and of course it makes the whole thing very different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 There are already laws in place for wreckless driving, so why does the government need special laws for driving drunk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armando V Posted June 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 (edited) It occurs to me (unless I am mistaken) that "zero tolerance" DUI laws are applied to only people that are under the legal drinking age and are found to be driving. So you have the case that the individual has already violated the law by drinking at all and is compounding that by then driving. A quick search of the net seems to confirm that Arizona's "zero tolerance" law is one of these. Hmm, actually not in Phoenix. In Sept 29th, 2007 (I believe) we had a new Zero Tolerance law put into effect. They get you regardless of age and actually arrest you for 10 days, instead of 3 as I had thought, and 30 for an extreme DUI. Apparently Zero Tolerance means just that .00, so even medicine will get you a DUI over here... ~Armando Edited June 1, 2008 by Armando V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 (edited) One thing that needs to be understood about the enforcement of DUI laws and BAC limits. Another poster mentioned that not everyone is impaired at the .08 limit (for example). When a person is stopped for being suspected of DUI, the officer has no idea what their BAC is and typically long before he has found out, he has done Field Sobriety Tests and observed the manner in which the vehicle is being operated in order to establish the probable cause to arrest the person in the first place. So if a person is .08 AND he/she is not impaired, he/she should not be arrested based on their driving, horizontal gaze nystagmus, and physical agility tests, and he/she COULD NOT be arrested based solely on the BAC at that point because the officer doesn't know what it is. In our state at least, it is only after those tests (and arrest for that PC) that an officer would find out the BAC from a breath machine or legal blood. While we use a preliminary breath device on the street as part of the basic field sobriety test process, that machine is not consider accurate enough for court use so the officer cannot testify as to the result of that test. However, state DUI laws may vary as to the order and parts of this process, but I suspect most are generally the same. Edited June 1, 2008 by RationalBiker Clarifications/Grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 There are already laws in place for wreckless driving, so why does the government need special laws for driving drunk? Well, I can address why they do moreso than whether they should or not. The threshold for what constitutes wreckless driving and what a DUI can consist of can be different. For instance, if I stop to investigate why a person has failed to proceed through a traffic light after it has been green for some time I might find that the subject has passed out behind the wheel due to his level of intoxication. This would not constitute wreckless driving according to the wreckless driving code, but it does offer an element of probable cause for a DUI case. Or in another example, a car that is drifting back in forth in the lane, maybe crossing the center line a couple times might not be construed as wreckless driving but would offer PC for a stop to investigate a DUI. Impaired driving is not always wreckless per se, but then once you stop them for some other driving offense and you suspect they are impaired then you can proceed with the field sobriety tests and so forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 I think sleeping/being passed out in a running automobile, in a lane of traffic, at a traffic light should constitute reckless driving, if it doesn't already. (In addition to weaving in or outside your lane of traffic.) That reminds me of another stupid law in my area. I spoke with this man who got a DUI a year or so ago. He was still on probation, or whatever, for that when he went out to have a few drinks with friends. Realizing he had too much to drive, he called a ride and was sitting on the curb in the parking lot near his car waiting for this ride. (The bar had closed, so he was waiting outside.) The police pulled up and because he had his car keys on him (although his car wasn't running and he wasn't inside of it) they charged him with DUI and arrested him. Now he is being prosecuted as a second time offender and it's really screwing up his life. Was he supposed to throw his keys in the trash can? And how can you be prosecuted for a driving offense if you're not even inside a running vehicle? It's absolute insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 That reminds me of another stupid law in my area. ... because he had his car keys on him (although his car wasn't running and he wasn't inside of it) they charged him with DUI and arrested him. That's utterly preposterous. He needs to make a ruckus and get that law overturned, if you can be charged with DUI for having keys in your possession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 (edited) I think sleeping/being passed out in a running automobile, in a lane of traffic, at a traffic light should constitute reckless driving, if it doesn't already. (In addition to weaving in or outside your lane of traffic.) That reminds me of another stupid law in my area. I spoke with this man who got a DUI a year or so ago. He was still on probation, or whatever, for that when he went out to have a few drinks with friends. Realizing he had too much to drive, he called a ride and was sitting on the curb in the parking lot near his car waiting for this ride. (The bar had closed, so he was waiting outside.) The police pulled up and because he had his car keys on him (although his car wasn't running and he wasn't inside of it) they charged him with DUI and arrested him. Now he is being prosecuted as a second time offender and it's really screwing up his life. Was he supposed to throw his keys in the trash can? And how can you be prosecuted for a driving offense if you're not even inside a running vehicle? It's absolute insanity. I think the question in this case was whether the hood/engine was warm. If he was the only person near the car, had keys, and the hood/engine was warm, they have probable cause that he had been driving it recently. Even worse, if someone reported they saw the car driving poorly just a little earlier. What your post doesn't tell us is if he drove for a while and then decided he was too drunk, or never drove the car. Most DUI laws have provisions for cases where they can establish you were drunk now, and have driven the car in the recent past (I read about a case where people reported a car for wreckless driving, they went to the owner's house, found the car and found her drunk in the house...which was enough to bring charges). If he started to drive, changed his mind, parked the car and called a cab, they still have the case that he was driving before he changed his mind. Edited June 1, 2008 by punk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 I think the question in this case was whether the hood/engine was warm. If he was the only person near the car, had keys, and the hood/engine was warm, they have probable cause that he had been driving it recently. This would be insufficient for a conviction in my jurisdiction (and should be elsewhere too.) You have to put the driver behind the wheel of the car while it is being operated or has been operated. All kinds of reasonable doubt could be created with a guy standing outside of the car with the keys, even if the hood is warm - assuming the guy hasn't confessed. Even worse, if someone reported they saw the car driving poorly just a little earlier If said witness put that suspect behind the wheel and testified to such in court, then it could stand. The main thing here is that probable cause is frequently a far cry from beyond a reasonable doubt. Short of that, if other places allowed convictions without putting the person behind the wheel beyond a reasonable doubt, that is scary law and scary practice in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 (edited) This would be insufficient for a conviction in my jurisdiction (and should be elsewhere too.) You have to put the driver behind the wheel of the car while it is being operated or has been operated. All kinds of reasonable doubt could be created with a guy standing outside of the car with the keys, even if the hood is warm - assuming the guy hasn't confessed. If said witness put that suspect behind the wheel and testified to such in court, then it could stand. The main thing here is that probable cause is frequently a far cry from beyond a reasonable doubt. Short of that, if other places allowed convictions without putting the person behind the wheel beyond a reasonable doubt, that is scary law and scary practice in my opinion. Oh, I agree that there is all kinds of reasonable doubt. I think though that the post giving the case which characterized the situation as a guy sitting innocently by his car in a parking lot with keys in his pocket and waiting for a cab is unlikely to have been the actual entire situation. If this were the entire situation, then he'd have little to worry about as just about any lawyer could get a jury to acquit him (assuming he could afford a lawyer, but I think even a court appointed lawyer would have no problems with such a case either). I've noted though that when people are telling you about the time they got arrested, they tend to leave things out. My money would be with either the guy blabbed about driving, or someone reported his car to the cops. Edited June 1, 2008 by punk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I think though that the post giving the case which characterized the situation as a guy sitting innocently by his car in a parking lot with keys in his pocket and waiting for a cab is unlikely to have been the actual entire situation. That's why I kept probing him and asking him lots of questions, I was in disbelief and knew I must be missing something. He just kept smiling sarcastically and telling me no, it's as ridiculous as it sounds. I did not specifically ask about the hood being warm though. Based on the information he had already given me, I already knew that he had only been in the one bar that evening until close, then was waiting for his ride outside. When the police arrived, he was honest with them, told them he had learned his lesson from his first DUI and was waiting for a friend. He was informed by police that if you are within so many feet of your vehicle, in possession of the keys, it was a violation of the law. I think it was 50 feet or some stupid, arbitrary number like that. I've noted though that when people are telling you about the time they got arrested, they tend to leave things out. He may have. There's no way to know for certain, but I did ask him lots of questions and felt satisfied that the answer was simply the government overstepping its bounds, yet again. Maybe not though. I like to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt, but when it comes to drinking and driving in Colorado, they seem to be pretty insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I've noted though that when people are telling you about the time they got arrested, they tend to leave things out. I tend to agree that this is the case in my experience as well. I investigate complaints on officers from time to time and more than a few such complaints are demonstrated to be exaggerated, sometimes grossly so, with significant elements of their behavior omitted. [K-Mac] He was informed by police that if you are within so many feet of your vehicle, in possession of the keys, it was a violation of the law. I think it was 50 feet or some stupid, arbitrary number like that. Any law that would allow for the prosecution of a person for being intoxicated with keys in close proximity to a vehicle is scary in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Any law that would allow for the prosecution of a person for being intoxicated with keys in close proximity to a vehicle is scary in my book. I'm really curious to know more. At the next neighborhood watch meeting, I'll ask the officer and see if I can get the facts, then post them here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I'm really curious to know more. At the next neighborhood watch meeting, I'll ask the officer and see if I can get the facts, then post them here. Thanks. Typically they should already have a law for that anyway... Drunk in Public / Public Intoxication... something to that affect, assuming they are in a "public place". That they want to tie it to the potential that a person might possibly think about driving sounds like some reasoning to increase the fines/jail time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.