So, Sir, Have You Had Anything To Drink Tonight?

I've been contemplating writing a diary about our drinking culture in the United States for some time now, just not knowing what specifically I wanted to address.  What is most important to me?  What would other members deem worth debate?  What about our drinking culture, history, laws and flaws do we   need to address?

As a substance abuse counselor working mostly with DUI offenders, a subject has come up on many occasion in group and in my individuals appointments with clients: Police Check Points.

Still there?  Follow me to the juicey parts.....

The statistics for drunk driving deaths with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 or over for 1982 in Illinois--where I reside--was 53%.  In 2005, it decreased to 35%.  This is a good thing!  Why the decrease?  What changed?

Sobriety Check Points

First of all, what is a sobriety check point?

Sobriety checkpoint: law enforcement evaluates drivers for signs of alcohol or drug impairment at certain points on the roadway. Vehicles are stopped in a specific sequence, such as every other vehicle or every fourth, fifth or sixth vehicle. Sobriety checkpoints must display warning signs to motorists. Police must have a reason to believe the driver stopped at a checkpoint has been drinking before a breath test can be conducted.

info supplied by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers

The CDC (Center For Disease Control) has resources claiming a decrease of 22% of fatal crashes due to the use of sobriety check points.

This issue is huge for individuals who have lost loved ones to a drunk drivers.  The emotional toll it takes on a family is gut-wrenching. 

My cousin died in a single motorcycle accident in 1987.  He was 25 years old and he was very drunk.

Luckily, he did not kill anyone else, but watching my aunt and uncle decide which organs to donate is not something I will soon forget.

Even having experienced this, I, as a progressive have a difficult time reconciling check points and my individual rights when there is another tool available--Saturation Patrol.  This is defined by law enforcement watching and observing for moving violations, aggressive driving, and the such--you know, what the police are suppose to do anyway.

I understand that some of my clients are bent on focusing their lot in treatment to be an outside evil, like the police and court system, but it is hard for me to come to terms with this procedure.

Alcohol causes distorted thinking; distortions in judgement, perception, emotional control, alertness, concentration, coodination and good reaction time.  AND because of this distorted thinking, people many times believe they are "just fine" to drive, when in fact, they are very impaired.  Think of how many times as individuals we have driven drunk, but just didn't get stopped?

How many times did you thank God when you pulled into the driveway?

As progressives, how do we reconcile this?  Let's debate. 

Keep in mind: I do understand this can be a very emotional subject for some and the majority of people in America polled want these checkpoints.  So, breathe before you type. Debate please; don't attack.

•  I'll be back & forth....

  I have some clients.
  Peace.

  by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:10:39 AM PDT

•  sorry.

  Sorry. I never drink and drive. All my friends know that as well. If I'm going to be driving, I will have exactly ONE beer. If it's a very long evening, I will have a second beer, but that is a great rarity.

  Wish I could help with the "powerless to stop myself" mentality, but I think it's all a bunch of crap. No one's an alcoholic because they have to have alcohol. They're an alcoholic because something in their life is so unpleasant they have to blot it out. If all the alcohol disappeared tomorrow, it would be paint thinner, or cocaine, or chocolate, or whatever.

  We aren't a DRINKING culture. We're a self-pity/avoidance culture.

  by Alex With an E on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:19:55 AM PDT

  •  What is your definition of "alcoholic?"

    The conventional definition is, "A person who cannot stop consuming alcohol and frequently does so to excess."  You use the word in one breath, yet in the next breath you call the idea that they are powerless to stop themselves "a bunch of crap."

    So I assume that when you say "alcoholic," you mean something other than somebody who is powerless to stop himself from drinking.

    by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:25:56 AM PDT

  •  I understand where you stand on this......AND

    you don't have to be an alcoholic to drink & drive......most of the DUI offenders I see are not alcoholics by definition.

    by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:28:28 AM PDT

  •  Uh, one beer is a drink.

    by C Barr on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:41 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, There are people who are addicted to

    alcohol. They crave the way they feel when drunk. And they have withdrawal symptoms when they quit.

    by Owllwoman on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:34:15 AM PDT

    •  Thank you.

      My father was one of those. He had the worse withdrawals if he had just one drink.

      I have known people who are simply addictive personalities, and are able to switch one addiction for another, but there really is a disease called alcoholism.

      by Floja Roja on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:38:14 AM PDT

      •  My brother was an alcoholic.

        He was my older brother and growing up I worshiped the ground he walked on. He enlisted in the Marines and was sent to Korea. He was never the same. I watched him through the years totally destroy him and the people who loved him. He died at the age of 52 from a fx. clavicle. He really died of alcholism. My Father was an alcholic and now my younger brother is too. The three girls in my family have managed to stay away from the bottle, thank God.

        by Owllwoman on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:53:51 AM PDT

  •  Whoof. Such compassion

    I guess there also are such things as clinical depression, bi-polar disorder, ADHD, or dyslexia.

    Nope, just a whole bunch of lazy, self-pitying dumb fucks.

    How lucky for you to be among the blessed and to have avoided such vices.  Are you by any chance a Calvinist?

    by Frankenoid on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:47:25 AM PDT

  •  You are totally uninformed.

    Alcoholics are addicted to alcohol the same as some drug users are addicted to drugs.  The only choice for some is never to take a drink or never to try drugs.

    by nupstateny on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:53:24 AM PDT

  •  you sir

    are clueless. While you are correct that most addictions are based or start in emotional trauma of one sort or another, at some point the physiology of the body changes and one needs the drug to function. Alcohol is a drug.
    For some the change is quick due to genetic disposition, others not so much.
    I hope nobody in your blessed family is ever afflicted as your lack of compassion is astounding.

    by FireCrow on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:54:12 AM PDT

  •  Alcoholism is primarily physiological......

    alcoholics become addicted because their bodies are physiologically incapable of processing it normally.

    An alcoholic has the same psychological or emotional problems as everyone else BEFORE they start drinking.  These problems are made worse by their addiction.

    by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:54:41 AM PDT

    •  I had heard the opposite

      Some groups, especially among Asians and Native Americans, lack an enzyme to break down alcohol efficiently and this makes them more prone to alcoholism.

      But the actual addiction is mostly just the disposition of someone with an addictive personality. No different form one who gets addicted to video-games.

      But then again, the line between psychological and physiological has never been very clear.

      by Pav on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:58:20 PM PDT

      •  Lacking an enzyme in the liver, yes...

        which is physiology.  As for psychological and emotional problems, alcoholics experience all the social pressures everyone else does, but their ability to cope is undermined by the disease and the problems get worse.
        There is a difference between addiction and abuse and that's where the line gets fuzzy for the average joe and professionals alike.  We have been debating all this for a few centuries.

        by DeannaHawk on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:30:05 AM PDT

  •  Clarification

    If there's a genetic component to alcoholism, I've yet to see it reported conclusively. I've read about alcoholism being prevalent in families, implying a genetic link. But by the same analogy, since two Catholics will usually raise their children Catholic, that means religions must be genetic. What? It doesn't work like that? It's an instance of environment and circumstance? You mean a Catholic baby could be raised as a Protestant or a Jew or a Muslim or an Atheist or a Flying Spaghetti Monsterist if taken from its Catholic home at an early age? So why doesn't that mean that an alcoholic could turn out to not be an alcoholic if raised in a different environment?

    Most (repeat, most) alcoholism is a convenient and imprecise label put by some people to the method used by themselves and others to self-medicate psychological trauma. Sometimes because they don't want to face THE EVENT (whatever it was). Sometimes because they have been repressing it for so long, they might have actually completely forgotten it.

    One of the previous posts was about someone's brother coming home from a war as a different person. If that doesn't prove my point, what will? The thousands of incubating drunks that the current war is producing? Look at the crack epidemic in the 1980s. Do you think everyone had a "crack" gene? Of course not. The crack addicts were mostly people in a tremendously difficult economic circumstance (grinding, inescapable poverty) made worse by being constantly bombarded by images and ads of highly successful people. Would you show a starving man an episode of Julia Child?

    How many "reformed" alcoholics turn to some other drug? Caffeine, tobacco, food, therapy, religion after they put away the bottle?

    That's why I say we aren't a DRINKING culture. We're a culture that has somehow simultaneously managed to have almost everyone medicated for something, but failed to actually target on a large scale the precipatory incidents that lead to the addictions.

    by Alex With an E on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:20:00 AM PDT

•  I've never been a big fan of the idea

  that being inside one's car entitles one to an expectation of privacy, because a person is both inside the car and in the outside world, if the car is treated as an extension of the person (which I think is appropriate in certain circumstances).

  I do not support cops stopping people, searching their cars, because it seems pretty clear to me that this is a violation of someone's privacy.  Stuff inside the car is being searched for no apparent reason.

  However, when one is responsible for the behavior of a machine moving through a public area at a potentially-fatal speed, it seems to me well within the rights of law enforcement to verify that one is operating this machine in a safe manner.

  by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:22:38 AM PDT

  •  I think the idea is that is is an extention of

    your home:  
    http://www.stluciecriminallaw.com/...
    excerpted:
    "The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. Most people instinctively understand the concept of privacy. It is the freedom to decide which details of your life will be revealed to the public and which will be revealed only to those you care to share them with. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

    The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel or whatever, if:

    the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
    the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued."

    by Hope4USnow on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:30:12 AM PDT

    •  I'm sure this has been debated

      by scholars much more knowledgeable than I, but it seems to me that the essential difference is that my home is typically not speeding down the highway in close proximity to other speeding homes.

      If I don't want to reveal my drunk ass to the public or to law enforcement, I stay in my home.

      by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:32:10 AM PDT

      •  if the officer catches it "speeding" or driving

        recklessly there is probable cause

        by Hope4USnow on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:39:31 AM PDT

        •  But you see my point, right?

          I suppose I left out some important information, which is that I do not live in a mobile home, and therefore a cop will never find my home speeding or driving recklessly.

          That is to say, car ≠ home.

          by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:45:14 AM PDT

          •  see what you are saying but think you wrong

            I was not talking about a mobile home just making a funny

            by Hope4USnow on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:35:44 AM PDT

      •  I'm just going to throw something in

        ...mid-thread, just out of curiosity.

        What about operating a firearm while drunk/compromised?  Assuming we think that's a bad idea, how should we try to prevent it?  Licensing and/or firearm registration only?  Or should we have checkpoints at hunting sites and ranges? Someone carrying a gun, like someone driving a car, is operating a potentially dangerous bit of machinery (unlike an unarmed pedestrian).

        We have a LOT of conversations about things like traffic stops, searches, gun regulation, etc., at extended-family gatherings, since the extended family includes a bunch of law-enforcement workers.  So I'm just curious to hear what others here think.

        by ChaosMouse on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:08:37 PM PDT

        •  I think this gets to the heart of the matter.

          There is little difference in my mind.  Both cars and guns can be used to good purpose, but both cars and guns can very easily kill someone if handled inappropriately.  But you just can't tell Americans you're going to put any restrictions on their driving, because the car is sacrosanct in the American mind.

          by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:28:27 PM PDT

        •  like Dick Cheney

          A nanny state is not an objective either

          by Hope4USnow on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:10:46 AM PDT

    •  More to the point,

      a car should not cause you to lose rights you otherwise have.  If you are walking down the street, the cops cannot randomly stop you and test you for drugs or alcohol.  You should not lose that protections simply by stepping into a car.

      by weasel on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:40:59 AM PDT

      •  What about airline pilots?

        Should they give up their right to be free from search just by stepping into a cockpit?

        How about doctors?  Why shouldn't they be allowed to drink before work?

        Please don't think I'm just antagonizing you.  I'm curious about whether you think these situations are different, and why.

        by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:06:54 AM PDT

        •  doctors

          do drink before work. Doctors in fact have the highest levels of substance abuse of any profession.

          Airline pilots are not checked by agents of the state before they climb into the cockpit. They may be tested by their employers, but the Fourth Amendment, ordinarily, does not extend to relations between citizens and their private employers. In any event, no airline pilot, in my view, should be searched and seized for evidence of intoxication unless that pilot manifests probable cause to believe s/he is intoxicated. Just as you should never be searched and seized, as you make your way down the road, unless you manifest probable cause to believe that you are intoxicated.

          by blueness on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:18:52 AM PDT

        •  I think...

          anyone who drinks while on the job or before their job understands their risk of unemployment.  Most company policies state this.

          by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:19:01 AM PDT

          •  doesn't mean it doesn't happen n/t

            by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:19:38 AM PDT

        •  Heh

          Is it illegal for doctors to drink and cut?  It is a violation of medical ethics policed by medical review boards, but the cops certainly can't go in and breath-test doctors at random.  Or airline pilots.  So these limitations are not at all on the same level as sobriety checkpoints.

          But I do think they are different.  Driving is a normal and indeed an essential activity for most Americans.  90+% of people must drive to get to work.  So by taking rights of people in cars, you are taking the rights of all Americans in very many situations.

          Additionally, pilots and doctors are very well compensated for what they do, and part of the compensation inevitably goes to balance out things like the increased scrutiny they face.  

          by weasel on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:22:18 AM PDT

          •  Except most sobriety checkpoints

            do not happen on Tuesday morning at 8:45, when Americans are exercising their right to get to work.  They happen on Saturday night/Sunday morning at 1:30 am, when (I guess) Americans are exercising their right to drink and drive.

            I understand and appreciate the principle you all are defending, but you do see that in the course of defending this, you are also defending the right to drink and drive, right?

            by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:33:12 AM PDT

            •  Umm, well, no.

              First off, plenty of people work the night-shift, and plenty more drive around sober at 1 in the morning.  They all have rights.

              Separately, you are simple wrong in your conclusion.  We're back to your doctor analogy.  Lets presume that it is illegal for a doctor to drink and perform surgery (I don't know if it is).  The cops cannot randomly test every surgeon for alcohol.  Saying that does not defend their right to drink and cut.

              Likewise, making drinking and driving illegal does not mean the cops have the right to haul everyone over and test them for alcohol.  It's illegal to do cocaine, but the police cannot stop everyone and demand urine samples.

              Requiring the police respect peoples rights is in no way defending the "right" of people to commit crimes.  It is defending the imporance of civil rights for everyone, and recognizing that the state has the power to imprison anyone for something if it really wanted to.  Requiring things like respect for rights and proof before a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is what helps balance out that huge imbalance of power and prevents this counrty from becoming an authoritarian state.

              by weasel on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:43:16 AM PDT

              •  I don't disagree with any of that.

                I'm saying that sobriety checkpoints SHOULD BE legal.

                You are defending a Constitutional principle that has the very unfortunate side effect of enabling drinking and driving, no two ways about it.  I say that not to accuse you of anything, because I agree the principle is important.  It's a simple fact, though, that you would take one tool away from law enforcement that could be used to prevent drinking and driving.

                And yes, at the extreme, preventing guards at Abu Ghraib from torturing people is taking one tool away from them.  I support taking that tool away from them.  I don't support taking the sobriety checkpoint away.  You and I just draw the line at different places.  For whatever reason, you would prefer to uphold civil rights at the expense of more DUI-related deaths, whereas I would prefer to protect life at the expense of encroachment upon personal liberty.

                by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:53:31 AM PDT

                •  Enabling?

                  You are defending a Constitutional principle that has the very unfortunate side effect of enabling drinking and driving, no two ways about it.

                  Yes, too ways about it.  It is not "enabling" drinking and driving to protect civil rights.  Police must obtain a warrant in order to burst into your home, hold you at gunpoint, and rifle through your house looking for drugs.  So, does the Constitution's warrant requirement "enable" drug usage?

                  And certainly drugs kill plenty of people.  So would you support that encroachment of personal liberty in the name of "protecting life"?

                  There is no end to the number of deadly things in the world, and no end of possible government intrusions that some might believe would save lives.  The police could stop you and give you a test for STDs, just to make sure you are not infecting your partner with a deadly disease.

                  Your casual life-versus-liberty argument ignores a number of complex issues.  I'll talk about 2:

                  1. You would have a stronger case for impacting liberty in defense of life if you first tried solution that did not impact liberty.  For instance, several people have pointed out that a real mass-transit system would reduce drunk driving significantly.  I certain know that is true from my own experience (I live in a college town).

                  2. You ignore the devastating impact of our overgrown criminal justice system on life, livelihood, liberty, and society.  It is somewhat outside the bounds of the question, but attempts to give the government free rein in protecting "life," "security," "the children," or anything else has produced an insane criminal justice system controlling millions of lives.  We have extremely violent prisons and a permanent underclass who are barred from most jobs, housing, rights, and government benefits.  So there are real costs, real loss of life, in the limited pursuit of protecting life.  

                  It is far too simplistic to say that controlling the potentially limitless power of an armed government force is somehow "enabling" criminal activity.

                  by weasel on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:27:04 PM PDT

                  •  answers

                    So, does the Constitution's warrant requirement "enable" drug usage?

                    Yes.  If the DEA could break into your home at any time and search for drugs, there would be less drug use.  Note that I am not endorsing this plan.

                    So would you support that encroachment of personal liberty in the name of "protecting life"?

                    No, unless drug users were somehow endangering my life through their use of drugs.

                    For instance, several people have pointed out that a real mass-transit system would reduce drunk driving significantly.

                    I would also love to see this -- I think zenbowl's suggestion that Americans are more addicted to cars than to alcohol is right on target -- but it is not likely to happen.  Except in very large and well-planned cities, people are going to continue to drive drunk because it is more convenient.

                    2. You ignore the devastating impact ...

                    You're attributing a far more expansive argument to me than I suggested.  I wrote that I would support sobriety checkpoints, not the abolition of the 4th Amendment.  I realize I am in opposition to case law, but I find it ridiculous that the 4th Amendment applies to a person operating a piece of machinery in public.  This, I believe, is an extension of Americans' addiction to their cars, as it enshrines the piece of machinery known as an automobile as sacrosanct.  We don't allow Americans to use other pieces of machinery (such as guns) in public without some sort of law enforcement oversight, and I see no reason why the car should be different.

                    by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:37:47 PM PDT

                    •  Well

                      Your definition of "enabling" is oddly broad.  Police tactics do not render anyone capable of anything.  The fact that I am banned from taking a sniper's rifle and shooting anyone I see swerving on I-35 I guess could be "enabling" drunk driving, but that's kind of silly.

                      As for the drugs, they do endanger lives.  Not yours maybe, but plenty of innocents have been killed in drugs wars, and drug sales are of course fueled by the drug users at the end.

                      On mass-transit, you agree that we have a way to reduce drunk driving without impacting civil rights, but simply say "it's not likely to happen."  You seem to have gone from arguing life trumps liberty to political convenience trumps liberty.

                      As for me attributing too large an argument to you, perhaps, but you have only said so far that you would draw the line at Abu Ghraib, so I don't know how big your argument is.  You say you only car about cars, but you want people to have fewer rights if they are in a car than if they were walking on the street.

                      And again, you are wrong about the other machinery.  People (here in Texas) can carry guns without the police stopping and searching them at random to ensure they sober and of a healthy mindset.  If any worker on a contruction site has ever faced a random sobriety stop by police, I've never heard of it.  Same for the doctors you mentioned and all others whose negligence could possibly get someone killed.  You aren't against "enshrining" the car, you appear to want fewer rights within cars than anywhere else or using anything else.

                      by weasel on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:52:22 PM PDT

                      •  I'm just arguing for what's practical.

                        We can reduce DUI-related deaths by implementing mass transit nationwide, which will take at least 50 years with the way cities are currently planned, and may never happen in rural areas.  I think we must do this.  In the shorter term, checkpoints help reduce fatalities.

                        Fair point about the scope of my argument -- I did leave myself open to that.  But in short, yes, I am arguing for people having fewer rights when they drive than when they walk, because a person can't kill another person by drunkenly stumbling into them.

                        I admit that I am arguing for taking away rights, but the trade-off is important enough.

                        by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:22:48 PM PDT

                •  enabling, that's good

                  Constitutional principles also enable terrrists, don't you know?

                  by debedb on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:22:13 PM PDT

                  •  Heh.

                    I'm glad you ignored several comments of debate and clarification to get in this gratuitous and incorrect dig.

                    by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:08:35 PM PDT

      •  If you're stumbling down the street though

        they might.

        Reminds me of my college days. . .

        by Pav on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 09:01:40 PM PDT

  •  as

    Mr. Justice Stewart wrote in Coolidge v. New Hamsphire (1971) 403 US 443, at 461: "The word 'automobile' is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears." There is a reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile, as compared to a dwelling place, but that expectation is not reduced to zero. An officer must sill possess probable cause (or, post-Terry, the Fourth Amendment-wrecking invention of "reasonable suspicion") that the motorist is engaged in crime. A sobriety checkpoint supposes no such thing. It is random, suspicionless: those stopped have provided no objective evidence that they have committed any offense. As such, sobriety checkpoints violate the core of the Fourth Amendment, and revive the "general warrant" that the Fourth Amendment was specifically intended to prohibit.

    Mr. Justice Stewart also wrote in Coolidge, at 455:

    In times of unrest, whether caused by crime or racial conflict or fear of internal subversion, this basic law and the values that it represents may appear unrealistic or "extravagant" to some. But the values were those of the authors of our fundamental constitutional concepts. In times not altogether unlike our own they won--by legal and constitutional means in England, and by revolution on this continent--a right of personal security against arbitrary intrusions by official power. If times have changed, reducing everyman's scope to do as he pleases in an urban and industrial world, the changes have made the values served by the Fourth Amendment more, not less, important.

    by blueness on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:02:42 AM PDT

•  I don't like the concept of having

  agressive driving laws.  Seems to me that speeding failure to stop etc, etc etc is enough.  Its what you do not how you do it.  This seems like a Double Jeopardy.

  by Hope4USnow on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:23:56 AM PDT

•  I'd prefer Saturation Patrol...

  Maybe it's harder to monitor moving traffic for dangeous behavior, but GEEZ!!! Cell phones changed everything. You can be a serious hazard with a BAC of 0. They need an enforcement strategy that adresses this.

  by Lefty Mama on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:30:01 AM PDT

  •  Very valid point.

    talk about driving compromised.

    by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:31:33 AM PDT

  •  That article is sort of misleading.

    It's not talking that causes the cognitive load and impairs your driving (you can talk to someone in the car and not have the same effects).  It's something about talking to someone who cannot know what's going on in the car -- or more important, in the road -- and won't shut up when you need to concentrate (because they do not know you need to concentrate).

    There's also something about talking to someone who is not physically present that causes increased load, but I have to do some research on this...  (heh. right after I finish grading this giant pile of papers...)

    by Marc in KS on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:42:20 AM PDT

    •  The is research somewhere

      I'll try to find it. Apparently the part of your brain that you use while driving is the same part you use while talking on the phone. That combined with the fact that the person you are talking to is not present and cannot react to the imminent danger increases the chances that you will have an accident.

      by TheMomCat on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:03:14 AM PDT

    •  that is correct

      talking to somebody in the car does not have the same level of effect - but is it a coincidence that in my teen years every single time a cop stopped me, I was in a big conversation with another person in my car? My passengers did not notice it, but I was probably weaving because I was "talking with my hands" too much.

      Passengers DO help the driver - "look out!!!" and that sort of thing. Some kinds of passengers are much worse even than cell phones, like two kids fighting in the back, or two parents fighting in the front.

      When I do talk on my cell phone in the car, I try to tell the other person that I'm in a car, and I may need to hang up without warning. Often people on the phone want more audio cues so they know you are listening.

      by Lefty Mama on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:07:26 AM PDT

    •  When conversations are remote

      like over the phone, or online, all the non-verbal information that is a substaintial part of communication is missing. We have to put more effort and concentration into what would be almost an effortless task if the person were sitting next to you. All the elements of an in-person conversation combine to make it nearly autonomous to and in parallel with other non-language tasks. If you take away some of these elements, the effortless task begins to chip away at active concentration. Even if it is just a little, say 5%, of the your mental foreground processes - it's many times (maybe hundreds) more distracting.

      by Kudos on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:14:49 PM PDT

      •  That's what I think, too.

        I think we spend a significant amount of our cognitive resources representing the other person.  When they're in the car, you don't have to build a representation of them.  But when they're on the phone, you do.

        Interestingly, you don't get the same level of load when talking on a radio.  I don't understand that, but two-way radio has been used for decades and we've not showed a big effect of it.  It's something unique to telephone conversations.

        But that "representational" hypothesis is the one I'd like to do a little research on.

        One day, one day...

        by Marc in KS on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:57:17 PM PDT

•  I don't really have a problem...

  ...with sobriety checkpoints, even though it seems kind of ridiculous.

  How hard would it be to have every single mass-manufactured automobile have an alcohol detection system that ensured the driver was below .08 before the car could be started and put in drive?

  by The Termite on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:32:29 AM PDT

  •  By "ridiculous" I meant...

    ...low-tech, primitive and suboptimal.

    I mean, if somebody causes a fatal wreck a half-mile before the checkpoint, the checkpoint didn't really work.

    by The Termite on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:37 AM PDT

    •  Likewise,

      if a drunk driver were not among the 1 in 4 vehicles actually stopped...

      by GTPinNJ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:39:41 AM PDT

  •  Money....

    everything comes down to money it seems.
    This is used on repeat offenders for their cars many times.

    Also: many bars tried this procedure-blow on your way out the door to see where you were with your BAC--you can imagine why it didn't work--"Let's see who can get the highest BAC!!!"   Nice, huh?

    by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:40:20 AM PDT

•  Drunk driving is a community problem

  Live in the suburbs?  Can't walk to a bar?  Don't really know your neighbors?  No late-night public transportation?

  This is what causes drunk driving.

  Most people busted for drinking and driving get in trouble because they're addicted to their cars, not because they're addicted to booze.

  by zenbowl on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:32:45 AM PDT

  •  Are There Stats For This? Because I Recall

    PSA's a generation ago and more saying that most DD accidents were caused by a small percentage of people definitely addicted to alcohol.

    I'd love to know if better newer stats refute that, and what the breakdown is (if known) in accident rates of casual drinkers vs addicted.

    As a musician however I am very familiar with our two annual Amateur Nights -- New Year's and St. Patrick's Day, and doubtless in some parts of the country Mardis Gras -- when I see huge numbers of impaired people out and around. I don't know how they affect annual accident stats, but if they have any impact at all, I'm all for timely heavy enforcement.

    by Gooserock on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:59:45 AM PDT

  •  Fantastic insight, that last sentence.

    by I on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:08:28 AM PDT

  •  Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

    by rick on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:34:02 PM PDT

•  sobriety checkpoints

  are random, suspicionless searches and seizures, and as such they violate the core of the Fourth Amendment. Rightist judicial activists were required to invent a whole new doctrine to permit them. As other invented exceptions to the Fourth Amendment devised by the wreckers on the Supreme Court--i.e., Whren, which permits detention upon a perceived violation of any traffic infraction, regardless of the subjective motivation of the officer--can reach the same end, sobriety checkpoints are entirely unnecessary. They are also a dangerous foot in the door. Some jurisidictions have attempted to expand them, to look, say, for stolen property, or narcotics. The high court has thus far resisted endorsing these expansions, but that can easily change, as bench membership changes.

  by blueness on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:02 AM PDT

  •  and I have personally observed......

    every car being stopped, not just random, fifth ot sixth car...and to me that does smell of "You, citizen, show me your papers!"

    by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:36:12 AM PDT

    •  Me too.

      I've only driven through two police checkpoints in my life, and both were stopping every driver.  They called them insurance checkpoints or something like that, and I had to show my license, registration, and proof of insurance.  

      by KansasLiberal on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:54:40 AM PDT

      •  THIS is what I have the ....

        biggest problem with.....little by little just a few more liberties taken.

        by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:22:44 AM PDT

        •  Generally I agree, but driving is not a right

          People need to remember that driving is not a right, it is a privilege, and with that comes responsibility.  Don't earn it, don't get to drive.  Driving drunk qualifies as not earning it.

          I've never been through a checkpoint and I have driven over the limit several times in my life, I'm sure.  I pretty much don't drink and drive anymore, or have just one drink if I'm driving.  Regardless of whether it is "fair" or not when you get caught, people know what they are doing when they drink and drive.  It is willfully breaking the law whether you get caught or not.

          by Pennsylvanian on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:54:04 AM PDT

          •  no,

            driving is a right, not a privilege. The right to travel is a right secured by the Constitution. In the 19th Century no one said that riding a horse was a privilege, not a right. Similarly, I have a right to drive an automobile over the roads that I, through my taxes, have paid for. This "privilege, not a right" balderdash has been pounded into our heads by the State, but that doesn't make it right. It doesn't even make sense.

            by blueness on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:47:51 PM PDT

            •  Right to travel is not right to drive

              Driving requires a license, traveling does not.  The state issues the license.  You are free to travel though.

              Your argument has nothing to do with driving a car.  Do you also think you have a right to drive a bus without a license?  How about a plane?  Or a train?  No, that's right.  You don't.  Same with a car.

              by Pennsylvanian on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:26:08 PM PDT

              •  right to travel

                should mean right to drive. The state has no more business issuing me a license to drive over roads that I have paid for than it does issuing me a license to ride a horse.

                The other examples you mention are profit-making endeavors involving the carrying of mass numbers of passengers. Different creature.

                by blueness on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:30:40 PM PDT

          •  privilege

            People need to remember that driving is not a right, it is a privilege

            What does it mean? Why is it a privilege?

            by debedb on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:15:00 PM PDT

            •  Driver's license?

              Driver's licenses are not issued to everybody upon the attainment of legal driving age and they can be taken away from people who do not comply with the law.  Hence, they are a priviledge, not a right.  A right cannot be taken away (or so it used to be pre-W).

              by Pennsylvanian on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:27:42 PM PDT

              •  not really

                A right can be taken away (what is jailing people if not taking away their rights)? So that's not an argument.

                by debedb on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:25:38 PM PDT

  •  What happens at a checkpoint?

    If the purpose is a singular one, i.e. to reduce drunk driving, then I think the stops should not be random. I don't think they should be allowed to ask for your license, ID, insurance or even be able to arrest you because there's a gun on the seat next to you.

    Do the police ask for these things at sobriety checkpoints?

    If they do, then it is more than a sobriety checkpoint. I think we can accept some abridgement of our rights when they are done under a well-defined, narrow mandate - like airport screening. There must be a single purpose, whether it be keeping bombs off planes or drunks off the road and all other infractions revealed that are not related to specific mandates must be considered no differently than if they had been discovered during an unreasonable search.

    by Kudos on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:38:51 PM PDT

•  well, there is one exception....

  

  by james risser on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:34:54 AM PDT

  •  The next time someone says they'll vote for a

    ... person because he's "somebody they'd like to have a beer with"

    ... show them this and ask if they'd also let him date their daughter and borrow a few billion in advance out of their checking account to pay for the ensuing car wreck.

    ~~~~~~~

    As a female who has uncanny timing in the ability to pick a route that includes a sobriety checkpoint when my car is stuffed full of 2 weeks' worth of groceries and pet foods, and who does not drink at all, I can say that I dislike them intensely anyway, based on other experiences with the "law enforcement" system and the judicial system.  I don't trust cops, and I don't like it when they shine a flashlight into my vehicle. I also don't like being photographed for no particular reason, which I've caught them doing, not at sobriety checkpoints that I've noticed yet but at another roadblock concerning political protests, more than once... things I actually wasn't participating in but just driving by.  So that's another reason I now carry the camera and I will photo 'em back.  Esp. I try to keep an eye on the protestors so as to protect them.  

    Now you run the potential of getting harrassed just for one's political views.

    I don't know how to reconcile this.

    Have not been impressed with the reaction when I've called in obviously impaired and dangerous drivers, and have also had some assholes try to run me off the road in rural areas because I'm a female driver driving a vehicle with a bumpersticker for the Democratic candidate.  This is why I drive the large unfashionable V8 sometimes, I have literally gunned the engine to outrun morons. Where are the cops.. oh yeah, back at the sobriety checkpoint. Color me cynical.

    by AmericanRiverCanyon on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:29:24 AM PDT

•  I used to think I was a "social drinker"

  I'd have a beer or three on a weekend.

  Then I met and fell in love with a woman from another culture. In her estimation one was either a teetotaller or an alcoholic.

  I now drink only a glass of wine with dinner - and that for medicinal purposes.

  I make it quite certain that I will not drive that night before I drink that wine. Not because I'm afraid of innebriation or diminished capacity, but because if I ever do get in an accident I want to be able to look myself in the mirror and swear it was not because of alcohol.

  I've lost friends and acquaintances to impaired driving.

  DFooK

  by deepfish on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:36:45 AM PDT

•  The US should look to Europe for help

  on the issue of drunk driving.  

  Obviously no one thinks we'll ever have the kind of public transportation they do because of size issues and sprawl but there's no doubt we could learn a couple things from them.

  by Romaniac on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:37:40 AM PDT

  •  Canada. Germany. Australia. New Zealand.

    These are four nations the United States could learn a lot from. All four of these nations have, at some stage in the past 25 years, had a higher road fatality rate than the USA. But all four currently have a road fatality rate about half that of the United States: 50-90 annual deaths per million people in those countries, compared to 150 in the USA.

    How have they achieved such reductions? It has varied.  can't speak for Canada and Germany, but i know that intensive TV ad campaigns and random check points have been a major component for the two down under nations Australia and New Zealand.

    by retrograde on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:14:30 AM PDT

    •  Lose your license for life on the first offense?

      I was told by my parents whose friend moved to Germany some years ago that you lose your license for life on your first offense of drunk driving in Germany.  People walk to the local bar to drink and walk home.  I don't know if it is still true, but it is probably a rather effective deterent.

      by Pennsylvanian on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:59:34 AM PDT

      •  actually...other countries have very.....

        hardcore ways of dealing with drunk drivers....

        Malaysia-The drunken driver is jailed.  If he is married, his wife is jailed too.

        Finland & Sweden-Automatic jail sentence for 1 year hard labor.

        England-1 year in jail, 1 year susp. of license, and a fine.

        Austrailia-The names of convicted drunken drivers are published in the local newspaper under the heading:Drunk and in Jail

        Singapore-Death Penalty

        by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:06:49 PM PDT

        •  Hard labor?

          I find it hard to believe European countries employ "hard labor" in their justice systems.

          by Kudos on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:44:37 PM PDT

          •  it must be referring.....

            to community service.  I could not find any more info on that.  :)

            by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:56:19 PM PDT

•  Best way to stop drunken driving?

  I'd say it's a mass-transit system that works!

  I know I've had to stay sober plenty of nights just because our cities are designed to require cars to get around. I figure if I'm staying sober, there are plenty of people without the willpower.

  by Pav on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:39:55 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    People need an option to move around safely.  Otherwise, they'll make their own judgements on what they can safely do.  Plenty of people think they can drive fine even after a few drinks.  Plenty of them are right, too.  Some are wrong.

    by weasel on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:43:53 AM PDT

    •  I'd say...

      most of them would be wrong.  The first thing that becomes distorted is judgement. Many really do feel they are ok to drive, but clearly are not.
      Cognitively, we are compromised.
      Many people who blow 0.08 or even less were pulled over for swerving....going into on-coming traffic.  Yikes!

      by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:57:21 AM PDT

      •  Maybe they do that sober

        I just moved to DC and these Northern VA drivers are awful.

        by Pav on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:51:41 PM PDT

•  Much has to do with the way towns are built

  No late night public transportation.

  Cabs can be very expensive, and they don't solve the problems of leaving your vehicle at the bar.

  Zoning so that bars are far, far away from residential areas.

  So everyone's forced to drive to the bar if they want to go out and have a good time.  Then when it comes time to go home, well, they're out of options.  Maybe somebody will take one for the team and be the designated driver, but that takes foresight.

  by meldroc on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:42:35 AM PDT

  •  I'm getting an image of a "bar van"

    When the bar locks up, they could put everybody who is left into a big van and drive them home - then the bar picks them up the next morning and brings them back to get their cars... They could sell them breakfast of eggs and oatmeal.

    by Lefty Mama on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:19:02 AM PDT

    •  I remember hearing a story a month or so ago

      ... about a service that meets the commuter ferries (trains?) in the New York area.  Commuters who have had a few drinks on the ride home hand over their keys to guys who will drive them home in their own cars, then the surrogate drivers are picked up by a van and taken back to meet the next ferry.  I think the fee is $20-ish.  Expensive, but much less than a DUI or an accident.

      by lineatus on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:37:43 AM PDT

•  This is a peripheral symptom to substance abuse

  Drunk driving, or driving while you're so tweaked on coke, or stoned on pot ... is what is going to happen when substance abuse in general is rampant.

  Like treating the pain of cancer but not the disease itself, focusing too much attention of a debate on what results when someone drinks to much, and not enough on why people drink seems kind of empty to me.

  I'm a recovering alcoholic, and now have the degree to do counseling if I wished.  I just have to learn to get past the urge to roll my eyes when I sit in a drunk driving class and listen to the crap that comes out of my fellow alkies' mouths.  I told the same sad story.  Them.  They.  Poor me.

  After 13 years of clean time you'd think I would have developed a compassion for the alcoholic.  And I have.  The recovering alcoholic.

  I have compassion for the garbage he or she has to go through to stay sober.  And yes ... it is powerlessness, Alex With An E.  When an alcoholic takes the first drink ... he can not predict or control what happens next.  The time to appeal to his good senses is before that happens, or after he has recovered them.  But you are mistaken.  Once an alcoholic has made the leap from sober to screwit ... he has no more power of what that drug does to him than does he control how many beats per minute his heart will pound.

  And I suppose I have some compassion for the suffering alcoholic who knows there are meetings, has heard or read about the addiction as disease model, or has even once looked at a Gelnick Chart and spotted himself like looking at a Where's Waldo and decided he would still drink.

  But my compassion is definately diminished.

  He is not driving the car.  He is aiming it.

  I don't care whether it's sobriety check points or stop sticks ... we (alcoholics who drink and drive) have to be stopped.

  If there were a murderer loose no one would bat an eye about a car-by-car search.

  This is kind of like that.

  Oh, and you people who are DWY (Driving While Yacking on your fucking cell phone)?

  I'm coming after you next.  

  by Detroit Mark on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:44:49 AM PDT

  •  An awesome and inspiring comment!

    by elbamash on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:50:07 AM PDT

  •  I have a great respect...

    for what you just said.  Thank you so much for sharing it.
    As a recovering alcoholic myself, I too, get frustrated with the lack of clarity to own what you got.  It is a part of the disease.

    Driving while yacking--now that's self absorbed.

    by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:02:29 AM PDT

  •  DWY

    The cell phone thing drives me nuts.  I drive about 4 miles of interstate twice a day and at 70 mph, cell phone talkers are even more deadly and rarely paying attention.  I have had numerous close calls with cell phone yakers changing lanes without looking or drifting from their lane.  It is totally irresponsible.  I hope they pass the cell phone law in PA asap, becuase people simply will not self-police on this.

    Driving is a primary activity and should be treated as such.  Your car is not a phone booth.

    by Pennsylvanian on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:05:46 PM PDT

•  Drink Driving is wrong.

  The options of enforcing this law are limited.
  Prevention is always better than cure but how do you prevent DUI ?

  by langerdang on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:45:29 AM PDT

•  Worked for

  Wayne County Alcohol Highway Safety Education for seven years as an instructor. Wayne County is metro Detroit.
  This is an emotional issue. I understand the argument for check points. I was never comfortable with them because I thought that they would lead to an erosion of our civil rights. I thought the same about the war on drugs.  I was wrong. I now feel that our civil rights have been eroded because of the war on terror. I'm not flying any more because I refuse to remove my shoes. I know that I am old and grumpy. The world has turned.
  I now think that alcohol checkpoints are not a threat to my civil rights. I am not sure how effective they are but that is a different issue.
  People are going to drink. We have organized our society around the automobile. I have no idea what the solution is. Peak oil and global warming may just solve the problem of drinking and driving.

  by Paul Ferguson on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:46:22 AM PDT

•  I don't drink and if I did, I wouldn't drive.

  Maybe I don't have the perspective that a person who drinks would.  I agree with you and the only reason they don't do it that way is because it's much easier to make you to come to them than it is for them to find you.

  We have those checkpoint things here routinely, but they always say exactly where they'll be and at what time.  They make you roll down your window and they actually stick their head inside your car so that they can smell your breath.

  by nupstateny on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:51:16 AM PDT

•  Should we raise the legal limit?

  Should we raise the .08% legal limit for drunk driving?  If you look at a chart .08% is only two drinks for most people, and for many regular drinkers that's not enough to impair them.  

  by KansasLiberal on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:03:00 AM PDT

  •  the limit

    was originally set at .15, which is the level at which the medical professionals found that drivers became impaired. It is continually lowered for political reasons. Also financial. State and local governments reap enormous amounts of money from DUI fines.

    I work in a law office, and every week I read at least one police report where the cops say somebody who tested out at .08 or .10 "slurred their words." This despite the fact that there is a published case from this very state in which the DA's own medical expert testified that people do not begin to slur their words until their BA reaches .15

    There is a lot of mendacity in this field.

    by blueness on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:27:40 AM PDT

    •  Threats from the Feds

      All states had to go to .08 or lose their highway funding.  PA didn't want to because the cost of processing the extra people in the .08 to .1 range was going to exceed any revenue benefit.  I guess getting the federal highway funds kind of weighed too much against that argument though.

      by Pennsylvanian on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:10:16 PM PDT

  •  but think of the

    mad mothers!

    by debedb on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:28:56 PM PDT

•  I have to question your stats

  The statistics for drunk driving deaths with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 or over for 1982 in Illinois--where I reside--was 53%.  In 2005, it decreased to 35%.

  And from the very source you cited:

  It is important to note that the Illinois drunk driving statistics, as shown above, include data from individuals who were in an alcohol-related crash, but not driving a motor vehicle at the time. The U.S. Department of Transportation defines alcohol-related deaths as "fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or non-occupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value."

  Defend this use, please.

  by debedb on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:04:05 AM PDT

  •  the stats are not incorrect....

    it includes data also from non-drivers.  But its all related to drunk driving deaths.
    Not really sure what I supposed to be defending.

    by DeannaHawk on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:14:13 AM PDT

    •  "related"

      1. Illinois stats do not define "alcohol-related crash"

      2. The DOT definition is more clear, but it involves positive BAC (could be below legal limit) and does not say whether driving mistakes, for example, were the cause. Under those stats, a pedestrian after a couple of beers could be killed by a 90-year-old half-blind driver, and it counts as "alcohol-related".

      In short, the statistics are what they are; conclusions, however, are totally bogus. Typical...

      by debedb on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:47:47 AM PDT

  •  talking obliviously and car crashes

    Maybe there is a legitimate correlation for crashing and having a drunk passenger.

    Driving with a cell phone is dangerous.
    Sounds like some experts think it's still dangerous with a hands-free set.
    So, maybe drunk passengers interact with the driver in a way similar to the distractions of phone conversations.

    If the driver is sober and the passenger is impaired, you have the equivalent of the cell phone conversation because the passenger may be totally oblivious to all road conditions (perhaps noticing how beautiful falling snowflakes are), talking more loudly, etc. and otherwise distracting the driver.

    On the other hand, if the passenger is passed out on the seat, let's hope the driver is not sleepy!

    by Lefty Mama on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:08:45 PM PDT

    •