Overzealous Prosecution
I appreciate DA David Whetstone’s efforts in this case, but he is being much too overzealous in charging this truck driver with DUI. Yes, he should lose his commercial driver’s license under the law, but no one is going to assert that a 0.01 blood alcohol level is legally impaired. There may be other explanations for why the driver appeared to be impaired and the prosecutors would be wise to examine those other explanations.
Sphere: Related Content
April 28th, 2004 at 6:23 pm
Don’t be so surprised - public sentiment against drinking in this country is and has been irrational for sometime. Check out this long paper for some hard evidence of this scary trend. Long live the nanny state!
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-501es.html
April 28th, 2004 at 9:09 pm
It’s not irrational to be against alcohol. Name one good thing that has come from the consumption of alcohol. I don’t agree that it should be prohibited, but there is no reason to encourage consumption either, especially by those who transport goods and passengers.
April 28th, 2004 at 11:15 pm
Well, do yourself a google for the quoted phrase “benefits of drinking alcohol” to find out. There are lots of studies on how moderate consumption of red-wine and beer (darker=better) can be good for you.
But really, if you can’t think of one good thing that has come from the consumption of alcohol, you must have a very narrow world of experiece.
April 29th, 2004 at 6:47 am
You’ve got to be kidding. There are not “lots of studies” saying beer can be good for you. There are many studies that have shown the supposed benefits of red wine have been overblown and the benefits of beer have always been dubious.
What’s more important is the risk-benefit analysis. Taken altogether the death and destruction that has come from alcohol consumption in this country far outweighs any health benefits.
I also take great offense at your assumptions about my life experience. I have seen the death and destruction brought by alcohol in my own family and I don’t wish any of that on another person. What little alcohol consumption I have done in my life I regret and I haven’t touched a drop in many years, and may never again. Now, this is my choice, but as I said, I’m not arguing for prohibition. I’m arguing that consumption should not be encouraged.
April 29th, 2004 at 4:01 pm
As Ben Franklin said, “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
Sorry to hear you and your family can’t enjoy the fruits of the earth.
April 29th, 2004 at 11:17 pm
Man, being reasonable, must get drunk; the best of life is but intoxication.
Lord Byron
April 30th, 2004 at 10:13 am
Remember alcohol is a depressant. It changes the way your mind works and a persons physical ability. It could be said that it depresses your mental and physical abilities all of which are required to operate a vehicle which weighs several thousand pounds and is capable of high rates of speed. There is nothing irrational about preventing those with reduced mental and physical abilities from operating a guided missile on the streets which my wife drives.
April 30th, 2004 at 4:00 pm
Right Chris, I agree, but there is a limit to how low a level of impairment should be considerd criminal. The BAC level of the driver in this case would have an impairment effect less than having a conversation while driving, which is still legal. That article I linked to above is long, but it’s worth a read. Sometimes stricter laws, heck, lots of times, don’t mean safer communities - there’s a limit.