Legally “Drunk” vs. Actually Impaired

[Anti Federalist]

Legally “Drunk” vs. Actually Impaired

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021...ally-impaired/

By eric - March 26, 2021

If your car is hit by a sober driver who was pecking at his cell phone rather than watching the road, is the damage done any less severe than it would have been if your car was crashed into by a “drunk” driver?

What if the “drunk” driver doesn’t crash into you – or at all?

Does he deserve punishment because he might have? Why is his punishment for this might have – which is based on almost hysterical assertions about the effect of practically any amount of alcohol on all drivers – more severe, usually, than the punishment meted out (if any) to the distracted/addled/incompetent but sober driver who actually did crash into something?

These are reasonable questions. Unfortunately, the answers usually – officially – given are the apotheosis of unreasonable.

First, there is the matter of the arbitrary definition of “impaired.” It weirdly encompasses the person whose actual driving cannot be faulted – which ought to call into question the assertion of impairment – but who is found to have even trace amounts of alcohol in his system.

At the same time, driving that is prima facie impaired – evidence for which being the crash that just happened – is generally written off as an “accident.” A ticket may be issued. It is rare that the offender is arrested – as is almost always the case when a “drunk” driver is identified.

Even if nothing has been crashed into.

It is very odd, this arbitrary leniency and understanding on the one hand – and the harsh, intolerant attitude toward the other.

The “drunk” chose to drink and then drive, some will argue – and that makes him guilty of willfully endangering others.

But – leaving aside the problem of his not actually having harmed anyone yet – and the very debatable question as regards the “endangering,” given the legal definition of “drunk” is so attenuated that a person can meet the criteria after having had a sip of beer (e.g., “zero tolerance” for those legally old enough to drive but not legally old enough to drink) – how is this more punishment-worthy than the actions of the person who chooses to not pay attention, as by pecking at his cellphone, and for that reason drives through a red light and does hit someone?

It is not necessary to refer to an attenuated legal standard; to make hysteric assertions about what might have occurred. This person did run the light – and hit someone. There is no “endangering.”

There is actualing.

It would be ridiculous to question the rightness of holding the offender responsible for the damage he caused. But isn’t it something meaner than ridiculous to “hold responsible” a person who isn’t responsible for causing any damage to anyone?

He broke the law, yes. Step on a crack – break your mother’s back. It’s got nothing to do with whether mom’s back was actually broken. Many people have difficulty with this distinction – between right and wrong and legal and illegal. Sometimes, they are the same – but often, they are not. And it is often the case that something which is “illegal” is also right – from a moral point of view.

For example, it is illegal in some areas, to sell your neighbor fresh milk from your cow, because it is not “approved” by a government bureaucrat. But it is perfectly right to engage in such free exchange.

Conversely, that which is legal is often very wrong, from a moral point of view. There are many obvious examples, including that it was once perfectly legal to own other human beings.

Just as obviously, it was right to ignore that law – and very wrong to punish people for violating it.

There is a weird moralistic aspect to the opprobrium – and punishment – heaped upon the driver who drinks, even if he is only “drunk” in the sense of having more than an arbitrary amount of alcohol in his system.

One can pass every roadside sobriety test but if one fails the breath test one is still subject to arrest for “drunk” driving. More telling is the fact that it is utterly beside the point, in terms of the law, whether the person’s driving was competent or not. Indeed, it is irrelevant in court as a defense against the charge of “drunk” driving.

That is very weird indeed.

It is like convicting a person of robbery who didn’t steal anything.

One need not even have been drinking – or driving – to be convicted of “drunk” driving. An open container is sufficient. Or that you were drinking – even though you are now sleeping . . . in the back seat. The car parked. No need to establish that you just parked. The engine can be stone cold; you could have a time-stamped security camera video of yourself leaving a bar and walking to your parked car, getting in the back seat and curling up. It cuts no ice with the law, which deems you just as guilty of “drunk” driving, even if you never even sat in the driver’s seat.

Never mind that you couldn’t possibly have crashed into anything given the fact.

Hence moralistic – rather than moral.

A moral standard would not be arbitrary and selectively punitive. It would demand accountability arising from any species of inept/reckless driving that resulted in harm caused to another person or someone else’s property – and never mind why.

Who cares why?

What matters – what ought to matter – is that it did.

Or did not.

Hypotheticals – feelings – ought not to enter into it.

That they define it is a measure of the weirdness – the unfairness – of the thing. It is also why other weird and unfair practices – like “mandating” that the healthy pretend they are sick – have spread like a virulent disease.

This infection goes way back – and the cure will take a general re-awakening to the value of ancient, palliative ideas, now largely forgotten, such as the importance of producing a victim to establish a crime – and that people should only be held accountable for the harms they cause others.

Not because others fear harms that haven’t been caused.

[tod evans]

But, but............

Saaaaaaaaftey! Feeeeeeeelings!

The USA has been the victim of hormonally inspired laws and edicts for the last half a century, logic and reason has no place in todays politics.

[Dr.3D]

Yes, causing damage should be what is against the law. Not being "impaired."

Be impaired all you want, just don't cause somebody else damage.

[TheTexan]

You know what's more dangerous than drunk driving?

A drunk driver pretending to drive sober

[tod evans]

You know what's more dangerous than drunk driving?

A drunk driver pretending to drive sober

Cops ruin more families than drunk drivers.

[Ender]

Any "law" that is about what you might do, is unlawful.

[devil21]

When one agrees to the contracts offered by the State, one also agrees to whatever lengths of ridiculousness the State can come up with justify more revenue and enriching the legal/political class. Logic is not a requirement of implementing yet another contract term and condition.

[asurfaholic]

This is a losing argument. Most reasonable people will agree that someone who is intoxicated behind the wheel is a putting everyone else on the road at a significantly increased risk. Sure we can play the “someone texting could crash too” game and the “not every intoxicated person is going to crash” game too. But those are weak arguments on their face.

Obviously some of your other points are perfectly valid, like the fact someone can get a charge for sitting in the drivers seat of a vehicle without actually driving it. Ridiculous.

Just playing a little devils advocate here, but let’s say that the state flipped and there was no way for a cop or concerned citizen (?) to pull someone obviously far too intoxicated to drive. We’ve all been behind one of these guys. No lane control, speed variable, reaction time of a rock. How does a free society deal with that? What if it was ok to drive like that and the only consequence would be if someone else was unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[devil21]

This is a losing argument. Most reasonable people will agree that someone who is intoxicated behind the wheel is a putting everyone else on the road at a significantly increased risk. Sure we can play the “someone texting could crash too” game and the “not every intoxicated person is going to crash” game too. But those are weak arguments on their face.

Obviously some of your other points are perfectly valid, like the fact someone can get a charge for sitting in the drivers seat of a vehicle without actually driving it. Ridiculous.

Just playing a little devils advocate here, but let’s say that the state flipped and there was no way for a cop or concerned citizen (?) to pull someone obviously far too intoxicated to drive. We’ve all been behind one of these guys. No lane control, speed variable, reaction time of a rock. How does a free society deal with that? What if it was ok to drive like that and the only consequence would be if someone else was unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

If someone causes harm to someone else, they are liable under common law (since there is a victim) and are dealt with accordingly under common law in the courts. It could also be argued that someone about to commit harm to someone else, as a grossly intoxicated person that is a clear and present danger to everyone else, is also a common law issue. It's when the mere existence of a presumption, such as BAC=XX, or zero tolerance statutes are implemented that it ceases to be a common law issue and is instead a commercial contract term. Same reason that roadside sobriety tests are "implied consent". One's consent is implied by agreeing to the DL contract.

Where a lot of people get confused is that there are multiple types of law being administered in court houses. Most people just think "going in front of the judge" to be a blanket action across all reasons to be there, without regard for what type of law they are involved in. Not true. Some are common law (victims) but the rest are admiralty commercial contract violations and are essentially just civil cases that have various penalties attached.

This issue boils down to enforcing common law is acceptable in a free society. Enforcing arbitrary contract terms under color of law generally isn't.

[tod evans]

Just playing a little devils advocate here, but let’s say that the state flipped and there was no way for a cop or concerned citizen (?) to pull someone obviously far too intoxicated to drive. We’ve all been behind one of these guys. No lane control, speed variable, reaction time of a rock. How does a free society deal with that? What if it was ok to drive like that and the only consequence would be if someone else was unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

This was the US before MADD, those who drove poorly were arrested and ticketed, often they'd get their ass beaten too.

There were no road blocks, no blood limit laws and the associated government enforcement.

Living then and now it's easy to say less government is preferred.

[Anti Federalist]

This was the US before MADD, those who drove poorly were arrested and ticketed, often they'd get their ass beaten too.

There were no road blocks, no blood limit laws and the associated government enforcement.

Living then and now it's easy to say less government is preferred.

This, exactly.

You were held to a standard of competent driving, not arbitrary numbers picked by Mad Mothers.

I started driving just as all this nonsense was coming online, and there were a number of cases where I was released to drive home, and did without incident, where today I would have been jailed and my life destroyed.

[phill4paul]

This, exactly.

You were held to a standard of competent driving, not arbitrary numbers picked by Mad Mothers.

I started driving just as all this nonsense was coming online, and there were a number of cases where I was released to drive home, and did without incident, where today I would have been jailed and my life destroyed.

Same. And then about 12 yrs. ago turned down the wrong street on my way to pick up someone that called me and said they were too drunk to drive. I was .01 over the limit. $1200 liaryer fees. $500 court cost. $1200 substance abuse course fees to get license reinstated. 48 hrs. community service giving a multi-million non-profit free labor. 1 yr. revocation.

There was nothing wrong with my driving. Wrong place, wrong time.

[pcosmar]

You know what's more dangerous than drunk driving?

A drunk driver pretending to drive sober

A sober driver doing something stupid..

The leading cause of Traffic Fatalities.

[TheTexan]

New rule: if you're drunk, put your flashers on, stay in the right lane, drive 10mph under the speed limit, until you get home.

If you're stopped while following this rule, cop gives you ride home. No charges. Pick up your car in the morning.

Watch drunk driving casualties plummet to the single digits.

[asurfaholic]

or, call an uber like the rest of us. or walk. nothing better than a drunk walk home with some friends

[asurfaholic]

If someone causes harm to someone else, they are liable under common law (since there is a victim) and are dealt with accordingly under common law in the courts. It could also be argued that someone about to commit harm to someone else, as a grossly intoxicated person that is a clear and present danger to everyone else, is also a common law issue. It's when the mere existence of a presumption, such as BAC=XX, or zero tolerance statutes are implemented that it ceases to be a common law issue and is instead a commercial contract term. Same reason that roadside sobriety tests are "implied consent". One's consent is implied by agreeing to the DL contract.

Where a lot of people get confused is that there are multiple types of law being administered in court houses. Most people just think "going in front of the judge" to be a blanket action across all reasons to be there, without regard for what type of law they are involved in. Not true. Some are common law (victims) but the rest are admiralty commercial contract violations and are essentially just civil cases that have various penalties attached.

This issue boils down to enforcing common law is acceptable in a free society. Enforcing arbitrary contract terms under color of law generally isn't.

no argument, thanks for your response

[Occam's Banana]

New rule: if you're drunk, put your flashers on, stay in the right lane, drive 10mph under the speed limit, until you get home.

If you're stopped while following this rule, cop gives you ride home. No charges. Pick up your car in the morning.

Watch drunk driving casualties plummet to the single digits.

NEW RULE PROPOSAL Cost Benefit Analysis:
- PRO: significantly reduced, single-digit drunk-driving casualties
- CON: significantly reduced revenue-generation capacity

NEW RULE PROPOSAL Status: REJECTED

[TheTexan]

This was the US before MADD, those who drove poorly were arrested and ticketed, often they'd get their ass beaten too.

There were no road blocks, no blood limit laws and the associated government enforcement.

Living then and now it's easy to say less government is preferred.

If ass beatings were more common the world would be a better place.

Instead, kids for past few decades are raised to be giant pussies, and even simple bar fights land you in prison with assault charges.

[phill4paul]

New rule: if you're drunk, put your flashers on, stay in the right lane, drive 10mph under the speed limit, until you get home.

If you're stopped while following this rule, cop gives you ride home. No charges. Pick up your car in the morning.

Watch drunk driving casualties plummet to the single digits.

Going back to the basis of the article. What's drunk? N.C. had an ad campaign that's been going on for year. "Buzzed" driving will get you arrested.

[TheTexan]

Going back to the basis of the article. What's drunk? N.C. had an ad campaign that's been going on for year. "Buzzed" driving will get you arrested.

Drunk is 1.74 martinis. Assuming 2.4 FL Oz standard.

Or 2.47 bottles of dos equis (12 oz)

Or 14.55 cans of PBR

[phill4paul]

Drunk is 1.74 martinis. Assuming 2.4 FL Oz standard.

Or 2.47 bottles of dos equis (12 oz)

Or 14.55 cans of PBR

I had less than 14.55 cans of PBR. But, I shot-gunned them all in a 2 hr. period. If I'd been stopped 24 hrs. later there wouldn't have been a problem.

[Sonny Tufts]

What if the “drunk” driver doesn’t crash into you – or at all?

Does he deserve punishment because he might have? Why is his punishment for this might have

So driving 100 mph in a school zone when the toddlers are getting out of school is OK as long as none of the kiddos is hit?

As far as legally drunk is concerned:

[Danke]

So driving 100 mph in a school zone when the toddlers are getting out of school is OK as long as none of the kiddos is hit?

As far as legally drunk is concerned:

That is reckless driving. Getting in trouble after having a few drinks is a precrime if you are not driving around recklessly.

[phill4paul]

So driving 100 mph in a school zone when the toddlers are getting out of school is OK as long as none of the kiddos is hit?

Where did you get that bull$#@! from?

[Anti Federalist]

So driving 100 mph in a school zone when the toddlers are getting out of school is OK as long as none of the kiddos is hit?

As already noted, reckless driving and that is actionable.

Not at all what we are talking about here.

[Sonny Tufts]

As already noted, reckless driving and that is actionable.

Not at all what we are talking about here.

The point of the OP was the distinction between actually causing harm and doing something that hypothetically could cause harm but doesn't, and that while the former should be punishable, the latter shouldn't:

A moral standard would not be arbitrary and selectively punitive. It would demand accountability arising from any species of inept/reckless driving that resulted in harm caused to another person or someone else’s property – and never mind why.

Who cares why?

What matters – what ought to matter – is that it did.

Or did not.

Hypotheticals – feelings – ought not to enter into it.

So under the theory of the OP, reckless driving that doesn't cause harm shouldn't be punished.

[Anti Federalist]

The point of the OP was the distinction between actually causing harm and doing something that hypothetically could cause harm but doesn't, and that while the former should be punishable, the latter shouldn't:

So under the theory of the OP, reckless driving that doesn't cause harm shouldn't be punished.

And taken to the other extreme, everything you do causes harm.

This is how the Green Marxists will justify genocide.

VW employees went to jail and the company was criminally fined billions of dollars, for an emissions "scam" that resulted in an increase of the pollutant in question, nitrogen oxides, from the required 98.7 percent removal to 98.4 - never mind that the lower figure was offset by the fact that the engines in question produced more power and thus overall emitted less pollutants than the government smog restricted ones, or the fact that nobody could produce anybody that had been harmed in any real way.

The default should always be: first show me the victim.

But that is not how the law is today.

I doubt anybody would have an issue with force being used to stop someone who was intoxicated and randomly shooting at people.

[devil21]

So driving 100 mph in a school zone when the toddlers are getting out of school is OK as long as none of the kiddos is hit?

As far as legally drunk is concerned:

That would be a violation of common law, where a clear and present danger is apparent to everyone and requires no "presumptions of law" to make it actionable in front of a jury of peers or a judge. My rule of thumb is that if something requires a presumption of law (whether by statute or by operation of law, such as how our current Roman legal commercial courts operate), absent an actual victim, in order to be enforceable, then what is being enforced is not a common law crime but is rather a commercial contract violation of some voluntarily accepted contract term.

Relevant: 12 Presumptions of Roman courts in effect right now
https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/b...ions-of-court/

[pcosmar]

New rule: if you're drunk, put your flashers on, stay in the right lane, drive 10mph under the speed limit, until you get home.

If you're stopped while following this rule, cop gives you ride home. No charges. Pick up your car in the morning.

Watch drunk driving casualties plummet to the single digits.

always were single digit.. rare.

[pcosmar]

reckless driving that doesn't cause harm shouldn't be punished.

Wreckless should not be considered Reckless.