Having recently traveled in Germany (a country with a wonderfully developed public transportation network; including an excellent train network), and having spent time with my 4 year old boy (who LOVES trains), I am convinced that trains are the answer to much of what ails us as a society. I'm dead serious. We are a society run amock with cars. Cars are an extremely inefficient, polluting and dangerous way to get around compared to trains. I say this at the risk (admittedly astronomically small) that I may suffer economic losses associated with a massive societal transformation toward mass transit over personal automobiles. Why? Well, because a good deal of my earnings have to do with driving; mostly driving under the influence of intoxicants; principally alcohol. If mass transit were competent to get people home after a night out where they may have tipped at least one too many, then I would suffer a serious economic hit. However, I would be happy to if it meant that our society were to do what Western Europe and parts of Asia have done already; pour money into public transportation and leave our domestic auto industry to either adapt themselves to that, or go bankrupt.
The benefits of a conversion to mass transit over automobiles would be limitless. Less dependence on foreign oil (clearly), less air pollution (clearly), fewer traffic fatalities (clearly), incerased productivity (particularly in today's society where work can get done with a PDA or laptop; not while driving an automobile), and, perhaps, better relations among divergent economic and ethnic groups (as is seen in large cities) due to the fact that people from all walks of life sit and stand side by side, as equals, in close quarters on trains and buses instead of, as here in California, whizzing by one another in their cocoons, never to share space, or a conversation, with someone who is not just like them. What's the downside? Those who love cars and driving would still have the opportunity to do so, in fact the roads would be less congested. Support all bond measures and politicians that move us, and our public funds, in favor of mass transit. We'll be better for it.
Showing posts with label drinking and driving. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drinking and driving. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
The Whine Country
Caught between the CHP, who want to want to discourage drinking and driving and the winemakers, who are saying they want to prevent limos, vans, and buses from bringing them literally busloads of customers (some a little too tipsy for their tastes; no pun intended), are the wine tourists. Interestingly, the winemakers are now speaking out against their most enthusiastic customers; those who show up in limos, buses, and vans to get their drink on. Gasp! Can you believe that people who choose to travel from other parts of the state to taste wine are, for the most part, actually quite fond of getting drunk? Those that make their living selling fermented grape juice, at a healthy profit per unit sold, are really complaining that these genuinely enthusiastic members of their customer base are showing up by the busload.
It's unbelievable. It seems that winemakers should be happy that their sales are now soaring in the wake of the hit movie Sideways, rather than whining about some of the predictable pitfalls associated with successfully peddling alcohol; an addictive and oft-abused substance. And, considering the findings of a recent study at Caltech, which shows that peoples' taste in wine is highly correlated with price, it would seem that the industry might want to count their blessings. While there are some oenophiles who go to tasting rooms to check out the latest releases and actually speak "intelligently" about them as they swirl tiny amounts of them in their glasses, roll them around their palates for a minute or two only to spit them out, the majority of their sales are to the people who like the sensation created by gulping these alcoholic beverages in copious amounts much more than they enjoy the "complex" flavors associated with them.
It is truly unfortunate that the winemakers, in an effort to uphold their phoney image of catering primarily to the sophisticated connoisseurs, are speaking out so stridently against the best DUI prevention mechanism of all: designated drivers.
It's unbelievable. It seems that winemakers should be happy that their sales are now soaring in the wake of the hit movie Sideways, rather than whining about some of the predictable pitfalls associated with successfully peddling alcohol; an addictive and oft-abused substance. And, considering the findings of a recent study at Caltech, which shows that peoples' taste in wine is highly correlated with price, it would seem that the industry might want to count their blessings. While there are some oenophiles who go to tasting rooms to check out the latest releases and actually speak "intelligently" about them as they swirl tiny amounts of them in their glasses, roll them around their palates for a minute or two only to spit them out, the majority of their sales are to the people who like the sensation created by gulping these alcoholic beverages in copious amounts much more than they enjoy the "complex" flavors associated with them.
It is truly unfortunate that the winemakers, in an effort to uphold their phoney image of catering primarily to the sophisticated connoisseurs, are speaking out so stridently against the best DUI prevention mechanism of all: designated drivers.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Beware the scarlet letter "D" for DUI
The Daily Sound recently published a list of persons arrested for misdemeanor DUI on a particular weekend under the heading, "Police were busy over the weekend". While smalltown news outlets may experience slow news days, this practice of putting the names of persons arrested on this class of crimes (even though they are public record) has not been the standard practice of journalists here in Santa Barbara unless the individual is a public figure or concerns the public at large in some way (like, for instance, when the community christmas tree gets hit). So, what's going on here? Is this another isolated case of poor journalistic judgment here in Santa Barbara, or could it be seen as part of a national trend to publicly shame DUI defendants?
Maricopa County, Arizona, often on the leading edge of retrograde draconian punishments (e.g., its most famous effort: tent city), has hatched a new way to "crack down" on the "growing" problem of drunk driving. The County Attorney is putting his name along with the mugshot of DUI arrestees on billboards as a threat to motorists that they too could end up having their likeness published in an unflattering light if they end up getting arrested for DUI.
Whatever the public safety benefit, there is another way of looking at this. Criminal Law Professor Dan Markel, at Florida State College of Law, commented on the practice of shaming of DUI defendants as follows:
"The very goal of shaming is the dehumanization of another person before, and with the participation of, the public. Before we permit democratic institutions to subject an offender to ridicule, scorn and humiliation, we have to ask whether this kind of punishment comports with evolving standards of decency and the dignity of humankind. The answer is clearly no."
The question is, have we evolved beyond the witch-hunting days of Salem, Mass., or are we destined to repeat the mistakes of the past? Is the public shaming of the fictional adulteress Hester Prynne with the scarlet letter "A" fiction? Cutting off the hands of petty thieves and public floggings are likely effective deterrents, but in the United States, at least, we reject these forms of punishments. There is a lot we can do to deter drinking and driving that we are not doing. Less ambiguity in our laws, and better public transportation are dui deterrents that do not simply appeal to our base instinct to humiliate, dehumanize, and shame our fellow human beings.
Maricopa County, Arizona, often on the leading edge of retrograde draconian punishments (e.g., its most famous effort: tent city), has hatched a new way to "crack down" on the "growing" problem of drunk driving. The County Attorney is putting his name along with the mugshot of DUI arrestees on billboards as a threat to motorists that they too could end up having their likeness published in an unflattering light if they end up getting arrested for DUI.
Whatever the public safety benefit, there is another way of looking at this. Criminal Law Professor Dan Markel, at Florida State College of Law, commented on the practice of shaming of DUI defendants as follows:
"The very goal of shaming is the dehumanization of another person before, and with the participation of, the public. Before we permit democratic institutions to subject an offender to ridicule, scorn and humiliation, we have to ask whether this kind of punishment comports with evolving standards of decency and the dignity of humankind. The answer is clearly no."
The question is, have we evolved beyond the witch-hunting days of Salem, Mass., or are we destined to repeat the mistakes of the past? Is the public shaming of the fictional adulteress Hester Prynne with the scarlet letter "A" fiction? Cutting off the hands of petty thieves and public floggings are likely effective deterrents, but in the United States, at least, we reject these forms of punishments. There is a lot we can do to deter drinking and driving that we are not doing. Less ambiguity in our laws, and better public transportation are dui deterrents that do not simply appeal to our base instinct to humiliate, dehumanize, and shame our fellow human beings.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Less DUI law is more.
Drinking and driving is not necessarily a crime in the U.S. In California, if you are at least 21, you may not drive with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 percent or greater nor may you drive under the influence of alcohol (and/or other intoxicants). It is well known that Sweden has one of the toughest, if not the toughest, drinking and driving laws in the world. In Sweden, to drive with .02 percent or greater of alcohol in your blood is a crime. Even there, it is lawful to have at least some alcohol in your blood. However, .01 or even .019 percent (which is roughly the level a 180 lb. man would reach if he had the alcohol content of one beer immediately shot into his bloodstream with a syringe) is highly unlikely, according to the current body of scientific research on this subject to, by itself, cause impairment of one's ability to safely drive a motor vehicle. But could as little as one beer be an associated factor with unsafe driving? After all, doesn't drinking one beer cause, or at least contribute to, sleepiness (a highly dangerous state to be in while driving)? The answer is yes.
So, why is it that we (and even the Swedish!) are so tolerant of drinking and driving? Is it that alcohol is "a long-standing part of our [and Swedish] culture, and most adults who drink are able to enjoy it responsibly as part of a healthy lifestyle"? Perhaps. However, before one mindlessly signs on to this oft heard rationale, consider its source. The above quote is actually taken directly from the Century Council which calls themselves, "a national not-for-profit organization dedicated to fighting drunk driving and underage drinking formed by America's leading distillers". The leading distillers, with plenty of money to spend getting their message out, are bent on preserving the acceptance of alcohol as part of a "healthy adult lifestyle". Even if we accept that alcohol is a net positive influence on society such that it should remain lawful to consume (unlike a great many other intoxicating substances which have been declared unlawful), do we still have tolerate drinking and driving? No, actually, we don't.
As I wrote in a previous post, the law which states that you may not drive at .08 percent or greater of alcohol in your blood does not amount to official permission to drive between .05 and .07 (or even at .01 for that matter). The numeric "limit", as it were, is almost meaningless in a case which involves bad driving (or an accident, if you can actually separate the two concepts). Consequently, those who set out to drink the maximum number of drinks that their body weight and the DMV chart suggests they may drink without reaching .08 percent are missing a very important legal reality. They are, without realizing it, making an ill-considered bet that they will not be involved in a traffic accident on their way home. But, in a sense, they are being encouraged to make this bet. This, for obvious reasons, puts us all at greater risk of an accident, and them at risk of being arrested for DUI. There is no safe number of drinks to drink before driving. Even one drink, as it contributes to sleepiness, is unsafe. The worst of it is, that by condoning through laws and charts the act of drinking one, two, and even three drinks, as a part of "healthy adult lifestyle", people who might otherwise reflect on whether drinking even one drink is a safe course of conduct to begin with, may just fall back on (or hide behind) the government's standard of what safe drinking behavior is and, in effect, put themselves at risk of alcoholism and everyone at a much greater risk of alcohol related traffic accidents. To many who drink, two or three drinks causes them to approach, if not achieve, a euphoric feeling of invincibility. So, how difficult is it to stop at two (or three)? Too difficult, apparently. This is likely because two or three is just about enough to make most people (excepting those with a very high tolerance for alcohol) stop caring about the threat of arrest, much less the threat of a traffic accident. It doesn't take a scientist to realize that two drinks leads to three (or more).
In writing this post, I do not advocate for prohibition of alcohol in general. I think what people ingest which causes neither them nor anyone else any real harm should not be made illegal. I do, however, challenge the prevailing myth that drinking and driving is consistent with a "healthy adult lifestyle". Drinking in moderation is fine. Driving in moderation is fine. Together, in any amount, they are dangerous. However, even MADD, which is primarily supported by the auto and insurance industries, doesn't strongly advocate for an absolute end to drinking and driving. Their official position is against "operating under the influence", not against drinking and driving itself. So, how did I end up to the right of MADD on this subject? Easily. I don't like the hypocrisy involved in the current system which I am exposed to on a daily basis. The government, and MADD, ask people to get angry at the DUI offender (and in some cases their lawyers) without considering their own contribution to this problem. At best, the government condones drinking and driving and, at worst, it encourages it. MADD, and other anti-DUI advocacy groups, constantly ply the lawmakers with arguments, and other encouragement, to toughen the laws without addressing the hypocrisy. They, in turn, enact these new laws with zeal to convince their constituents that they are "getting tough" on crime. Consequently, we end up with incrementally tougher but ever more confusing laws which, we shouldn't wonder why, are not doing enough to reduce traffic accidents. I believe that we should skip all of the intermediate steps and simply prohibit the dangerous course of conduct with a clear bright line rule. Thousands of hair-splitting hours at the roadside, in the station, in court and in the legislature could be saved. I think we should simply ban drinking and driving and put more money into rail and other transportation alternatives. But that just makes too much sense and just happens to be too unsettling to the automobile, distilling, and insurance industries.
So, why is it that we (and even the Swedish!) are so tolerant of drinking and driving? Is it that alcohol is "a long-standing part of our [and Swedish] culture, and most adults who drink are able to enjoy it responsibly as part of a healthy lifestyle"? Perhaps. However, before one mindlessly signs on to this oft heard rationale, consider its source. The above quote is actually taken directly from the Century Council which calls themselves, "a national not-for-profit organization dedicated to fighting drunk driving and underage drinking formed by America's leading distillers". The leading distillers, with plenty of money to spend getting their message out, are bent on preserving the acceptance of alcohol as part of a "healthy adult lifestyle". Even if we accept that alcohol is a net positive influence on society such that it should remain lawful to consume (unlike a great many other intoxicating substances which have been declared unlawful), do we still have tolerate drinking and driving? No, actually, we don't.
As I wrote in a previous post, the law which states that you may not drive at .08 percent or greater of alcohol in your blood does not amount to official permission to drive between .05 and .07 (or even at .01 for that matter). The numeric "limit", as it were, is almost meaningless in a case which involves bad driving (or an accident, if you can actually separate the two concepts). Consequently, those who set out to drink the maximum number of drinks that their body weight and the DMV chart suggests they may drink without reaching .08 percent are missing a very important legal reality. They are, without realizing it, making an ill-considered bet that they will not be involved in a traffic accident on their way home. But, in a sense, they are being encouraged to make this bet. This, for obvious reasons, puts us all at greater risk of an accident, and them at risk of being arrested for DUI. There is no safe number of drinks to drink before driving. Even one drink, as it contributes to sleepiness, is unsafe. The worst of it is, that by condoning through laws and charts the act of drinking one, two, and even three drinks, as a part of "healthy adult lifestyle", people who might otherwise reflect on whether drinking even one drink is a safe course of conduct to begin with, may just fall back on (or hide behind) the government's standard of what safe drinking behavior is and, in effect, put themselves at risk of alcoholism and everyone at a much greater risk of alcohol related traffic accidents. To many who drink, two or three drinks causes them to approach, if not achieve, a euphoric feeling of invincibility. So, how difficult is it to stop at two (or three)? Too difficult, apparently. This is likely because two or three is just about enough to make most people (excepting those with a very high tolerance for alcohol) stop caring about the threat of arrest, much less the threat of a traffic accident. It doesn't take a scientist to realize that two drinks leads to three (or more).
In writing this post, I do not advocate for prohibition of alcohol in general. I think what people ingest which causes neither them nor anyone else any real harm should not be made illegal. I do, however, challenge the prevailing myth that drinking and driving is consistent with a "healthy adult lifestyle". Drinking in moderation is fine. Driving in moderation is fine. Together, in any amount, they are dangerous. However, even MADD, which is primarily supported by the auto and insurance industries, doesn't strongly advocate for an absolute end to drinking and driving. Their official position is against "operating under the influence", not against drinking and driving itself. So, how did I end up to the right of MADD on this subject? Easily. I don't like the hypocrisy involved in the current system which I am exposed to on a daily basis. The government, and MADD, ask people to get angry at the DUI offender (and in some cases their lawyers) without considering their own contribution to this problem. At best, the government condones drinking and driving and, at worst, it encourages it. MADD, and other anti-DUI advocacy groups, constantly ply the lawmakers with arguments, and other encouragement, to toughen the laws without addressing the hypocrisy. They, in turn, enact these new laws with zeal to convince their constituents that they are "getting tough" on crime. Consequently, we end up with incrementally tougher but ever more confusing laws which, we shouldn't wonder why, are not doing enough to reduce traffic accidents. I believe that we should skip all of the intermediate steps and simply prohibit the dangerous course of conduct with a clear bright line rule. Thousands of hair-splitting hours at the roadside, in the station, in court and in the legislature could be saved. I think we should simply ban drinking and driving and put more money into rail and other transportation alternatives. But that just makes too much sense and just happens to be too unsettling to the automobile, distilling, and insurance industries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)