The slippery slope argument
gets mocked a lot – but here’s another case that proves the point:
Utah has just done what
thinking brains knew was inevitably coming. The state government has nearly
halved the legal threshold defining what risibly continues to be called “drunk”
driving (see here) from the iffy .08 BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) to the
downright ridiculous .05 BAC.
This is a level that many
people reach after as few as two – or fewer – drinks. One is enough, in some
cases, to risk a “bust.”
Thus, Utah’s fatwa – and that
is the right word, as this business comes out of religion – Mormonism – which
would outlaw all drinking, period, if it had the power to do so – is a hop-skip
away from outlawing any drinking prior to driving. Because with a threshold
that low and Breathalyzer machines so notoriously inaccurate, the margin for
error is much too close for comfort. To have even a single beer or glass of
wine with dinner is to risk being arrested and caged for “drunk” driving.
Some, of course, will agree
that any alcohol consumption prior to driving is “dangerous” and that
prohibition, period, is a good thing.
But that is a far hop from
“drunk” driving – a hysterical, over-the-top characterization. It is also a
mere opinion – a moralizing and meretricious one – not supported by any
facts.
The legislation’s author, a
Mormon Republican and graduate of the Mormon college, Brigham Young University,
is a guy named Norm Thurston. He piously assures us that “the public safety
impact of this is so compelling that it’s worth doing.”
Lies. Pious lies. But
nonetheless.
There is no evidence at all
that people are “drunk” or even meaningfully impaired at the .05 BAC level. It
is an outrageous, religious effort to mask religious proscription as a public
safety issue.
But it is also nothing new,
really.
It is critical to understand
that it isn’t necessary – in Utah or anywhere else in the Homeland – to
establish that a person’s driving is impaired by alcohol to convict him of
“drunk” driving. Even under the soon-to-be-old .08 BAC standard. It is enough
to establish that the accused has a BAC of .08 – or .05 or whatever arbitrary
number is selected. For those under the age of 21 – not legal age to drink but
old enough to be held fully legally accountable for any crime they commit – it
is zero BAC. Any trace of alcohol – and you are guilty of “drunk” driving.
One’s actual driving, in all
cases, being 100 percent legally irrelevant.
The arresting cop might admit
under cross-examination, that the accused’s handling of his car was faultless.
No wandering or weaving; no erratic anything. That he had no reason to suspect
him of not being in full possession of his faculties or question whether he was
in complete control of his vehicle.
It doesn’t matter.
The victim – whoops, “drunk”
driver – simply had the bad luck to roll up on a Fourth Amendment Free Zone.
That is, a random/dragnet checkpoint at which every driver must submit to a search/interrogation
and testing, absent any individualized suspicion or other probable cause.
The cop can then demand –
under a loathsome piece of totalitarian doublespeak called implied consent –
that the driver submit to a breath test upon command. To self-incriminate. He
must prove his innocence, rather than the cop (and later, the prosecutor)
having to prove guilt.
And he must comply – or else
(in most states) face immediate arrest and forfeiture of his driver’s license
as the punishment for declining to consent to provide evidence that can and
will be used against him in court.
Before .08, it was generally
necessary to have some evidence of impairment before – key thing! – a cop had
the legal authority – probable cause – to pull a specific individual over. The
fact of erratic driving having been established, the next step was to establish
why.
Note the horse before cart
arrangement.
Since .08 became the national
standard – and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments got thrown in the Woods – the
cart has been placed foursquare in front of the horse.
Now comes Utah to take away
the horse and maybe soon the cart, too.
Point-oh-eight as a universal
standard was hugely questionable on scientific grounds. People vary in both
their abilities behind the wheel and their ability to process alcohol. It is a
fact that some people with a zero-point-zero BAC are far less able as drivers
than other people with point-zero-five or even point-zero-eight.
It is hugely politically
incorrect to even broach this topic. But the fact remains.
Which is why .08 had to be
implemented using random checkpoints without any pretense of individualized
suspicion. To stop using a person’s actual driving as the measure of their
impairment.
The object of the exercise
has become convicting as many people as possible of “drunk” driving –
notwithstanding that they aren’t “drunk” (except perhaps by hard-core Baptist
and Mormon standards, for whom a whiff of cough syrup is sufficient) and their
driving can’t be faulted.
So, erect random checkpoints
and “bust” people not on account of their driving but only because they happen
to have “x” BAC – the number deliberately dumbed-down and under-posted, very
much as speed limits are and for exactly the same reasons.
Which are, of course, to give
the government the flimsiest of reasons to “bust” as many victims as possible
in order to both extract as much money as possible and to instill in them a
servile fear of The Law. Turn everyone into a “drunk” driver. Just as almost
everyone who is driving is also a “speeder.”
The Utah decree doubles down
on this and be advised – it’s not just Utah.
Or soon won’t be.
Some history: It was Utah
that first enacted the .08 BAC standard. They did it because of the Mormon
aversion to drink – period. But other states – and the Feds – soon realized
what a cash (and control) cow the .08 standard could be potentially be for them
and – shazam! – the whole country adopted .08 as the universal standard.
Can it be doubted that the
same forces of ka-ching! (and clink) are as operative as ever? That “mothers”
(read: very well-paid full-time agitators who work hand in hand with the
government and insurance mafia) will demand the new .05 standard?
For “safety” and “the
children”?
Actually, for the money and
the power. It has always been thus, but it’s getting worse. A farce, except one
with teeth.
If you like what you’ve found
here, please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the
wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use
PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
https://ericpetersautos.com/2017/06/05/theocracy-advances-utah-soon-near/
