Screw this BS. If we can imprison harmless pot smokers, we can
imprison deadly drunk drivers.

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/04122006/244/technology-alone-won-t-tackle-drunk-driving.html

Monday December 4, 08:12 PM
Technology Alone Won't Tackle Drunk Driving

By Lawrence Taylor

Government statistics show that alcohol-related fatality figures have
been essentially unchanged for the past decade -- despite lowered
blood-alcohol standards, Draconian penalties, roadblocks, legal
presumptions of guilt, and other assaults on the Constitution.

Recognizing a failed effort, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has
unveiled with considerable fanfare its latest weapon in the "War on
Drunk Driving:" the ignition interlock device [IID]. The device is not
new, of course. It has been in use in many states for several years
[with notably little success] and versions are being developed by Saab
(Stockholm: SAABB.ST - news) , Toyota (TM), and Nissan (NSANY) for
possible installation in future car models as standard equipment.
There are, however, two basic reasons this newest "answer" to the
drunk driving problem will fail as well.

First, IIDs are inaccurate, easily circumvented, dangerous -- and
ineffective. Unlike the infrared spectroscopic breath instruments used
by law enforcement, or even the less sophisticated handheld field
units used by officers [deemed too inaccurate to be used in evidence],
IIDs are primitive devices that are mounted along with the ashtray in
the car's dashboard -- and thus subject to contaminants, cigarette
smoke, vibrations from the road, etc. In any event, an intoxicated
person could easily have someone else breathe into the device, or
simply borrow or rent another car. And because IIDs generally require
periodic retesting of the driver while the car is underway, the risk
from driver distraction alone poses a very real danger.

But how effective are IIDs in achieving MADD's goal of lowering
fatalities? In a study of the devices' effectiveness in California,
the state's Motor Vehicles Dept. came to the following conclusions:

--"The expected effect, that an IID order/restriction issued by the
court would result in a lower rate of subsequent [driving under the
influence] convictions, was not observed.

--"The risk of a subsequent crash was higher for drivers installing an
IID, compared with drivers [who did not install] a device."

The study went on to say, "The results of this outcome study clearly
show that IIDs are not effective in reducing DUI [driving under the
influence of alcohol] convictions or incidents for first DUI
offenders." It added, "Because there is no evidence that interlocks
are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders, the
use of the devices should not be emphasized."

Complicated Problem

The second reason the IID will fail is that, as with other attempts to
bring down the alcohol-related fatality figures, the IID does not
address the underlying problem. The risk of DUI-caused fatalities lies
not with the social drinkers who represent the vast majority of
drivers whose blood alcohol content is higher than .08%, most of whom
are in the .08% to .15% range.

My own experience from prosecuting and defending thousands of people
accused of DUI is that those who cause injury and death on our
highways are usually fairly identifiable: the problem alcoholic. This
client can usually be identified by two factors. First, the
blood-alcohol level is very high, commonly over .20%. Second, the
client is a recidivist -- that is, a repeat offender.

Thus, the first step is to identify the danger -- the relatively small
number of "problem drinkers" -- and to stop filling our jails with
social drinkers.

A Rehabilitative Approach

The second step is to decide what to do with this problem
drinker/driver. Our present approach is purely punitive. But if we
simply throw the alcoholic in jail for six months, what is
accomplished? We've made the streets safe from him for six months --
and on the day he gets out, he drives to the nearest bar and resumes
his drinking. We have made no real progress: Our jails continue to
burst at the seams, and the fatalities continue at their predictable
levels.

I would suggest a rehabilitative approach rather than a punitive one,
an approach that would actually take a step toward solving the problem
rather than waiting for the vicious cycle to begin again. By now, most
experts recognize that alcoholism is a disease, not a choice [the
"choice" to drive, of course, is made by an inebriated person, and
thus is a Catch-22]. And you don't treat a disease with incarceration.

Need For Treatment

We recognize legal incapacity due to mental disease. The plea or
verdict is "not guilty by reason of insanity." The defendant is not
simply set free, but is hospitalized for treatment of the disease
until he is well. Why not treatment for problem drunk drivers who
suffer from the [largely genetic] disease of alcoholism? In other
words, why not recognize a plea of "not guilty by reason of
alcoholism?" Again, this does not mean he "gets off." He will be
ordered to undergo rehabilitative therapy. In serious cases, mandatory
commitment to a rehabilitative facility may be appropriate.

The choice is fairly simple: Do you want vengeance, or safety? Would
you prefer to have a chronic drunk driver off the road for a few
months -- or in control of his disease?