The People have spoken.... But I don't care!

Let me start by saying I hate blue laws. They are unconstitutional by any measure, as they specifically honor the preferences of a certain sects of a single religion over all others. When someone tells me they support blue laws, I generally ask if Christians should be banned from purchasing alcohol in Muslim-majority towns, because they are coming to America fast. As Christians represent an ever-shrinking percentage of America, they will quickly look to the Constitution to defend them from other religious beliefs.So, why do I bring this up? Any regular visitor to the Nervous Rodent would quickly recognize that I would oppose a law to restrict the sale of alcohol based on a religious belief. I bring it up because there is a bill in the Georgia General Assembly to (finally) partially limit the blue laws so pervasive in the South. Namely, Senate Bill 26 would allow each county and/or municipality that currently allows the sale of alcohol the option of allowing a referendum in that area to allow the sale of beer and wine (not liquor) on Sundays.

It's hard to be against that, isn't it? It allows each town and/or county to decide for themselves if they want to limit blue laws to hard liquor. It's not a perfect solution, but it's far better than the current law.

As Crazy for Liberty points out, there is widespread support among both the population and representatives in the government. Somehow the Governor, Sonny Perdue, is against it (sound clip, AJC link):

I think it’s going to have a tough time, actually. When you ask people generally if they want the right to vote on anything — what kind of toilet tissue the state ought to use, or anything like that — they’ll typically say yes.

Although they like representative government, they like to have their voices heard. And that’s why we have representative government, where people elect their own legislators to come and make these kinds of decisions.

Some things rise to the level of referendums — such as, I felt, the symbol, the flag that represented Georgia, which I felt rose to that level. But you can’t do government really by referendum. And so, I don’t support that, and I don’t know whether it will pass the Legislature or not, but it’ll have a pretty tough time getting the last vote….

You have to always be attuned to where public opinion is, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to follow that. A good leader always leads in a way they think is the right direction for Georgia on significant issues. …

What? Yeah, the people want more freedom and less government intrusion, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give it to them? Remember Georgians, you voted for him!

I have to credit Sonny Perdue with one thing, however. He is the first person I've ever heard come up with a valid justification for blue laws that doesn't mention religion -- the government's responsibility to educate the populace:

Think of it this way…It really helps you plan ahead for the rest of your life — buying on Saturday, rather than Sunday. Time management.

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's only sell gasoline on odd days, milk on even days. Condoms should only be sold on prime-numbered days. We'll make everyone plan their entire week around a couple of random proclamations with no justification other than making people's lives harder so they can learn to deal. After all, that's why government exists.

Labels: alcohol, church, personal freedoms

Permalink

Take My Children ... PLEASE!

Sorry, no link for this, but this morning on the radio I heard some rather disturbing news. Legislators are planning to reintroduce a bill to help police stop underage drinking in Frederick County. Under current law, a police officer witnessing a minor in possession of an alcoholic beverage may arrest the minor for underage possession of alcohol. Additionally, an officer who witnesses a driving minor who appears to be under the influence of alcohol may arrest the same. The new law would allow an officer to detain a minor who simply appears to be acting as if under the influence of alcohol on suspicion of underage drinking. He could also force a breathalyzer test.

This bill was introduced last year and failed, as some opponents feared that this would grant too much power to the police. Well, of course it does! Most importantly, you're giving police the power to harass minors without evidence. Remember when Washington DC allowed DUI arrests based solely on the officer's judgement of intoxication? Before that law was finally changed, we saw numerous arrests and convictions for DUI of drivers with a BAC under 0.04, and one arrest of a driver who blew a 0.00 BAC at the scene. Give Maryland troopers the same authority, and you'll get the same results.

No standards exist to define at what point an officer can stop a minor and force a breathalyzer test. If an eighteen year old is jogging through the park and sees an attractive young lady, he may weave slightly as he is distracted. Can he now be tested for his erratic jogging? This law would give police the authority to perform an unreasonable search and seizure on a minor without justification or evidence except the officer's judgement.

I'm also curious as to what the minor would be charged with. In the vast majority of states, including Maryland, the consumption of alcohol while under the age of 21 is not a crime. Purchase, possession, and consumption prior to driving are, but consumption is not. Why? Because the law specifically allows immediate family members to provide alcohol to minors within their own homes. If you can convince your parents that you're mature enough to drink, you are home free. And yes, I know a great number of parents that do purchase beer and wine for their children in Maryland.

So, in a nutshell, Bob the 18 year old kid is going to prom. He's hired a limo, so he isn't driving. His libertarian parents split a bottle of champagne with him first, to celebrate his "growing up." Walking into the prom, a police officer decides to perform a breathalyzer on him, and finds he blows a 0.02. What's the charge? Drunk and disorderly? I don't get it.

You've all heard the argument that if you're old enough to serve your country, you're old enough to drink. Ironically, the majority of people I meet who agree with that statement feel that anyone in the military should be allowed to drink, while civilians should have to wait until they are twenty-one. You could do three full tours in Iraq before your twenty-first birthday. If you were mature enough to make that decision at eighteen, you were sure as hell mature enough to make a decision on a glass of beer. Even if you decided the military wasn't for you, surely you've now reach the point in life where you're responsible for your own actions?

Look, folks, don't any of you remember being twenty? Try to remember the first time you drank alcohol. How old were you? Did you do it in your own house with your parents? In college, maybe in a frat house?

The absolute best place to learn about alcohol is from your own parents. Your parents are there to teach you about life. This is why most states allow parents to provide alcohol to their children. If you do not teach your children about drinking, someone else will. Chances are that person will be a peer with no more experience that your kid. They're probably be influenced by movies showing severe intoxication. They'll probably purchase cheap flavorless beer and liquor, and consume it in great quantities.

I thank my parents for wisely introducing me to alcohol at an early age. Twelve, if you're counting. Of course, they closely monitored how much I drank, and I didn't even get a buzz on until I was sixteen. I was eighteen when I finally got drunk. Imagine that -- six years of experience appreciating alcohol before I first managed to get drunk.

The neo-prohibitionists want to outlaw responsible parenting. They think by delaying the consumption of alcohol as long as possible, they can remove it entirely from our culture. It's simply not true. What we're getting is a nation of closet drinking youth, afraid of any supervision while they explore adulthood.

My message to America is "Teach your children well." My message to the government is "Get out of our way. We're better than you at this."

Labels: alcohol, dc, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

Mothers Against Drinking

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, is out of control. Think they're only out there to stop drunk drivers? Not at all. Want to know MADD's official position on taxes?

MADD supports a prevention component to health care reform and supports a substantial increase in taxation on alcoholic beverages as a means of covering the cost to society caused by misuse of alcohol and as a means of supporting prevention programs including countermeasures to alcohol-impaired driving.

Okay, so they're tax & spend types, but other than that, they're OK, right? Hardly. Did you realize that MADD is lobbying for states to make Happy Hour illegal? Earlier closing hours in bars? How about some of their proposed rules for alcohol advertisements, which state no advertising shall:

• Feature actors, models or other talent or characters under the age of 30
• Be broadcast to audiences with less than 90% adult aged 21 and older viewership
• Feature on-camera consumption
• Use celebrities, music stars, athletes, animals, cartoon characters, or other language or images that appeal to youth
• Depict sports, rock concerts, or other events with strong appeal to youth
• Depict revelry or hint at the possibility of inebriation
• Portray drinking in association with sexual passion, promiscuity, or any other amorous activity as a consequence of or in association with alcohol consumption
• Disproportionately target ethnic minority communities

So just to be clear, the worst possible thing in the world to MADD would be a television ad showing a black music star having a good time with a beer in his hand, while talking to his girlfriend. If it were up to MADD, all alcohol advertisements would be black text on a white screen, stating simply: Please buy our product, just don't drink it.

MADD has become a Neo-Prohibitionist organization. Even the founder of MADD is on the record as stating "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned." Learn more at Neoprohibition.com, and try reading their excellent study on MADD. (PDF)

So what brings this rant on? The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is sending undercover officers into bars to look for drunk patrons, and issuing citations and making arrests. That's right, arresting people for being drunk in a bar! MADD is fully supportive of this campaign, with a spokesman saying "Can you imagine if TABC had not stopped those people from leaving the bar, how many more drunk drivers we might have had on the road?"

Earth to MADD -- the officers weren't stopping anyone from leaving the bar, they were stopping them in the bar. Some of those drunks may have been planning to call a cab, or had a designated driver. But MADD isn't about stopping drunk driving -- they're about stopping drinking.

For the record, Fairfax county tried this about a year ago. It was covered in the Washington Post as well as in the Neo-prohibition study linked above. Enforcement died after a Washington Post article about a designated driver (!) who was told she had to "prove" she was sober while in the bar. The article stirred up enough controversy to stop police from arresting folks in bars, at least temporarily.

Labels: alcohol, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

What the Press Won't Tell You

Michelle Malkin writes in a wonderful piece entitled "All the news that's fit to omit" about a New York Times article opining about the 2,000 casualty in Iraq (link here, but you have to pay). Let me start by saying that the article failed to alert readers to the fact that nearly a quarter of those deaths were not combat related. I don't know why 1,588 combat fatalities is a "grim milestone," but I'll grant the NY Times that license to embellish.

What bothers me is that the article focuses on a single soldier, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, who died April 30th in Ramadi. Note that Cpl Starr wasn't the 2,000 soldier to die, rather, he died months ago. He was chosen out of all the soldiers who perished in Iraq, to symbolize the cost of the war. The title of the piece? THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: THE FATALITIES; 2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark

Allow me to quote from the article:

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

Is it just me, or does it sound like this young man was disillusioned, upset at being in Iraq, and fearful for his own life? One is left wondering why he was willing to go to Iraq three times with that attitude. Lest I leave you with the impression that this hero of our country was anything less than that, allow me to quote a little more of the letter, not published by the New York Times:

Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.

The American public needs to know the Cpl Jeffrey Starr did not die following orders he did not understand. He did not die fighting for a cause he didn't believe in. Cpl Starr died because he felt it was his duty to allow people all around the world to enjoy the same freedoms he enjoyed at home. He found for his country, and the Iraqi country. He knew the risks, and accepted them freely without hesitation or reservation. The New York Times has no right to take that away from him, and turn him into a symbol for peace at any cost.

In lighter local news, the Washington Post reports that Mayor Anthony Williams has changed his mind and signed the emergency DUI law. It's obvious that he did so in order to attempt to preserve some kind of high ground for a compromise law that, while not setting the legal limit as ridiculously low as before, would still have DC presuming intoxication at levels every other state in the nation recognizes as generally safe. This is at best a half-victory; it means the police harassment of innocent people will abate for the time being, but everyone needs to write their councilmen and Mayor Williams and tell them the only acceptable law is one in line with the rest of the nation.

And click on the news article scan, it's worth reading. Trust me.

Labels: alcohol, dc, heroes, iraq, media

Permalink

DC Bill Passes

Good news! The emergency legislation that I mentioned here has passed. Unless the mayor vetoes it, you can no longer be charged with DUI regardless of your blood alcohol content. The new rules put DC in line with Maryland and Virginia. Namely:

Under 0.05	You are presumed not intoxicated
0.05 - 0.079	You are not presumed intoxicated. You may be charged if you exhibit other signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech, erratic driving, etc.
0.08 and above	You are presumed intoxicated.

Not sure what these numbers mean? Run this test to see how quickly your
own BAC rises.

I'll tell you now that my opinion is 0.08 is too low, and many drivers are able to drive perfectly well at that level of alcohol. However, let's celebrate one battle at a time. And I'd also like to thank all the Nervous Rodent readers who wrote or called their councilmen to help get this legislation through.

Mayor Anthony Williams has ten days to decide whether to veto the legislation. He's already attacked it, calling it "hastily written" and criticized the council. E-mail and call the mayor, explaining that it is necessary to keep DC businesses alive, and DC drivers safe from unfair prosecution.

Assuming the mayor doesn't stand in the way of this bill, it will take effect for ninety days. In that timeframe, new legislation will have to pass to make the changes permanent. Tell you councilmen that you don't think police should be able to charge drivers with crimes they can prove they didn't commit.

Voting against the measure: Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3), Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) and Sharon Ambrose (D-Ward 6).

Check out Paulie's post on this at Paulie World.

Labels: alcohol, dc, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

I made a prediction last week that the referendum would limit the starting of new projects in Iraq, and it looks like I was right. The big news, of course, is the referendum.

You've probably been reading the blogs about the upcoming referendum. If you missed it, you'll definitely want to read this one written by an Iraqi citizen, where he describes the Ba'athist propaganda, as well as compares this vote to those under Saddam.

But here's the news: Out of 1,200 polling stations, only five were attacked. Nobody was killed, and only seven voters were injured. During last year's elections, I remember the editorials talking of violence, but the embedded reporters were just showing Iraqis dancing in the streets, holding their thumbs in the air. The terrorists were unable to stop that election, and they did even worse stopping this referendum.

Make no mistake, this referendum is important -- far more important than the elections. And whether they vote yes or no, it's still a good thing. The elections allow the Iraqi people to choose leaders, but the referendum allows them to choose a system of government.

Nervous Rodent's prediction: 65% yes, 10.5 million votes cast, constitution passes. We'll see how well I do.

But since you expect to hear things here that aren't printed elsewhere, I do have a little tidbit to tide you over. Thursday and Friday saw groundbreaking ceremonies for the construction of two new substation feeders, costing a total of $1.5 million, in Baghdad. And a new $200,000 clinic is opening in Baghdad. Next time you wonder why the US is spending so much on the "war" in Iraq, remember that much of the money is helping people help themselves.

Also, Michael Yon has a new blog post up. While it may not be news events from Iraq, it is news from Iraq. And as always, he will help you see what life in Iraq is really like. This time he also helps show why the media is giving such a distorted view.

In other news, the DC Council has introduced emergency legislation that states anyone driving with 0.05% BAC or below is presumed not intoxicated. Keep calling your councilmen, and let's make this thing pass!

Labels: alcohol, dc, iraq, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

Too Drunk to Drive, Continued

Remember this mug shot? You should, because I posted an article about Police Chief Ramsey last week. I called on him to admit his mistakes and correct them. And now, as the Washington Post continues its series about DUI laws in the District, I'd like to say it again.

Given my previous article on DUI laws, and the controversy that the Washington Post has stirred up, you'd think that the Police Chief would set about to correcting the wrongs, right? Or would you expect him to lie, again, to the press? Let's examine the facts:

While being interviewed by the Washington Post, Officer Dennis Fair was quoted saying "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance."

When the Post asked Ramsey about that quote, Ramsey replied "He's wrong if he's saying that. It's not coming from me, and that's certainly no policy I've instituted. That's just incorrect." Ramsey then denied that he has ever used the term "zero tolerance" to describe the DC policy on drinking and driving. Why then, Chief Ramsey, did the DC Police Department's website say that DC has a "zero tolerance" policy until Tuesday, the day that the Washington Post printed the first article in the series?

Don't believe me? Use the Web Archive to check the facts. This link will take you to an archived copy of the DC Police's website from last week, and this link will take you to the same webpage today.

That's twice in two weeks that Police Chief Ramsey has been caught in an outright lie. Folks, call your Councilman and demand that DC's laws on drinking and driving be brought in line with the rest of the nations. And Chief Ramsey, it's time for you to start telling the truth.

Labels: alcohol, dc, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

Too Drunk to Drive, Too Sober to Patrol

It's a well-intentioned law, I admit that. But DC's DUI laws are hurting innocent people, and it's time they were changed.

After the Washington Post ran an article earlier this week about Debra Bolton's legal troubles, people are starting to notice. And it's about time.

In most states, the legislature has set a legal limit for the maximum concentration of alcohol in the blood when driving, usually 0.08%. This is generally acknowledged as a simplistic solution to a complex problem. We all know someone who can drink way more than they ought to, and still act sober. We also know people that drink very little and still stagger about. What this means is that not everyone reacts the same way to the same concentration of alcohol.

To even things up, many states having two threshold levels. In Maryland, for example, driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% is illegal -- period. You will be charged with DUI in that case. If the BAC is between 0.07% and 0.08%, that is considered prima facie evidence of DWI, and you will probably be charged. Between 0.05% and 0.07%, you may be charged with DWI, if your other actions indicate that you not only ingested alcohol, but that you are impaired by it. Below 0.05%, you are not considered impaired by alcohol.

This system gives police a little leeway to evaluate drivers straddling the fuzzy line, where some might be perfectly safe, while others are clearly unable to safely drive. Of course, there are cases when police make poor decisions, but the law does limit the policeman's ability to make judgments that aren't backed by evidence. He couldn't declare someone with a 0.15% BAC to be sober, nor could he declare someone at 0.02% to be drunk.

Not so in Washington, DC, where the law gives the policeman all the latitude he needs to make judgment calls. Driving at 0.08% or higher is an automatic DUI charge, but a police officer may charge any individual with DUI, based solely on his judgment, regardless of blood alcohol levels. As a result, hundreds of people are charged each year with DUI or DWI, despite having blood alcohol levels of 0.03% or lower.

How low is 0.03%? An average woman who drinks a single glass of wine with dinner, over the course of an hour, will typically score about 0.03%. Ever seen a woman sip a single glass over an hour, then stagger down the street drunk? Me neither.

But some DC police go even further. This year they even charged a computer programmer who registered a perfect 0.00% on the scale, because in the officer's judgment, he was drunk.

The vast majority of these cases are dropped without conviction, generally for lack of evidence. But that doesn't mean they don't matter. It can cost thousands of dollars to contest a DUI charge. And being found innocent in court doesn't mean your insurance company will consider you innocent -- or even the DMV. According to Corey Buffo, the general counsel for the DC DMV,

"Our burden of proof is lower.... Not enough evidence for them may be enough evidence for us."

You you get pulled over on a bum charge, the officer decides he doesn't like you, and he charges you with DUI. You spend thousands of dollars to prove you're innocent, but your license is still suspended. When you finally get it reinstated, your insurance has doubled.

All those in favor of responsible legislation, raise your glasses. Unless you plan on driving home tonight.

Labels: alcohol, dc, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

Two Upsetting Stories

The Baltimore Sun carried an article today about one of the most despicable crimes I'd heard of in a long time... A ring of theives, working as baggage handlers for the military at BWI, were stealing from the bags of soldiers deploying to Iraq. Police confiscated over 1,500 CDs and DVDs from the thieves, as well as laptop computers, video games, knives, and "small military items such as compasses." I can only hope nobody died because they deployed sans knife or compass.

If that doesn't get your ire up, how about this: The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that victims of a drunk driver can sue a gas station that sold gas to an intoxicated man. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw an attendant at a gas station. Should gas station attendants now have the authority to conduct breathalyzer tests? And why can't we just place the blame exactly where it belongs -- on the drunk who decided to drive when he was too drunk to do so safely?

Sorry for ruining your Friday night....

Labels: alcohol, iraq, nanny state

Permalink