|
(1) "Highten public awareness of the seriousness of the drunk driving problem;
(2) "Persuade States and communities to attack the drunk driving problem in a more organized and systematic manner, including plans to eliminate bottlenecks in the arrest, trial, and sentencing process that impair the effectiveness of many drunk driving laws;
(3) "Encourage State and local officials and organizations to accept and use the latest techniques and methods to solve the problem; and
(4) "Generate public support for increased enforcement of State and local drunk driving laws."
Despite the Report's confession that highway fatalities had declined by 4,541 in the previous 12 months, without resorting to repressive implementation of DWI laws, the Commission ordered massive escalation of the government's Drunk-Driving/Drink-Driving War.
The Commission established 3 committees:
(1) Education and Prevention Committee: "To encourage the development and institution of a public and private sector information and education program which is designed to . . . establish social norms which deter drunk driving."
(2) Enforcement and Adjudication Committee: "To encourage enhanced enforcement, prosecution, and adjudication of the drunk driving offense through increased use of (1) selective enforcement techniques; (2) improved hardware and training; (3) effective prosecution and sanctioning; and (4) improved assessment and follow-up in order to establish effective deterrent programs for the general driving population and apprehended drunk drivers.
(3) Executive and Legislative Leadership Committee: "To encourage public and private sector executives and organizations, and legislative leaders at State and local levels to support enhanced systemic drunk driving programs."
The Drunk Driving Commission held a series of hearings across the country in 1982, and listened to testimony from exactly 150 elite witnesses, not one of whom represented the wishes of the 140 million average American citizens who enjoyed the responsible use of alcohol beverages. Police chiefs, prosecuters, judges and probation personnel gave their advice on how to imprison more Americans. Alcohol treatment specialists gave their advice on how to force more Americans to pay for alcoholism treatments that don't work. Media professionals gave their advice on how to best use propaganda techniques to brainwash hundreds of millions of Americans into tolerating the proposed Prohibition.
Revenue-gathering (i.e. "profit") was considered of primary importance: "The Commission recognizes that alcohol-related programs, especially those relating to enforcement and adjudication, can and should be made self-funding. . . . Legislation should be enacted at State and local levels which creates a dedicated funding source which includes offender fines and fees for increased efforts in the enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, sanctioning, and education and treatment of driving under the influence (DUI) offenders." This is the standard government jargon for encouraging local and state police to operate under illegal quotas.
FBI vs. Alcohol Drinkers | The creation of a vast and expensive states' Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the FBI's National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) computer network was ordered to keep track of citizens who drink alcohol: "Police, prosecutors and courts should collect and report driving under the influence apprehension, charging and sentencing information to the state licensing authority. Convictions on military and Federal lands, including Indian Tribal lands, should also be reported. The state licensing authority must maintain a traffic records system capable of tracking arrests from arrest to conviction or other disposition, including sanctions taken by law enforcement, prosecutors, judicial, and licensing authorities. This system should also be used for evaluation purposes." (As anyone who uses a computer knows, both human and machine errors are common--a frightening thought when one considers the legal consequences of a lost or mistyped driver license or vehicle registration file. The NCIC alone will cost taxpayers nearly $200-million dollars by the year 2000.)
A permanent group of ruling elite overseers was ordered: "It is clear that the development of a national body to continue to provide leadership on driving under the influence is essential once this Commission's charter expires. Such a continuing body can help ensure that the national media, the Federal Government, and the leadership of organizations at the national level will be aware of the need for continuing action against driving under the influence, and be supportive of programs to counter it."
The Commission ordered novel methods of increasing the number of arrested citizens: "Police agencies should apply selective enforcement and other innovative techniques, including the use of preliminary breath testing devices and . . . roadblocks, to achieve a high perception of risk of detection for driving under the influence. Crime analysis should be applied to driving under the influence. Police agencies should identify high incidence areas and times, and assign resources accordingly."
Blood-alcohol testing was to be given unlimited power through new legislation: "Each state should establish an implied consent statute providing that all drivers are deemed to have given their consent to tests of blood, breath, or urine to determine their alcohol or drug concentration. The statute should provide: License suspensions sufficiently severe to discourage drivers from refusing the test. . . . That offenders not be required to be taken to a police facility and placed under formal arrest prior to test administration. . . . That an individual's right to consult his attorney not be permitted to unreasonably delay administration of the test. . . . That refusals in sister States result in license suspensions in the State of driver residence."
In order to bypass the Constitutional protections against self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure, and to bypass the Constitutional freedoms of the right to an attorney and due process (fairness) of law, the Commission ordered that: "States should enact a statute allowing the use of Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) devices by police officers. A . . . PBT is a valuable . . . use of police authority to determine the probability of driver impairment on the highway when the officer has . . . [a] reasonable suspicion that violation of DUI laws has occurred. Law enforcement representatives have stated that for purposes of establishing probable cause, and experienced officer's observations are usually sufficient. Therefore, PBT is most valuable in those instances when the officer suspects that the motorist is an experienced drinker who has learned how to pass the Standard Field Sobriety Test."
Isn't it interesting that the Republican White House held the opinion that "passing" the field sobriety tests was not to be allowed?
The Commission ordered that the DWI arrest process be speeded up in order to allow a greater number of arrests: "Laws, policies, and procedures should be adopted to expedite arrest, booking, and charging procedures. Several States require the arresting officer to spend unnecessary time completing the entire arrest procedure himself or be present for the entire process. This occurs despite the fact that the jurisdiction may have the capability for booking, chemical testing, and processing without the arresting officer. Many States utilize this latter capability, as it has been shown to reduce officer down time and greatly increase the efficiency of the entire arrest process."
The Commission ordered that district attorneys general apply maximum psychological and legal force during their DWI prosecutions: "All too often, prosecutors have plea bargained valid DUI charges in return for a plea to lesser alcohol-related offenses or even nonalcohol-related offenses such as reckless driving. Prosecutors have failed to appreciate the seriousness of the offense and articulate policies to ensure that impaired drivers are convicted of DUI. . . . Prosecutors and courts should not reduce driving under the influence charges."
The Commission ordered that the so-called legal limit be lowered from 0.15% BAC: "Legislation should be enacted making it illegal per se for a person with an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or higher within three hours of arrest to drive or be in the actual physical control of a motor vehicle." Note that in certain situations, a BAC of 0.10% would be 5 times higher than the BAC at the time a driver was behind the wheel, as explained in later chapters.
The Commission ordered that judges mete out harsh justice for citizens arrested for alleged DWI: "In the true American tradition, the accused is entitled to a fair trial and due process of law in these and other criminal charges. However," as Justice Cardoza opined, "'justice though due the accused, is due the accuser [the government] also.' Beneficiaries of justice cannot only be offenders. . . . Thus, judiciary plays a vital role in discouraging driving under the influence. There are about 21,000 judges hearing traffic cases in the nation's 17,000 courts. DUI cases constitute a substantial portion of their caseload. . . . All too often, the judiciary fails to view driving under the influence as a serious offense meriting certain, swift, and appropriate punishment." Notice that the Conservative White House did not say "alleged" offenders, implying that once a cop arrests a citizen, the rest of the government's justice system ought to rubber stamp the cop's subjective opinion.
The Commission ordered mandatory minimum sentences for all citizens convicted of DWI/DUI: (1) "substantial minimum fines," (2) first offense DWI/DUI receive a minimum 48-hour jail sentence, and loss of license for a minimum of 90 days, (3) second offense DWI/DUI receive a minimum 10-day jail sentence, and loss of license for 1 year, and (4) third or subsequence offense DWI/DUI receive a minimum 120-day jail sentence, and loss of license for 3 years. The Commission proclaimed that "Education or rehabilitation fails to further any recognized general deterrrence [sic] purpose. . . . The law must have some bite to it if we are to deter drinking and driving. Mandatory jail sentences . . . should effectively deter DUI." Note that these are relatively mild punishments compared to legislation in effect today.
The Commission ordered that "Speedy Trials" become standard operating procedure for DWI/DUI prosecutions, unlike all other criminal trials. This way, citizens would be denied the opportunity to earn enough money to afford a competent lawyer, making it infinitely simpler for the government to win a conviction: "Driving under the influence cases at the trial level should be concluded within 60 days of arrest. Sentencing should be accomplished within 30 days. The appellate process should be expeditied and concluded within 90 days."
The Commission ordered that convicted citizens face severe punishment for using personal transportation to earn a living or to take care of their families: "States should enact a statute requiring mandatory jail sentence of at least 30 days for any person convicted of driving with a suspended or revoked license or in violation of a restriction due to driving under the influence conviction. . . . [B]etween 70-80 percent of drivers with suspended, revoked or restricted licenses illegally drive. This continuing violation of laws merits increased punishment. This will particularly impact on those drivers who have their license revoked as a result of a driving under the influence conviction." Note that punishments for driving on a suspended license are even more severe than a DWI/DUI conviction, and actually are counted as an additional DWI/DUI conviction in the government's NCIC computer records.
The Commission ordered that citizens be denied Restricted Licenses: "The State driver licensing authority should review its practices of issuing Occupational Hardship Licenses following suspension or revokation and establish strict uniform standards relative to issuance and control of such limited driving priviledges. They should be issued only in exceptional cases. In no event should this be done for repeat offenders. Occupational Hardship Driver Licenses are normally issued on the basis of the establishment of an economic hardship due to the driver's stated inability to commute to his or her workplace. Since an economic hardship has nothing to do with the person's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, issuance of such priviledges should be done only after a professional evaluation and a prognosis established regarding the driver's use or abuse of alcohol." Note that absolutely no use of alcohol by the adult citizen is to be allowed under any circumstances or at any time as a condition to parole for DWI/DUI, even when nowhere near a motor vehicle.
The Commission ordered that total Prohibition be instituted for adult citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age: "States should immediately adopt 21 years of age as the minimum legal drinking age for all alcoholic beverages."
The Commission ordered that citizens must no longer be allowed to transport alcohol beverages in the interiors of their vehicles: "State and local governments should prohibit consumption of alcoholic beverages in a motor vehicle and prohibit the possession of open alcoholic beverage containers in the passenger compartment of motor vehicles. . . . In addition, it seems obvious that vehicle passengers should also be restricted from having such containers as well, since they could be handed an open container by a driver when law enforcement officials are near. Such actions by drivers would, in effect, nullify the purpose of an open container law." In other words, all passengers of designated drivers are criminals when they enjoy alcohol beverages, and old, empty beverage containers left by passengers can lead to arrest of a non-drinking driver for DWI/DUI at a later date.
The Commission ordered a permanent "public awareness campaign," noting that "In some communities, social disapproval of drunk driving is enhanced when local newspapers print the names of all persons arrested and/or convicted of driving under the influence." The Commission also noted that "Many people are confused about the amount of alcohol which can cause impairment." Of course, the Commission recommended nothing to educate the citizens about where this legal definition of impairment actually begins; where DUI carries exactly the same penalty as DWI; where a responsible citizen with a BAC of 0.01% (or 0.00%) receives the same jail penalty as a drunk driver with a BAC of 0.30%.
Out of the 100-page Report, only 1 page was allocated to any meaningful attempt at improving highway safety: "States should give increased attention to improvements in roadway markings, signing, and roadside hazard visibility as important countermeasures to alcohol-related highway crashes. Because the majority of severe alcohol-involved crashes occur at night on rural two-lane highways, greater attention must be given to low-cost roadway environmental improvements having a cost-effective safety potential for the alcohol-impaired driver. Proven roadway technologies, such as [use] of adequate delineation through road marking, signing, and improving the visibility of roadside hazards, assist the alcohol-impaired driver by countering the visual impairments which medical and highway safety research has identified as being a critical factor in alcohol-involved accidents. They are also beneficial for drivers who are unimpaired or who suffer from the visual impairments associated with fatigue, old age or from youthful driving inexperience. Developing technologies, such as the use of wider edge lines, improved signing, and other delineation techniques should be encouraged. State highway departments should employ statistical, and problem identification techniques to design and apply roadway environmental improvements to counter alcohol-related highway accidents." Note that such common-sense ideas also help all drivers, including young drivers, middle-age drivers, old drivers, teetotalers, responsible drinkers and even alcoholics.
Glaring in its ommission was the complete lack of improvement in safety standards to be required by manufacturers of motor vehicles. Improvements in vehicle crashworthiness, exterior lighting, fireproofing, or even built-in BAC ignition-interlock devices (preset at the real legal limit of 0.10% BAC), could save many more lives for a fraction of the cost of deadly martial law via violent Prohibition, without the suspension of civil liberties and Constitutional rights. Improving the quality of the government's driver education of high-school students as well as adults, especially in the neglected area of emergency skid-control and skid-prevention techniques, was also completely ignored.
In a speech to a national police agency, Washington Post Company owner Katharine Graham said in 1988: "There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows." The "liberal" Graham had weekly lunches with the conservative President's First Lady, who vacationed at Graham's home along with the other members of America's ruling elite, according to Kitty Kelly's unauthorized biography, Nancy Reagan. Kelly also reported that during the President's swinging Hollywood days, the future Prohibitionist spent $750 a month on bar tabs (while wooing starlets)--back in 1950 when $750 meant something. (Nor did the future drunk-driving crusader employ a chauffeur.) As Silver Screen noted: "Never thought we'd come right out and call Ronnie Reagan a 'wolf,' but leave us face it. Suddenly every glamour gal considers him a super-sexy escort for an evening." (Kelly noted, however, that aspiring starlets who lacked star-appeal were ordered to take the bus at their own expense, in order to grace the Screen Actors' Guild president's boudoir.)
Today, the National Commission Against Drunk Driving (NCADD) was established to "make driving impaired a socially unnacceptable act." Of course, "impaired" means driver and passengers with a BAC of 0.01% and above, or drivers and passengers with a BAC of 0.00% in many different situations. According to its Internet web site, NCADD "is the successor organization to the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving appointed by President Reagan in 1982." NCADD is inhabited by nearly a dozen insurance executives, several vehicle manufacturing representatives, a MADD individual, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP was recently investigated for tax fraud and numerous other criminal activities), and several reps for the alcohol industry. Even William Coors is on the board--representative of a company that abhores civil rights for its employees--perhaps to ensure that he doesn't repeat his ancestor's insane high-dive-to-death mistake. Several of the current members NCADD are leftovers from the original Reagan Commission. According to a representative of the American Beverage Institute, organizations such as this one are designed to deflect the focus of motor vehicle safety from vehicle manufactures, insurors and governments, and to place all the blame on the public. This is a very profitable way to do business. One might also presume the alcohol manufacturers would prefer a covert Prohibition against the citizens than bankruptcies from overt Prohibition.
Note that the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving also outlawed all medications, both over-the-counter and prescription, classifying them with illegal narcotics as far as driving and DWI/DUI is concerned (i.e., "Drugged Driving").
DEEP THOUGHTS
So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.--Jesus Christ, from Mathew 10:26-28 (Recovery Devotional Bible)
JOKE OF THE DAY
Staking out a notoriously rowdy bar for possible drunk drivers, a cop watched from his squad car as a fellow stumbled out the door, tripped on the kerb and tried 45 cars before opening the door to his own and falling asleep on the front seat. One by one, the drivers of the other cars drove off. Finally, the sleeper woke up, started his car and began to leave. The cop pulled him over and administered a
Breathalyzer test. When the results showed a 0.0 blood-alcohol level, the puzzled policeman asked him how that was possible. "Easy," was the reply. "Tonight was my turn to be the decoy."
| 
