BUREAUCRACY RUN AMUK: OUR GOVERNMENT'S SECRET DWI LAWS

by John Lee

"The departmental interpreters of the laws. . . can always be depended on to take any reasonable law and interpret the common sense right out of it."
—Mark Twain (a/k/a Samual Clemens)

Prohibition -- are we currently in the middle of one? "It is illegal to drink and drive" -- is this government declaration a myth? Is it an opinion? Or is it reality?

In the United States of America, for the past sixty odd years since the end of Prohibition, there has been no statutory law that declares it illegal to drink alcohol. As a matter of fact, during America's first (nationwide) Prohibition, it was not illegal to drink alcohol, either. Nor has America ever had any statutory law that declares it illegal to drink alcohol and then drive a vehicle. Such a law would be instantly recognizable by the public as a "return" to Prohibition. As attorneys William Head and Reese Joye write in 101 Ways to Avoid a Drunk Driving Conviction, "[N]o state totally prohibits driving a motor vehicle after consuming some alcohol (limited exception: states that have a zero tolerance for underage drivers)." If ADULT "underage" drivers face "zero tolerance" Prohibition -- despite having a "legal limit" of 0.03% blood-alcohol level, how about the rest of us?

Many citizens are under the presumption that "legal limits" for blood-alcohol level protect them from another Prohibition. Anything over the legal limit is drunk driving and anything under the legal limit is proof of being a responsible citizen. That's just "common sense." Passing a scientific government test is proof of innocence. Isn't it?

It is universally accepted that citizens are afraid of the American legal system. As Ben Franklin said, "A man between two lawyers is like a mouse between two cats." Actually, a citizen accused of DWI is between at least three lawyers, and the judge and prosecutor both have financial conflicts of interest against him. The government's legal system gives the appearance of a bottomless pit, populated with an endless variety of legal predators. Fortunately, this complex subject is not so confusing or boring when one's attention is sharpened by his survival instincts operating at full throttle. Hopefully, the more we know the less we fear. I shall attempt to explain this as painlessly as possible. Let us take a close look at the typical DWI laws, to see what our government has been up to.

"Statutory" refers to laws written by the government's state legislatures (often under mandatory order from the national Congress). The current statutory "legal limit" for DWI (first offense) for most states is 0.10% BAL (blood-alcohol level), and 0.08% BAL for the rest (or for a second offense). For commercial drivers it is 0.04% BAC. For "underage" adult voters, it is 0.03%. In this state, BAC refers to breath-alcohol testing (breath-alcohol content or concentration), and BAT (blood-alcohol test) refers to the actual drawing of blood. Perhaps 99% of testing is for breath-alcohol content.

Virtually all states now have a "per se" legal limit, as ordered by the national government; that is, with a 0.10% BAC, a citizen is "presumed" drunk, beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of any other evidence, such as passing all other sobriety tests or not violating any traffic laws. One definition of presumption is "an overstepping of proper bounds; the taking of something for granted." The word "infer" is sometimes used in place of "presume," although there is some legal debate that it does or does not mean the same thing.

The American Medical Association's Committee on Street and Highway Accidents and the government's National Safety Council's Committee on Tests for Driver Intoxication conclude that: "In using chemical tests one should strive to protect not only the non-drinker, but also the mild drinker who has not imbibed sufficiently to lower his driving ability. Errors of interpretation, if any, should favor the person being tested."

However, many scientific studies have determined that 0.10% BAC actually causes no impairment in reaction time, such as the report, "Effects of Ethanol on Human Fractionated Response Times," (23 Drug and Alcohol Dependency 31 (1989)).

The U.S. Congress, in 1998, attempted to enact a law to require all states to lower their first time limits to 0.08% BAC (the same level as Canada and England), under threat of losing billions of national tax dollars. One of the U.S. Senators forcing this legislation through Congress promised, "Nothing in this bill asks people to stop drinking. It tells drunks to stop driving." The president promised, "Lowering the limit will make responsible Americans take even greater care when they drink alcohol in any amounts if they intend to drive." As mentioned previously, a compromise law was passed that will bribe state governments with close to a billion of our tax dollars to go ahead and voluntarily lower those limits by 2001.

Of course, America's first Prohibition did not ask people to stop drinking either, yet it was still universally maligned as a "Prohibition." John Doyle, spokesman for the American Beverage Institute, which represents restaurants that serve alcohol, warned that such legislation will only serve to punish social drinkers. "That's not an impairment level, it's an arbitrary arrest level. We're going to have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent people going to jail with no improvement in highway safety," Mr. Doyle points out.

Virtually all states already had 0.08% BAC as the limit for a second DWI allegation, as per recommedation by the national government.

Once upon a time, the per se legal limit used to be 0.15% BAC.

As mentioned above, statutory laws are the laws our elected politicians create for us to abide by. These are the laws that are discussed in our news media. "Case law" concerns how these statutory laws are actually interpreted by our courts, and especially in the case of DWI law, are almost never reported by the media. Appellate courts are where the details of the law are decided, and (theoretically) these appellate decisions are obeyed by lower courts in their districts.

Regardless of what the statutory law reads, "where a judge feels that the evidence against intoxication is strong enough, he is not compelled to make a finding of guilty, even though the evidence shows that the blood-alcohol was above" the per se legal limit (Judge and Prosecutor in Traffic Court, A Symposium for Traffic Court Judges and Prosecutors Conferences, published by the American Bar Association and the Traffic Institute, Northwestern University).

Most DWI judges are also elected government politicians, and they can decide not only minor technicalities of the statutory laws, but also whether the legislature has overstepped its authority, and can declare a particular law as violating the Constitution. Likewise, judges may actually help a law violate the Constitution, depending upon which direction the political wind blows. The law has always been a battleground between opposing (financial) views.

Per se laws, as presenteted to a jury as part of its instructions, have sometimes been reversed on appeal, for taking away a citizen's presumption of innocence and shifting the burden of proof from the government back to the citizen. Other jurisdictions have decided that a citizen must accept that he is guilty until proven innocent, though in every court he may rebutt the government's DWI testing procedures and any other evidence -- assuming he can actually afford legal representation.

Unfortunately, 99% of DWI cases are processed by a single government employee (who might not be an attorney) presiding as judge (often in name only), who usually acts more like an extension of the government's prosecuting attorney than any sort of fair judge of fact or law. In many courts, there is no prosecutor and the judge literally becomes the prosecutor. This single individual is capable of bluffing a citizen into accepting whatever fate has been predetermined by the government. Government judges are not under oath to tell a citizen the truth about the government's law. That's how he earns a very profitable income (perhaps over $100,000 a year, not counting left-over campaign contributions or moonlighting). It's a game of liar's poker. The government has everything to win, while the citizen has everything to lose.

Judge Alfred Nesbitt, in Florida v. Aquilera, et. al., State v. 711-101S Dade Co. (1979), decided: "Let it be understood once and for all, that the function of the traffic court is to convict the guilty, acquit the innocent, and improve traffic safety, not to be merely an arm of any revenue-collecting office." This was the $100,000 criminal-defense trial of drivers sick of traffic RADAR abuses (the case of the 86-MPH tree and the 28-MPH house). Certainly, extremely few citizens are ready to pay $100,000 for justice. It is unknown whether the victorious motorists sued the government to recover attorney fees and damages. This was a REAL court with "rules of discovery".

Most traffic courts strip citizens of most fundamental courtroom rights, such as right to discovery and right to a transcript via court reporter. Somehow, the government gets away with this crime by alleging these traffic courts are "not courts of record". The government "justifies" this kidnapping crime ("false arrest") by whining it cannot process 50-MILLION annual traffic tickets without eliminating citizenship rights ("streamlining the court process" in the name of "justice"). ALL traffic "stops" are literally arrests ("citations in lieu of arrest") of "criminals caught in the act" of "traffic crimes". As Ralph Nader pointed out in Unsafe at Any Speed -- The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, SUCH "CRIMES" ACTUALLY MAKE DRIVERS SIX-TIMES SAFER THAN WHEN THEY "OBEY THE LAW", AND THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THESE LAWS "CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO TRAFFIC SAFETY".

In To Serve All People: A report from the Commission on the Future of the Tennessee Judicial System 1996, the government confessed: "The use of courts as local revenue-producing agencies is an abuse of the judicial process. It has long been recognized as unconstitutional for a judge's income to be dependent on the outcome of cases. But a similar result often occurs when the budget of a court is set in relation to the fines the court imposes or when a county or city comes to rely on whatever surplus is produced.... Strictly local municipal courts offer a separate, substandard justice and warrant a thourough review on their own. . . . At their worst, they are merely revenue-gathering agencies masquerading as courts. Their sole reason for being is the funds that their municipality draws from them. If the funds disappeared, few of the cities would consider the court an important civic service. Their limits and oversight are ill-defined, and their flexibility can sometimes disguise mere arbitrariness. . . . We believe they fall much closer to the worst model than to the best one. A majority of complaints about judges that come to the Administrative Office of the Courts originate with municipal courts. . . . [T]he financial interest of local government clearly rests with the present system." Yes, it's hard to believe, but traffic courts are inherently evil -- as the government's own commission admits.

Citizens rarely present a (so-called) judge with a competent and motivated legal adversary, willing to push the law to its legal limit. Competent attorneys are very expensive -- a short jury trial costs at least $10,000, not counting inevitable appeals -- and are far too expensive for the budgets of most Americans. Many citizens are simply afraid of the mysteries of the government's court system, and thus prematurely lay down to government attempts at intimidation. Inexperience leads to citizens making irreversible legal mistakes during a legal battle with experienced government adversaries. It is interesting that government schools do not teach Americans about their legal and civil rights, nor does the mass media choose to inform them. This is a subject that citizens must learn on their own, hopefully before its too late.

0.10% BAC is equivalent to a 150 pound person drinking four drinks, in only a one hour period. Four "drinks" ("doses") means four 12-ounce bottles of 4% beer, four glasses of wine, four ounces of 100 proof whisky (50% alcohol), or two ounces of 200 proof pure grain alcohol (100% alcohol), according to Judge and Prosecutor in Traffic Court.

According to the Tennessee Driver Handbook and Driver License Study Guide, "The liver can. . . oxidize one drink per hour. . . . Spacing your drinks over a longer period of time will slow the rate at which you become intoxicated and indicates responsible drinking habits." The liver oxidizes over 90% of the alcohol burned in the body. This estimate is for someone without liver disease such as hepatitis, and with all the liver enzymes needed to digest alcohol. Millions of Americans are born without all the liver enzymes required to digest alcohol, such as Asians, Native Americans and Northern Europeans. These people either become nauseous after drinking alcohol and thus refuse to drink it, or cannot get rid of the alcohol after they drink it. The liver requires large amounts of sulfer-containing protein in order to manufacture the required liver enzymes. The human body can only digest 1.5 ounces of protein per meal (unless taking steroids which allows 2.0 ounces per meal), so people who fail to eat three meals of protein every day will be deficient in liver enzymes. In other words, eating a 10-ounce steak (50% fat) will give 5-ounces of protein, but the body can only digest and absorb 1.5-ounces of protein. This means a person must still eat at least two more meals with protein or risk malnutrition and inability to digest alcohol at a normal rate. Protein (digested into amino acids) is also the only component of neurotranmitters required by the brain in order to function, so protein malnutrition causes "depression". This might lead a person to self-medicate depression with alcohol (so-called "alcoholism"). At any rate, here's the reality of alcohol digestion for a healthy person with alcohol-friendly liver enzymes:

The following are slightly more conservative figures provided by the Georgia Beer Wholesalers Association, Alcohol Awareness Program, and are given for a two hour period, rather than one hour. Identical figures are given by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Note that these calculations presume instant absorbtion of alcohol with zero metabolism of alcohol.

A 100 pound person would be over the 0.10% BAC per se limit after 3.5 drinks during a two hour period.

A 150 pound person would be over the 0.10% BAC limit after 4.5 drinks during a two hour period.

A 240 pound person would be over the 0.10% BAC limit after 6.5 drinks during a two hour period.

These formulas are for healthy people who have enjoyed an alcoholic drink on an empty stomach. "When the stomach was empty, over half of the alcohol was absorbed in 15 minutes and practically all of it in one or two hours." (Judge and Prosecuter in Traffic Court.) However, these formulas are totally meaningless when a citizen has eaten a meal while drinking alcohol. Eating dinner will drastically affect the speed that the stomach and intestine absorbs alcohol. In fact, alcohol is absorbed five times slower after a meal, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

According to Alcohol and Highway Safety: A Report to the Congress from the Secretary of Transportation, (August 1968), blood-alcohol concentrations are actually five times less (for a healthy citizen who had eaten a meal) during the first hour, and less than one half the amount from two hours and beyond, than would occur in a person who had not eaten a meal. In other words, at the very least, eating a full meal will reduce a person's blood-alcohol concentration by at least 50%.

Obviously, eating a large meal while enjoying a drink can delay the absorbtion of alcohol by many hours, and greatly affect the total amount of alcohol absorbed.

"Extrapolate" means "to estimate . . . (a value . . . beyond the known range) on the basis of certain variables within the known range, from which the estimated value is assumed to follow" (Webster's New World Dictionary). Since alcohol is burned by the liver at approximately one drink per hour, just add one drink per hour to the figures above.

For a 100 pound person, to exceed this 0.10% BAC legal limit in a three hour period would require 4.5 drinks. Four hours would require 5.5 drinks. Five hours would require 6.5 drinks, six hours would require 7.5 drinks, etc. (Eating a meal would double the number of drinks required to equal this blood-alcohol content.)

For a 150 pound person, to exceed the 0.10% BAC legal limit in a three hour period would require 5.5 drinks. Four hours would require 6.5 drinks. Five hours would require 7.5 drinks, six hours would require 8.5 drinks, etc. (Eating a meal would double the number of drinks required to equal this blood-alcohol content.)

For a 240 pound person, to exceed the 0.10% BAC legal limit in a three hour period would require 7.5 drinks. Four hours would require 8.5 drinks. Five hours would require 9.5 drinks, six hours would require 10.5 drinks, etc. (Eating a meal would double the number of drinks required to equal this blood-alcohol content.)

Carrying these numbers to the point of absurdity (150 pound person): In a 24 hour period; 28 drinks. In a seven day period; 172 drinks. In one year; 8,740 drinks to exceed the 0.10% BAC. The point being, time is a critical factor in determining percent BAC, not merely the number of drinks.

However, in the fine print, the federal and state governments have passed into law standards that imply that 0.06% BAC to 0.09% BAC might possibly mean a driver is "impaired" but not "drunk." In many states, the words intoxicated, impaired and influenced are all used interchangeably in the statutory law, often in the same sentence. In some states, a citizen might be charged with the statutory offense called Driving While Impaired, for a percent BAC in this approximate range. In this state, Driving While Impaired was originally a statutory law that only applied to adult citizens 20 years of age or less (the prohibited drinking age limit) -- their per se legal limit is 0.03% BAC and above. (While Congress was deciding its own lower limits, this state voluntarily added 0.08% to 0.09% BAC as an additional "impaired" category, while positioning itself for feeding at the national government's $719 million trough.) "Operating" can be substituted for "driving", etc.

A 100 pound person would be just over this "impaired" legal limit of 0.06% BAC after 2.5 drinks during a two hour period. In a three hour period; 3.5 drinks. In a four hour period; 4.5 drinks, etc. (Eating a meal would double the number of drinks required to equal this blood-alcohol content.)

A 150 pound person would be just over this new limit after three drinks during a two hour period. In a three hour period; four drinks. In a four hour period; five drinks, etc. (Eating a meal would double the number of drinks required to equal this blood-alcohol content.)

A 240 pound person would be just over this new legal limit after four drinks during a two hour period. In a three hour period; five drinks. In a four hour period; six drinks, etc. (Eating a meal would double the number of drinks required to equal this blood-alcohol content.)

National and state governments have written laws that declare that a BAC of 0.05% and below "shall create no presumption of guilt." Note than any BAC level below the per se limit (0.10%) also does not "presume" guilt, so this second figure is effectively useless to a citizen -- even though it sounds as if it would prove sobriety. According to the AMA and NSC, "When blood-alcohol is below 0.06% BAC (0.00% to 0.05% BAC), numerous experiments show that "almost no one in this zone will be affected by alcohol. . . . The committees recommended that blood-alcohol in this zone shall be considered prima facie evidence that the driver was not under the influence."

At higher blood-alcohol levels, the drug of alcohol acts as a sedative and depressant, thus reducing driving performance. However, alcohol is a very unusual drug, in that at lower BAC levels, it acts as a stimulant. Stimulants improve physical performance, and thus improve driving safety (that is why stimulants such as caffeine are banned by the Olympic committees as "performace-enhancing drugs"). Obviously, the government will never publically acknowledge this -- such an admission would be devastating to its Prohibition profits. In "Actions of Alcohol," authors H. Wallgren and H. Barry point out that: "Most studies of nerve conduction and transmission, EEG records, and behavioral performance indicate stimulant actions of low doses and depressant actions at high doses." In the journal Biology of Alcoholism, edited by B. Kissin and H. Beglleiter, R.G. Grenell summerized in "Effects of Alcohol on the Neuron": "Neuronal activity is stimulated by low concentrations and depressed by high concentrations of alcohol." Note that there is no arbitrary BAC level that will determine when this transition from stimulant to sedative occurs, and it is different for different people, and even different for the same person at different times. The later chapters on "Health" and "Alcoholism" discuss the drug and its physical interactions in more detail.

A 100 pound person would be safely within the new apparant legal limit of 0.05% BAC if they enjoyed two drinks during a two hour period. Three drinks in three hours. Four drinks in four hours, etc. (Eating a meal would double the number of drinks required to equal this blood-alcohol content.)

A 150 pound person would be safely within the new apparant legal limit of 0.05% BAC if they enjoyed 2.5 drinks in a two hour period. 3.5 drinks in three hours. 4.5 drinks in four hours, etc. (Eating a meal would double the number of drinks required to equal this blood-alcohol content.)

A 240 pound person would be safely within the new apparant legal limit of 0.05% BAC if they enjoyed four drinks in a two hour period. Five drinks in three hours. Six drinks in four hours, etc. (Eating a meal would double the number of drinks required to equal this blood-alcohol content.)

However, once again, according to Judge and Prosecuter in Traffic Court, "prima facie does not mean certain or absolute, but that in law it means about the same as presumptive, or unless proved to the contrary. If this is correct, the term is certainly not a rigid one." In other words, percent BAC is potentially meaningless, whether proof of guilt or innocence. Isn't that interesting?

For the sake of trivia, coma would occur no later than 0.50% BAC (and possibly as low as 0.30% BAC). For a 150 pound person, that's twenty drinks in only a one hour period. Twenty one drinks in a two hour period, twenty two drinks in a three hour period, etc.

The fatal limit for alcohol poisoning is approximately 0.55% BAC. For a 150 pound person, that's about twenty two drinks in a one hour period (less than one and a half pints of 100 proof liquor). Twenty three drinks in a two hour period, Twenty four drinks in a three hour period, etc. After death, the liver can no longer burn alcohol, so any blood test will acurately indicate BAC at the time of death (assuming no internal physical injury that might mix or spill bodily fluids, and assuming no fermentation or rotting of the blood before it reaches the laboratory up to several weeks later).

For crash victims who do not die instantaneously at the moment of impact, but survive for several hours at a hospital first, pseudo-retrograde extrapolation can give a false blood-alcohol reading two to ten times higher than at the time of the crash. This fact probably accounts for skewed statistics that the government utilizes for justification of its Prohibition War on citizens who enjoy alcohol.

Oftentimes, an unethical prosecutor will charge a citizen with not only driving while intoxicated from alcohol, but also driving under the influence of illegal drugs, prescription drugs or over-the-counter medications. This allegation is commonly made without any evidence of drug use, or even without any drugs being found (a "dry arrest"). Actual drug testing is not even required by the government for convicting a citizen of DWI by drugs or medications. Evidence that the medications have an adverse affect on driving ability may be completely lacking. It doesn't matter, the damage to the citizen has been done, and the seed of guilt has been planted in the minds of the jurors (if there are any), and even more importantly, in the mind of the single government judge. Even daily use drugs such as insulin, as needed by some diabetics to keep from dying, and to allow them to live a normal productive life, have been determined by the government to be deserving of a DWI conviction, even without alcohol use.

In Tennessee, the statute for DWI reads: "Part 4--Driving While Intoxicated. TCA 55-10-401. Driving under the influence of intoxicant or drug prohibited. It is unlawful for any person or persons to drive. . . while under the influence of any intoxicant." This innocent-sounding statement is the catch-all loophole that is used by the government to bypass all the previously mentioned legal limits. Some states add "to a perceptable degree." It doesn't matter which way it reads, the purpose is to create total prohibition of all alcohol and medications, in addition to illegal drugs. "Perceptable" is a subjective allegation made by a government police officer, who must choose between a citizen and his own paycheck. Prohibition is reborn, and it's now open season for hunting motorists. Literally. (About the only means not used by police to kill citizens is bow hunting, although the Tazer weapon does fire an electrofied dart, and can easily cause a fatal heart attack.)

This would be like the government posting a vehicle speed limit of 65 miles per hour, but having a secret speed limit of zero miles per hour, buried away in the fine print of a dusty law book located somewhere in a back room of a court house. Virtually anyone can be prosecuted for DWI. Like a "routine" traffic violation -- where literally 100% of the population is guilty on a daily basis, DWI arrests have also become routine. And the government is literally able to send a citizen to live for the rest of his life in its state prison for a violation of this law.

Any allegation by a police officer, that a citizen failed any other type of performance-related sobriety test despite "passing" a percent blood-alcohol test (0.00 to 0.05% BAC), allows an excuse for the government prosecutor to charge that citizen with Driving While Intoxicated (or DWI homicide). The same holds true if any allegation is made concerning not only illegal drugs, but prescription or non-prescription medications. There is no legal requirement for the government to give a citizen any of its so-called sobriety tests, and the government has decided that these tests are not needed for a conviction of DWI.

This is one more reason why government-issued Driver's License Study Guides make statements like: "Strictly speaking, a driver can register a BAC of .00% and still be convicted of a DUI. The level of BAC does not clear a driver when it is below the 'presumed level of intoxication.'" I can think of no better definition of Prohibition. In fact, this is a favorite trick used by police officers to encourage citizens to submit to the BAC test. The citizen erroneously assumes if he "passes" it he will be free to go. As the Driver's License Study Guide says, "Further sobriety checks could lead to the conclusion that the driver was indeed 'Driving Under the Influence.'" So-called field sobriety tests are used by the government to bypass the blood-alcohol tests. "Failure-designed" field sobriety tests are not the same kind of tests taken by school students. Such opinionated government tests are literally impossible to pass by sober citizens, even according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Steven Oberman, criminal defense lawyer and general sessions judge, in, DUI: The Crime and Its Consequences in Tennessee, writes: "When the state seeks to prove one is driving under the influence of a drug, rather than an alcoholic intoxicant, it is not necessary to specifically prove which drug has been ingested in order to qualify it as either a "narcotic drug" or one "producing stimulating effects on the central nervous system." Such a burden would be impossible to overcome by the state, especially if the suspect refused to take a blood test. Obviously, any combination of intoxicants can be sufficient to render a person under the influence."

David W. Kelley, California Highway Patrol, in, How to Talk Your Way Out of a Traffic Ticket -- Plus, How to Win in Court, writes, "You can be arrested for driving under the influence of LEGAL prescription or nonprescription drugs."

Note that even though Tennessee recently enacted the "impaired" category, the "intoxicated" category can easily be used to overrule it -- the purpose of the impaired category is to make it easier for the government to extort a more profitable plea bargain out of any citizen that puts up a legal fight.

The Tennessee Highway Patrol distributes this BAC "calculator":

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Connally v. General Construction Company (269 U.S. 385, 391, 70L. Ed. 322, 46 S.Ct. 126 (1926)), the justices decided that: "No person should be expected to obey laws so poorly articulated that doubt remains as to what conduct is prohibited." The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution promises: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." However, in the government's prosecution of millions of DWI arrests, this First Amendment legal right has been dissolved. One definition of redress is to see that justice is done. How can justice be done when the majority of citizens do not even know what the law is?

"Red herring" is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "something used to divert attention from the basic issue." So-called legal limits are touted by politicians and the media as a plausible smokescreen to prevent the public from realizing what the government is really up to, and thus prevent a mass revolt. Prohibition is the name of the game, and the government is well aware that the vast majority of the public, if they were to become aware of it, would be strongly against it. Secrecy maintains control. The masses must be held in their "proper" place--pacified by potentially violent police--in order for certain groups to reap tremendous profits. (Webster's New World Dictionary defines pacify as: "to establish or secure a peace in (a nation, etc.)" and "to seek to neutralize or win over (people in occupied areas).") It doesn't matter whether it is alcohol, medications or illegal drugs (and the new kid on the block--tobacco for teenagers). All are effectively illegal, when it comes to operating a vehicle on the government's police-patroled highways. The government has given itself absolute power to take a citizen's money, property, freedom and life. Citizens were never allowed to vote on the issue. Constitutional rights have been stripped away. If it looks like it and smells like it, call it what it is: Prohibition.

Many states allow a citizen to be convicted of DWI even when he is a passenger in the vehicle. This is done either because he is an "accomplice" to someone alleged to be driving while intoxicated, or because he allowed someone else (a designated driver) to drive his vehicle while allegedly intoxicated ("DWI by consent"). Laws such as Public Drunkeness and Under-Age Consumption are also routinely applied against chauffeured passengers. Entrapment -- police coercing citizens into committing crimes -- can lead to passengers being ordered into also getting behind the wheel after a traffic stop, and arrested with DWI.

The purpose of legal rules is to save the citizens the trouble of having to think for themselves. However, every city, court district and state has a different set of rules for citizens to follow regarding DWI. In other words, it is possible to drive through several different jurisdictions on a single short trip, each with a different set of rules. The governments never publically advise the citizens what their particular rules are. And these concealed, secret laws are getting tougher every day. Have you ever seen a city limits sign proudly proclaiming, "Welcome to Smallville, Home of Prohibition?"

Although the United States was theoretically founded upon the concept of separation of church and state, our currency displays the slogan "In God We Trust." (It also shows a disembodied eyeball atop a pyramid, with the slogan "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (A New World Order).) Many American religions today preach alcohol Prohibition: Mormans, Christian Scientists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Pentacostalists, Muslims, and some Baptists and Methodists. America endured a national legal Prohibition against alcohol from 1920 until 1933, when the law was repealed (except for technical prohibitions that continue to apply to the present day, such as prohibition against sale of untaxed alcohol, prohibited sale of taxed alcohol to adults under the age of 21 years, or extremely complex prohibition regulations for businesses that legally sell taxed alcohol). Yet many states, including Tennessee, retained Prohibition decades before and after national Prohibition, even up to the 1960's and the present day.

Exiled author Salman Rushdie, perhaps the world's most censored person of the 20th century (for publishing a fantasy novel questioning the Muslim religious dogma) -- nearly one billion people currently desire his murder, thanks to a government "fatwa" ordering his assassination -- writes: "Literature is the one place in any society where, within the secrecy of our own heads, we can hear voices talking about everything in every possible way." Dangerous words! His birth-nation currently has a government-enforced Prohibition against alcohol, with severe penalties for its violation. Hopefully, I won't face a similar fate for questioning the religion-based dogma of alcohol Prohibition in America.

Webster's Dictionary defines a "Catch-22" as, "a paradox in a law, regulation or practice that makes one a victim no matter what one does." (From the novel and movie about World War II titled Catch-22, by Joseph Heller. In the movie, Captain Yossarian (played by Alan Arkin) catches the American wing commander colluding with the Nazis to bomb his own military base in the name of blackmarketeering profits. Yosarian was given the choice of accepting a bribe or going to prison on false charges. Thus, a Catch-22 situation. Yet he succeeded in creating a third option, which no one seems to remember when flaunting this buzzword(s). The moral of the story is that one does not have to remain trapped in a "no-win" situation when one is creative. There is always a "win-win" option, even if it means giving up one's blind faith in government employees.

DEEP THOUGHTS

For decades, speed was the subject of the most widespread slogans drummed into the public. "Speed kills" and "slow down and live" are familiar ones peddled by the National Safety Council.... The findings showed a more complex picture of the role of speed than had ever been assumed before. Accident involvement rates are at a minimum at speeds between fifty and seventy five miles per hour.... Although obviously the severity of accidents is greater at higher speeds, the study revealed that considering accident frequency rates and severity, the number of injuries per vehicle miles traveled is at its minimum.
--Ralph Nader, from Unsafe at Any Speed -- The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, quoting David Soloman in "Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle," FHwA (1964)

Federal studies show that [for] cars traveling... at 10 MPH below the mean (55 MPH in an area where most traffic is moving 65 MPH, for example) the likelihood of having such an accident is six times greater.
--Dale Smith and David Tomerlin, from Beating the Radar Rap, quoting David Soloman in "Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle," FHwA (1964)

Speed traps are twentieth-century's version of highway robbery and there is no need to roll over and play dead. You have the right to defend yourself in a court of law, where the burden of proof lies with the officer pointing that radar gun at you.
--Radio Association Defending Airwaves Rights (RADAR), from Case Dismissed II

The typical bureau of motor vehicles is filled with deservedly low-paid clerks and run by an assortment of genial "pols" with utterly no training or interest in traffic safety.
--Dr. Daniel Moynihan, then Assistant Secretary of Labor

Daniel Patrick Moynihan is the finest senator ever. Period!
--George Will

The law embodies an invincible rationale: "He had an accident; therefore he violated the law." No distinction is made between responsibility for the accident and responsibility for the injury due to unsafe vehicle design or construction. Manslaughter charges are filed routinely against drivers; there is yet to be recorded any similar charges against the manufacturers for vehicle defects.... A typical police traffic accident report has a list of "contributing circumstances" which the officer is to check off: "Speed too fast; failed to yield right of way; drove left of center; improper overtaking; passed stop sign; ran traffic signal; improper lights; had been drinking; and other improper driving." ...Thus the driver is heir to all the dangers created by the automobile designers, not only in terms of bodily injury but also in terms of legal exposure. The result of this drastic imbalance in the law is the very poor quality of accident investigation in this country.... Consequently, enforcement of the law brings no pressure on the car makers to increase the safety of their vehicles.
--Ralph Nader, from Unsafe at any Speed -- The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile

JOKE OF THE DAY

DARE cop to 8th grade class, Creal Springs, IL, 1994:
Kids, this is what happens to you after one beer, blah, blah, blah.
Kids, this is what happens to you after two beers, blah, blah, blah.
Kids, this is what happens to you after ten beers, blah, blah, blah.
Kids, this is what happens to you after 25 beers, you pass out and die.

Paul "Beavis and Butthead" Pace, 8th grader, blurts out:
I guess that's why they only put 24 beers in a case!
--retold by Sara A.