Ostensibly, the potential implementation of DUI checkpoints/roadblocks in Oregon is a righteous moral mission undertaken by the state to liberate sober drivers from the overwhelming threat of tyrannical, legally drunk drivers on the road and unburden taxpayers of the associated costs of consequent accidents. Similarly, the pretext for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to liberate oppressed Iraqi individuals, spread democracy, displace a brutal, threatening dictator and encourage freedom across the globe.
In both cases, these claims look great on paper. But anyone who hasn’t surrendered or atrophied her natural capacity for critical thought and who has but a vague awareness of historical events beyond the weekly conclusions of American Idol, can see that beneath these official motives lies a thinly cloaked impetus of some kind.
It’s not a secret that the DUI industry (which MSN estimates at a total of $10,000 paid out per DUI) is a major source of income for the city and its privileged exclusive associates who charge exorbitant fees for required classes, group sessions and even simple multiple choice surveys – not to mention the perfect opportunity for the insurance sharks to up their rates.
If the state’s underlying motive is increasing public safety, why not invest in better public transportation systems that the intoxicated and the sober can ride upon? Or how about reforming health care and health insurance in Oregon so as to prevent innumerable deaths each year?
As The Source pointed out last week, there is absolutely no empirical evidence suggesting that DUI checkpoints prevent drinking and driving, injury or death (of course there is speculative “evidence” suggesting otherwise). Like the situation surrounding the Iraq invasion, it’s also a convenient excuse to give half-wit authorities more unchecked power over citizens’ day-to-day lives, thus diminishing anything resembling civil rights – not to mention the Fourth Amendment.
I don’t support drunk driving in any way, but I really don’t appreciate this kind of moronic attempt at disarming civilians of basic rights on false pretense.
Anonymous
This article appears in Apr 16-22, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I agree this proposal is all about power and money.
“I donâ ™t support drunk driving in any way”
By referring to the problem of drunk driving as an industry, the only benefit being to derive revenue for the city (wait a minute, I thought this was the liberal/leftist dream, more money in the hands of government), or insurance companies who justifiably raise rates on an extremely high risk group, you demonstrate just how you support drunk driving. Your Fourth Amendment rights, Anonymous, end at the point where you endanger the lives of another person by taking the wheel of a car.
I tend to agree that as they are done now, the checkpoints are less effective than they could be. That’s why they need to be random and unannounced.
And shame on the Source for continually printing letters such as this from cowards who won’t sign their names at the bottom.
The letter doesn’t refer to the problem of drunk driving as an industry. It refers to an ineffective method of treating the obvious problem of drunk driving. Perhaps a relatively clear anonymous perspective is as valid as a confusing opinion with a proud owner. Shame on The Source for electronically publishing comments which display such poor reading comprehension.
Carl Sagan,
You make less sense than Anonymous.
He clearly states the process for collection of fees and management of treatment as an industry, please go back and read. How exactly is reformed health care in OR going to deter drunk drivers. If anything, drunks will have more $$$ to drink when all their health care expenses are handed off to the tax payers. And I’m sure sober BAT riders will really appreciate sharing their bus ride with a bunch of drunks(that is assuming anybody ever rides BAT, a whole different argument). Maybe we should just let drunk drivers go because someone collects a fee from the offenders.
Frankly, it seems Anonymous was a little tipsy when he wrote his letter.
Jegglie, let me simplify the original letter for you.
-DUI checkpoints are statistically proven to be ineffective at increasing public safety.
-The state claims that the purpose of DUI checkpoints is to increase public safety.
-Perhaps there is a different motive (“impetus”) for the DUI checkpoints than in fact increasing public safety, which it is known they do NOT do.
-More DUIs via checkpoints doesn’t equal more safety but it does happen to equal more money for certain members of the state AND private sector.
-Perhaps this has something to do with the potential implementation of DUI checkpoints.
-Reformed health care in Oregon has nothing to do with stopping drunk driving, it’s an obvious example of one thing the state could do if its motive really was increasing public safety, which again, DUI checkpoints do NOT do.
-Clearly there is a difference between the act of drunk driving–which is a public safety issue for blatant reasons not even worth mentioning–and the way the state tries to punish, or in this case, ineffectively prevent drunk driving. Jegglie, this is the specific distinction you’re missing.
I can add pictures if it makes this any clearer.
Grinspoon,
“More DUIs via checkpoints doesn’t equal more safety but it does happen to equal more money for certain members of the state AND private sector.”
So if the checkpoints don’t catch drunk drivers, how exactly do they equal more money for certain members of the state AND private sector?
A picture would definitely help unwind this contradiction.
And why exactly is it so evil for someone to collect a fee for services rendered? Highly trained professional counselors are supposed to give away their services? We shouldn’t fine offenders because the state collects that fee?
Health care reform will accomplish zero towards public safety. The health care system cleans steps in where public safety fails.
And finally, DUI checkpoints do, in fact, prevent drunk driving crashes. The CDC, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and police officials across the country(aka the experts), all assert the dramatic effectiveness of DUI checkpoints and provide statistics to prove it.
So by all means, Lester, please provide your solution to the problem. I notice that for all your intelligence and deep understanding of the topic, you failed to provide one.