New DUI law calls into question the measure of impaired driving

Having been a bit misinterpreted by a reader of my May 11th entry here on the need for readily available personal breathalyzers (see comments section to "Personal breathalyzers might do more good than bracelets,") I went back in my essays to September 2, 2006 to find the piece I wrote then about Ohio DUI laws. There are many injustices in the way the law is written and enforced, in my opinion.

This earlier essay presents some of the problems:

A new state under-the-influence law was described in Friday's Advocate by Licking County Municipal Judge Michael Higgins. Taking effect Aug. 17, the law lists several "commonly used drugs of abuse," in the judge's words. The law provides for prosecution based on the presence of these drugs in the blood or urine of the accused. There is no need, the judge reported, for proof that the person was operating a vehicle or watercraft in an impaired manner. And worse, the concentrations specified in the law are, in the words of the judge, "extremely low and may reflect ingestion of the illegal drug days or even weeks before the operation of the vehicle or watercraft."

The new law accommodates prosecutors who formerly couldn't prove the connection between drug consumption and impaired vehicle operation. Now, they no longer have to try. If the drugs show up in the tests, the court assumes there is a connection even though the accused may have abstained for weeks.

Dumb law. But it calls to mind the irrationality of convicting drivers with a certain level of blood alcohol. Blood-alcohol level does not indicate specific degree of impairment. Individuals differ from one to the other, and from one day to another, depending on other physical factors. You can read about it here.

Predicting the amount of blood alcohol that will result from drinking so much of this or that also depends on various factors. There is a loose connection between number and type of drinks consumed within a certain time period and you can see the scope of variations which can be projected using a blood alcohol content calculator,assuming the bar owner will loan you a computer and Internet access.

The only sure way to accurately predict whether you have an illegally high level of blood alcohol is to do a self-test. And would you know where to get a personal breathalizer? Well, neither did the Ohio Highway Patrol officer I questioned several months ago. Strange.

You'd think that personal breathalizers would be readily available at every drug store and gas station and bar. In fact, government, ever willing to intrude on every other human activity, might even promote their use, in view of the stakes involved in driving under the influence.

Here's something else that doesn't make sense to me: None of the legal sharpshooting aimed at DUI takes into account the effects of prescription and over-the-counter medicines consumed, many of which can cause great impairment. Maybe because this involves the work of doctors and drug companies instead of bar owners and breweries.

Impairment is impairment, no matter what did it, and determining how much a person is impaired, not what caused the impairment is not just critical to road safety, but the only fair way to prosecute for endangering others. This calls for an instrument to measure impairment itself. Surely there is a scientific way to do this. Skip the blood, the breath, the urine. Can the person function or not? How difficult would it be to measure this at the time of the arrest? Not very. And how much more fair would it be? Infinitely.