Maybe It Should Be The Law, But It Isn’t
Maybe It Should Be The Law, But It Isn’t
Over two years ago, I wrote a post called “The Implied Consent Fallacy”. In the essay I objected tothe legal fiction that everyone knows they are consenting to give abreath or blood test when asked by the police, simply by virtue ofapplying for and accepting a Texas Driver’s License.
Semi-anonomous first time reader “Jason” weighed inrecently with thiscomment:
It’s a good law. Bottom line, don’tdrive after consuming alcohol.
Simple enough, why don’t they get it?Too bad there are attorney’s [sic] who represent these people oflower than average intelligence.
Well, Jason, despite the fact that you missed the entire pointof the post itself, let’s address your headland. It seems tobe that you think:
Driving after consuming alcohol isillegal…
and that therefore,
You deserve to have your licensesuspended…
even if the suspension is predicated on the falsehood that youknowingly and willingly agreed to provide a breath specimen whenyou got your worker’s license.
Just one problem with your theory… taint so. It is notillegal to consume an alcoholic beverage and get behind the wheelin Texas. You can make a good argument that it should be; but untilyou change the law to make it so, your premise is 100%incorrect.
One last thing. I often edit people’s grammar and spellingerrors in comments, but given this particular combination of doublead hominem attack with a healthy dose of self righteousness Idecided to let your comment stand as is.