the standard doesn't take that into consideration. We all know that a small, petite woman doesn't have to drink as much to be "under the influence" as a big, heavy-set guy. Yet the law treats them the same. And because of differences in basic metabolism, even people the same size and weight have different thresholds of intoxication based on frequency of consumption, emotional state, and heredity. We know that some people become cavalier in their attitudes and behaviors when they drink, while others don't. We know that some adopt a "devil-may-care" attitude when it comes to drinking and driving while others become extra cautious because all they want to do is get home safely. But the law doesn't account for any differences whatsoever.

In fact, driving under the influence is the only law on the books that counters a widely held principle and a constitutional guarantee; that one is innocent until proven guilty and that one cannot be forced to offer "testimony" against himself. Both these principles and protections are violated every time a DUI arrest is made.

I was a police officer in Tulsa, Oklahoma before MADD came into existence. I, as most of the other officers I knew, became a police officer because of the excitement and adrenaline rush of "fighting crime" and catching the "bad guys." We didnt really enjoy writing traffic tickets unless the driver's behavior was over the top and we didn't like making DUI arrests either. These weren't the reasons we joined the police department and these weren't the people we were after. These were normal, law-abiding people, doing the best they could do to live their lives and we didn't like confronting them unless it was absolutely necessary.

Consequently, most of the DUI stops my partner and I made didn't end in an arrest. There were all kinds of other options available. We often had the driver park and lock the car and called a friend or relative to come and pick them up, giving the keys of the car to whomever showed up and instructing them not to give the offender the keys back until they sobered up. If the offender was from out of town, we would take them to their motel or hotel and give the keys to the desk clerk with the same instructions. Only in extreme circumstances did we make a DUI arrest.

Because these weren't the bad guys. These weren't the criminals we were after. These were common, everyday, law abiding citizens who had had a little bit too much to drink. We didn't want to sully their reputations, or impact negatively on their families, or cause them problems at work when all they were trying to do was get home.

In the ensuing years, politics has changed the way drivers under the influence are perceived and treated. BAC levels have dropped significantly, not because of new medical findings but from political pressure. Now we all know that there are people who lose all semblance of control when they have too much to drink and sometimes these people cause accidents that hurt or kill themselves or other people.

And these people should be dealt with severely. There's a big difference between someone under the influence who's speeding, or driving dangerously and recklessly, or is driving on the wrong side of the road compared to someone with both hands on the wheel, driving as cautiously and carefully as they can because all they want to do is get home. But the law has, for the most part, taken discretion, the most valuable tool a police officer has, out of his or her hands and mandated that ANYONE who tests .08 or higher be arrested. Should this continue to be the way we enforce the DUI laws?

I think there is a compromise that could work. I believe we should once again allow officers the discretion of determining who presents a hazard to others and who doesn't. Officers should have never been stripped of this ability to begin with. Secondly, if the officer feels like a test is required to determine the person's ability to drive, the tests need to be changed.

When prospective police officers are going through the academy, they cannot be tested on anything that doesn't have a direct impact on the job they are being hired to do. We should have the same standard for potential DUI offenders.

Touching one's nose, walking a straight line, or counting backwards has absolutely NOTHING to do with driving a vehicle. We need vehicle simulator machines in police stations (they already exist) just like flight simulator machines.

Hook the suspect up to a vehicle simulator machine and test his/her actual ability to drive a car. This is called means testing and it's the only thing that makes sense, along with returning discretion to the officer on the street.