So drinking beer a couple times a month gets you diagnosed as an alcoholic? I'd say you need to get real.

My point is that I can drink beer, be legally drunk but not really drunk and safely operate a vehicle. My driving record shows this to be true. The legal limit is just a number the state has determined to be the legal level of alcohol in your blood. So some people can be legally drunk and still drive safely. Just because I don't drive as well as I could if I had not had any alcohol doesn't mean I can't still drive better than other people who don't drink at all but are still dangerous behind the wheel.

You are missing the point. I say punish actual crime. If I drink beer and drive home safe no one gets hurt. Isn't that better than if I don't drink at all and get behind the wheel and drive wreckless? There are dangerous drivers out there putting on makeup, talking on cell phones, reading, playing with the radio, talking to passengers, etc. It is true that being drunk sometimes causes accidents but there are a number of bad behaviors that cause accidents. My point is that if you can drive safe doing whatever then more power to ya. Punish those who can't drive safe. That means the people that actually get into accidents because of poor driving habits.

gogo~ You are fooling only yourself--which is a common talent among alcoholics. I am not name calling. If you described classic symptoms of a diabetic and I suggested you WERE diabetic, would that be name calling? Get real with yourself.

Your assertion showcases a common error in logic. Your "driving record" merely reflects the fact that you haven't been caught while drunk driving and (luckily for the rest of us) haven't YET caused an accident. BFD. Most alcoholics could say the same.

That doesn't mean they or you have wicked driving skills while drunk--it just means that there's no way to have enough cops out there to catch all the drunk drivers and that (so far) the rest of us have been able to dodge you when you obliviously cross the line or pull some other dumb drunken stunt on the way home from the bar.

Yeah, there are some intrinsically bad drivers out there. They would be worse drunk. But even the most skillful driver loses a significant amount of control when impaired.

And guess what? Each and every one of them (right up to the point at which they slam into the tree or get pulled over and blow 0.21) was certain that he (unlike other drunks) had crazy good driving skills that would see him safely home each time he got sh**faced. I hope when your luck runs out, you don't take anyone else with you.

Give me 6 beers over a 2 hour period and I'll probably be over the legal limit. Put me in a driver saftey test against your average 70 year old and I'll win.

Bottom line is that some people can drive after drinking safely. Some can't. Arrest the ones who prove they can't.

kusp8 (Anonymous) says… "The reason why the have to announce it is because if they had a check lane where you had to stop and it wasn't announced then it'd be considered an illegal search."

Really? There is no "check lane" in a saturation patrol and even if there were I didn't find any "announcement requirement" in Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/444/case.html

I have been told that they announce in advance because their goal is to reduce drunk driving and it is hoped that those that read about the patrols will not drink drive and/or prevent others from doing for fear they will get busted.

I question their veracity on this: targeting speeders, impaired drivers and seat belt and child restraint use, to reduce crashes, deaths, and injuries.

First of all, seal belts and child restraints don’t prevent accidents. I always wear one because it only makes sense, because they may prevent more serious injury in an accident, but they don’t prevent accidents. That’s ridiculous. Besides, what are small children doing out at night after 11PM anyway? It’s all about the money, and I call this “highway robbery”.

Impaired drivers: I wish they would stop only impaired drivers, but what they are really doing is exploiting draconian Kansas Driver law which says they don’t need probable cause to administer an alcohol test of their choosing. You aren’t allowed to consult an attorney first. These infernal Chinese-made $100 breathalyzers are so freaking inaccurate that anyone they want to charge with impaired driving can be charged with impaired driving. You aren’t allowed to get a more accurate (more expensive) blood test or urine test in order to defend your case. I don’t drink any alcohol at all, ever, but I live in fear of some sheriff making a public example of me. You are deemed guilty unless proven innocent, and there is no way to prove your innocence anyway. It’s all about the money, and I call this “highway robbery”.

Speeders. OK, this pathetic myth is older than I am. Let’s see now, the 55MPH national emergency speed limit (NEMSL) in effect for 17 years was claimed to have saved a million lives per year. Not bad, considering that traffic deaths were less than 60,000 per year before the law went into effect, (but increased during the NEMSL, then decreased again after NEMSL was repealed). In fact, our nation's fatality rate (deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) is the lowest it has ever been. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does NOT mean that speeding CAUSED the accident. It’s all about the money, and I call this “highway robbery”.

If you want to help end government robbery and corruption, support the National Motorists Association. www.motorists.org

dudedog~ How is it entrapment to do the same police work that is done every day, with the only exception being that there are a greater number of officers on duty? Pulling over a suspected drunk and processing him through the system hardly constitutes entrapment. Neither does pulling over an idiot parent when the officer sees the kids jumping up & down in the back seat.

costello~ Do you really think that someone who refrains from stupid, dangerous, and potentially deadly actions for one night only because they were warned that they'll be ticketed (rather than because they actually realized the folly of their actions) is going to continue refraining from drunk driving (or whatever) the next weekend--or the previous night--when they know their odds of being ticketed will be much lower?

Only if people's ongoing behavior is changed would this constitute any meaningful boost in public safety. One night of suspended stupidity hardly constitutes a lasting safety improvement. I applaud the saturation effort--I only wish they had the resources to show that much presence all the time and that they didn't warn the scumbags and morons.

If you're doing something illegal/stupid, it is a given that you might get caught. The rest of us just wish you'd get caught before you kill any innocent people.

^lol flux, thats so true. I've actually seen them do that though (at least I have in the McDs parking lot)

Entrapment, in this case, is a load of cr*p. Like if they didn't announce this, people wouldn't drive drunk? Makes no sense to me.

I made the mistake of driving some inebriated friends to Taco Bell one evening (hell hath no fury like a couple hungry drunks).

Never again. Now I understand why the McD's at 6th and Michigan as well as 23rd street have Mil Spec standing around all night.

The reason why the have to announce it is because if they had a check lane where you had to stop and it wasn't announced then it'd be considered an illegal search.

That's just the way the law works.

"I never understand why they announce this. As a tip-off to the drunks, the irresponsible parents, and others that they need to watch themselves during that very specific time?"

I'm just speculating, but maybe it's because for every person who would be caught because they had no warning there are a hundred people who are wearing their seatbelts, not speeding, and not driving drunk because they were warned.

In other words maybe Igreen17 is wrong and it IS about public safety.

I never understand why they announce this. As a tip-off to the drunks, the irresponsible parents, and others that they need to watch themselves during that very specific time? And before and after those hours, they can go back to drinking & driving, letting the kids bounce unrestrained in the back seat, etc?

I would absolutely love it if a police lieutenant or the chief or the sheriff would post an explanation right here so that we could all appreciate the wisdom involved in warning the idiots when there will be saturation patrols.

It would be like a jewelry store posting a notice that they will have a working video camera and an armed guard between "11 p.m. Saturday through early the next morning," after which time the camera will turn off and the guard will go home. Hellooooo? Guess when the burglar will NOT try anything?

I don't care if people drive drunk as long as they don't kill someone doing it. If you can drive safe while drunk, texting, changing the radio station, disciplining the kids, speeding. smoking dope, or what ever it is you do while driving, more power to ya.

I'd rather be on the road with a driver who can drive drunk than a driver who can't even drive sober.