Over two years ago, I wrote a post called “The Implied Consent Fallacy”. In the essay I objected to the legal fiction that everyone knows they are consenting to give a breath or blood test when asked by the police, simply by virtue of applying for and accepting a Texas Driver’s License.
Semi-anonomous first time reader “Jason” weighed in recently with this comment:
It's a good law. Bottom line, don't drive after consuming alcohol.
Simple enough, why don't they get it? Too bad there are attorney's [sic] who defend these people of lower than average intelligence.
Well, Jason, despite the fact that you missed the entire point of the post itself, let’s address your point. It seems to be that you think:
Driving after consuming alcohol is illegal…
and that therefore,
You deserve to have your license suspended…
even if the suspension is predicated on the falsehood that you knowingly and willingly agreed to provide a breath specimen when you got your driver’s license.
Just one problem with your theory… taint so. It is not illegal to consume an alcoholic beverage and get behind the wheel in Texas. You can make a good argument that it should be; but until you change the law to make it so, your premise is 100% incorrect.
One last thing. I often edit people’s grammar and spelling errors in comments, but given this particular combination of double ad hominem attack with a healthy dose of self righteousness I decided to let your comment stand as is.