Translated material
: Laws on a sober head
The permissible norm of alcohol in the blood for motorists, known as “0.3 ppm, can be returned. A complete ban was a measure of corrupt agent, but almost useless. Such government mechanics - without analyzing the consequences and discussion with anyone to accept something, and then cancel.
The evil decisions of the government are not only compensated, no matter what Prince Vyazemsky believes, by their bad performance. They are also compensated by the opposite decisions of the same government. Dmitry Medvedev, say, cancel the transition to the winter time, and Vladimir Putin seriously threatens to return it. And a new example: as Kommersant found out, the government is already discussing the possibility of canceling the prohibition of the permissible alcohol norm for motorists.
President Medvedev canceled the norm about "3 ppm. The motivation was simple - if you can drink a little, then it provokes drivers to ride drunk. What is possible in the sense of law enforcement practices, but definitely incorrect from the point of view of the law. There, no one has ever been canceled a drunken driving ban. However, it was decided to trim at driving at the wheel to be forbidden to drink at all.
Now, the right-handed person’s right-to-committee was suddenly remembered that the norm about “3 ppm” undertaken no one according to someone’s evil mind and from the desire of individual citizens to ride, taking on the chest, and due to the presence of an endogenous (that is, not drunk, but naturally received) alcohol. What - depending on the individual characteristics of the body - the alkotester may well fix.
At the head of the government commission of Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, the idea of returning the permissible norm of alcohol in the blood seemed to have not caused any special displeasure. And United Russia has already seemed to have taken up the development of relevant amendments to the legislation. As Vyacheslav Lysakov, First Deputy Head of the Duma Committee on State Building, told Kommersant, “it is necessary to return the (permissible) norm, calculating it taking into account the error of devices and endogenous alcohol.” Lysakov is a full -time defender of the rights of motorists, but if it came to a whole bill, a complete ban on alcohol for motorists can be canceled.
Of course, Dmitry Medvedev is and what value the “tandemocrats” have its decisions demonstrated on September 24 last year. And even in other layouts to expect that they would not make a “lame duck” from the outgoing president, it would be quite difficult.
The norm on a complete ban was obviously poorly worked out. Referring to the features of law enforcement, the president of the companions forgot that the new norm will have their own practice. And mostly corruption. And the statistics of traffic cops did not record special success in the fight against drunkenness at the wheel as a result of a complete ban on alcohol.
Not the most successful, but often simply harmful initiatives are accepted either on the basis of considerations of situational benefits or even at all on the “foundation of common sense”. Hence the exotic bills, such as the St. Petersburg ban on the “propaganda of homosexuality” or the same strange solutions to reduce the number of time zones.
It seems that a whole public chamber was created for these purposes, but she discusses something infrequently and her opinion interests her. And even when the government offers to discuss something “popularly”, as a result, the document extremely similar to the initial departmental version “hatches”. Examples of this are the mass - from the new standard of school education to the law on the police.
And even when the authorities really make an attempt to attract experts, the result is far from the ideal. Because experts are not chosen on the principle of professional fit, but more on the principle of loyalty to departmental values. The reputation of such specialists is far from always. The consequences of the lawmaking process as a result are relevant.
When it comes to some purely lobby initiative, this bureaucratic creative process is still possible. Since the lobby implies someone’s concrete interest-possibly and even probably harmful to a significant part of citizens, but at least motivated, that is, correlating with reality. But when they try to think about something abstract, like a common good in the bowels of official cabinets, everything turns out not so harmless. No matter what is discussed at the same time - history textbooks or driving a car - in the most optimal case, a useless initiative. Which after testing live citizens has to play back.