WHAT DID THEY SAY?

Those who still think of America's judges as oracles of wisdom should
consider the Supreme Court's decision this week to outlaw police roadblocks
intended to search for drugs. Such searches, the court said in a 6-3
decision, are an unreasonable invasion of constitutionally protected
privacy. They're right.

But wait: The court noted that this decision does not affect other police
roadblocks, such as drunken-driving checkpoints, which have already been
found constitutional because the benefit to the public outweighs personal
inconvenience. Got that? You can invade somebody's privacy to check for
booze, which is legal, but not for cocaine, which is not. If you're not
confused yet, consider: Indiana's Court of Appeals has just ruled that
drunken-driving roadblocks are unconstitutional.

Maybe the lawyers for George W. Bush and Al Gore can straighten this out
once they're done with the election stuff.