Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?

[powerofreason]

A poll for my own curiosity. The drug legalization poll created some interesting discussion so I think this may as well :)

Below is Lew's opinion on the subject and mine as well.

Legalize Drunk Driving

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

[Note: This column was written before the news came out last night that George W. Bush was arrested on a DUI charge 24 years ago. He was stopped in Maine for driving too slowly and briefly veering onto the shoulder of the road]

Clinton has signed a bill passed by Congress that orders the states to adopt new, more onerous drunk-driving standards or face a loss of highway funds. That’s right: the old highway extortion trick. Sure enough, states are already working to pass new, tighter laws against Driving Under the Influence, responding as expected to the feds’ ransom note.

Now the feds declare that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn’t deter them, then a lower one won’t either.

But there’s a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government’s "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That’s not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn’t be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.

In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police are more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what’s being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn’t done any harm.

Of course, enforcement is a serious problem. A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed.

To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood – even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.

There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests? That is the very next step, and don’t be surprised when Congress starts to examine this question.

Already, there’s a move on to prohibit cell phone use while driving. Such an absurdity follows from the idea that government should make judgments about what we are allegedly likely to do.

What’s more, some people drive more safely after a few drinks, precisely because they know their reaction time has been slowed and they must pay more attention to safety. We all know drunks who have an amazing ability to drive perfectly after being liquored up. They should be liberated from the force of the law, and only punished if they actually do something wrong.

We need to put a stop to this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don’t write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g. he has red hair.

Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.

There’s a final point against Clinton’s drunk-driving bill. It is a violation of states rights. Not only is there is no warrant in the Constitution for the federal government to legislate blood-alcohol content – the 10th amendment should prevent it from doing so. The question of drunk driving should first be returned to the states, and then each state should liberate drunk drivers from the force of the law.

[jrich4rpaul]

Saying it's ok for someone to drive drunk is like saying it's ok for someone with a twitch to point a gun in your face.

[Danke]

Saying it's ok for someone to drive drunk is like saying it's ok for someone with a twitch to point a gun in your face.

And u get to define what is drunk, right?

[powerofreason]

Saying it's ok for someone to drive drunk is like saying it's ok for someone with a twitch to point a gun in your face.

How about Angry Driving? Should that be illegal too?

[Danke]

How about Angry Driving? Should that be illegal too?

http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/politech/minority-report-precrime-1.jpg


http://crichton007.googlepages.com/FutureKiller01.JPG

[jrich4rpaul]

And u get to define what is drunk, right?

No


How about Angry Driving? Should that be illegal too?

No

[Minlawc]

How about Angry Driving? Should that be illegal too?

Isn't it already?

Anyway, no democratic country/state/city would actually get rid of drunk driving laws, so it doesn't really matter.

[LandonCook]

No. The penalty should be gauged on how drunk they are.

[Danke]

No. The penalty should be gauged on how drunk they are.

Corpus delicti be damned!

[powerofreason]

Disappointing results so far. I guess the people who voted no think the security goons at the airport should be able to racially profile as well. Same idea.

[nate895]

Disappointing results so far. I guess the people who voted no think the security goons at the airport should be able to racially profile as well. Same idea.

Flying on an airplane is different than consciously getting behind the wheel of a car while and driving when you are unfit to do so.

By this logic, we should let toddlers get behind the wheel of a car, because otherwise we are profiling toddlers.

[Brassmouth]

There is no legitimate reason that driving with a particular liquid in your bloodstream should be illegal. If you hit someone or something the results should be the same: you get charged for hitting that person/object. If you don't hit anything then who the fuck cares.

[SeanEdwards]

Might as well let blind people drive too while your at it, silly anarchists.

[Danke]

Flying on an airplane is different than consciously getting behind the wheel of a car while and driving when you are unfit to do so.


Ah, yes, "unfit" by an arbitrary standard. Prove up a victim of this heinous crime.

[heavenlyboy34]

Might as well let blind people drive too while your at it, silly anarchists.

I've heard of instances like this. Thus, driver's licensing-like most things-should be handled by competent folks in private industry. :)

LAISSEZ FAIRE FTW!! :D

[newyearsrevolution08]

Be allowed
Be Legal
Will they let us

Who is allowing you to drive again?

If you don't commit a crime, harm or hurt anyone then what crime was committed

the possibility of a crime that could happen?


should it be legal? no but simply for the fact that NOT committing a crime doesn't need a reason to be "legal".

[BarryDonegan]

drunk driving without incident should not be illegal. however, driving drunk and then getting into an accident should carry the penalties that it currently carries, sometimes vehicular homicide depending on state and circumstance.

i would support a law that increased the level of criminality of an accident which was proven to be caused by the drunken negligence of the drunk driver, however not a law that punishes a driver with a certain blood alcohol who is not violating anyones life or property.

[AutoDas]

No. It's not a crime. Privatize the roads and let businesses best decide how to handle their roads.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Flying on an airplane is different than consciously getting behind the wheel of a car while and driving when you are unfit to do so.


Consciously getting behind the wheel and KNOWING you are unfit to do so.... Hmmn if you have all this conscious and knowing ability than you really can't be too drunk.

[hotbrownsauce]

People who drink too much lose their sense of good vision, thought, and equilibrium. And for the same reason people who can't see very well aren't allowed to drive is the same reason why people who drink too much aren't allowed to drive.

[billyjoeallen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCOqpg-qDWohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCOqpg-qDWo

[James Madison]

Consciously getting behind the wheel and KNOWING you are unfit to do so.... Hmmn if you have all this conscious and knowing ability than you really can't be too drunk.

That's what I was thinking.:cool:

[hotbrownsauce]

No. It's not a crime. Privatize the roads and let businesses best decide how to handle their roads.

that might be a good point?

[jrich4rpaul]

drunk driving without incident should not be illegal. however, driving drunk and then getting into an accident should carry the penalties that it currently carries, sometimes vehicular homicide depending on state and circumstance.

i would support a law that increased the level of criminality of an accident which was proven to be caused by the drunken negligence of the drunk driver, however not a law that punishes a driver with a certain blood alcohol who is not violating anyones life or property.

well said.

[Danke]

Might as well let blind people drive too while your at it, silly anarchists.

What degree of vision is your personal cut off? See, it is arbitrary.

Yes, I can see standards for reckless diving; something that is outwardly causing a hazard to other drivers. But everybody has different abilities, some could drive just as well with a .10+ blood alcohol level as a sober elderly lady. If the only reason someone is being charged is because of the chemicals in their bloodstream without any victims from their actions, that to me is an unjust law.

[nate895]

What degree of vision is your personal cut off? See, it is arbitrary.

Yes, I can see standards for reckless diving; something that is outwardly causing a hazard to other drivers. But everybody has different abilities, some could drive just as well with a 1.0+ blood alcohol level as a sober elderly lady. If the only reason someone is being charged is because of the chemicals in their bloodstream without any victims from their actions, that to me is an unjust law.

There is a status called "legally blind" which means that you are beyond the ability of modern corrective lenses to correct your vision.

BTW, if you have a 1.0 alcohol level, you are really dead. Your blood is pure alcohol.

[Danke]

There is a status called "legally blind" which means that you are beyond the ability of modern corrective lenses to correct your vision.

BTW, if you have a 1.0 alcohol level, you are really dead. Your blood is pure alcohol.

Yeah, I know. And it is arbitrary.

[Danke]

drunk driving without incident should not be illegal. however, driving drunk and then getting into an accident should carry the penalties that it currently carries, sometimes vehicular homicide depending on state and circumstance.

i would support a law that increased the level of criminality of an accident which was proven to be caused by the drunken negligence of the drunk driver, however not a law that punishes a driver with a certain blood alcohol who is not violating anyones life or property.

+2

[robmpreston]

The laws in place work fine now. I drive "drunk" all of the time but as I don't let myself do so overly wasted, I react correctly and drive fine and I've never been pulled over. If you're pulled over drunk there's probably a good reason for it.

[pa1000]

If you're pulled over drunk there's probably a good reason for it.




I've been pulled over several times late at night when I didn't drink anything or break any traffic laws by cops fishing for a dui. not to mention DWI checkpoints.

[pa1000]

www.getmadd.com

[Brassmouth]

Might as well let blind people drive too while your at it, silly anarchists.

Might as well give a bunch of people a bunch of guns and let them decide how to handle drunk driving. Silly statists.

[heavenlyboy34]

Might as well give a bunch of people a bunch of guns and let them decide how to handle drunk driving. Silly statists.

lol! Good counterpoint. :D;)

[Austin]

Yes.

I think I would support harsher punishment for those who get in wrecks while drunk, especially in cases where death occurs. Proof would have to be provided, of course.

[travismofo]

No. It's not a crime. Privatize the roads and let businesses best decide how to handle their roads.

Precisely. This problem can easily be solved with private property rights. Don't you dare have a blood alcohol level of over .015 (or around that area) on my private road or its a $500 fine according to my road's term of use, enforced by private courts that uphold contract rights!

[Knightskye]

State's rights.

[jrich4rpaul]

state's rights.

+1776

[RP4EVER]

Precisely. This problem can easily be solved with private property rights. Don't you dare have a blood alcohol level of over .015 (or around that area) on my private road or its a $500 fine according to my road's term of use, enforced by private courts that uphold contract rights!

First off; for those wanting to privatize the roads......how do you plan to keep the roads in good shape. That takes money.......if you make laws/rukes like the one above youre no different than the states that currently exsist. IE: youre still making something at someone elses expense regardless of why you do it.

Second: anyone wants to argue this out. Any of you anti- government believers; how would you feel if you abolished all laws regarding this matter and it was your wife or mother or father or uncle or sister or child that was killed and the murder was allowed to get off scott free? Remember....you all would abolish the laws.

[Michigan11]

I don't like MADD, and either do many police officer or judges from what I hear. DUI's are another reason to make money for the state and the judges know it. Take a trip down to your court house and you will see almost 90% of the cases are DUI's. I disagree with 90% of the laws we are now under. The problems with laws such as these is they never end and they become more strict and costly as time goes on.

It's not right to drive drunk and hurt somebody, but there are many more accidents involved with people that are not drinking. Shit happens...accidents in life happen.....no law will protect any of us from being hurt.

Anyone who disagrees with what I wrote, know that I see your side as well.

[travismofo]

First off; for those wanting to privatize the roads......how do you plan to keep the roads in good shape. That takes money.......if you make laws/rukes like the one above youre no different than the states that currently exsist. IE: youre still making something at someone elses expense regardless of why you do it.

The incentive for profit will force you to not only keep it in good shape, but also provide security for your property. Governments have no incentive to keep them in shape, unless of course a state official happens to use it. And of course it's different to have rules on your own private property as opposed to government rules. Government is coercive while private property is voluntary.


Second: anyone wants to argue this out. Any of you anti- government believers; how would you feel if you abolished all laws regarding this matter and it was your wife or mother or father or uncle or sister or child that was killed and the murder was allowed to get off scott free? Remember....you all would abolish the laws.

Scott free? Are you high? That person would be held accountable for any death regardless of what they have consumed.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Yes.

I think I would support harsher punishment for those who get in wrecks while drunk, especially in cases where death occurs. Proof would have to be provided, of course.

THat is different because THEN would have been an actual crime. Before the accident itself, nothing has occurred and no laws were broken.

[fr33domfightr]

It may be true, someone who is drunk may drive home safely, however, as probability would have it, one day they may have an accident.

In a big city, like back east, it's easy to either walk home or get a short taxi ride. Out West, we've got major suburban sprawl. Couple that with zoning laws and now you've got to drive to get where you're going. Someone who's had a few too many might like to take a bus, but there isn't any to take, and the taxi will cost a small fortune!!

I suppose more arrests have occurred in California since they lowered the DUI BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) to .08%, from the old limit of .10%. I just heard today that after January 1st, in California, if you kill someone and get a DUI, you'll be charged with Murder.

Regarding this topic thread, it would seem to be reasonable, that operating machinery while under the influence of any drug (or alcohol) can impair your ability to control that machinery. As such, there should be restrictions on how drunk you can be.

That being said, should you be under the influence and drive OK, you probably won't get stopped, and therefore you're practically legal. It's those little things that the cop looks for that will get the arrest (ie. NO tail light, NO headlight, NO brake light, even NO license plate light). Once you're stopped they'll always ask about any drinking, try and smell any alcohol coming from the car, and even look at your eye movement (for alcohol intoxication).


FF

[newyearsrevolution08]

It may be true, someone who is drunk may drive home safely, however, as probability would have it, one day they may have an accident.
FF

And ONCE that accident occurs an ACTUAL crime would THEN be committed. Until that time it is simply an ASSumption or probability and zero crime would have happened..

[DFF]

Not only no, but fuck no. I live in TX, and there are more people killed due to alcohol related accidents than any other state. Drunk drivers are a menace, and to say otherwise is a shortcut to thinking. That said, I'm not in favor of people going to prison for drinking and driving. Alcoholism is a disease; it should be treated as such (rehab).

[fr33domfightr]

And ONCE that accident occurs an ACTUAL crime would THEN be committed. Until that time it is simply an ASSumption or probability and zero crime would have happened..

OK, so let's assume it isn't a crime to drive drunk and its only a crime (illegal) to have an accident while under the influence. Under those circumstances, why even set a dui limit like .10%, we might as well make it .20% or more, since you won't get the dui unless you've had an accident. I think you'll find, that as you raise the dui limit higher and higher you'll see more and more accidents (ie. dui crimes being committed). So how would you fix that? Recommend people not drink as much, thereby lowering their BAC, which would cause less crime (and accidents)? The problem isn't the drinking, or even being drunk, its not being able to operate machinery safely. As such, it puts other people at risk. What a society must determine is, how much risk is it willing to accept? I've seen some extremely drunk people adamantly insist they can drive safely, at the same time, they can barely stand up.

If people could get realtime information about their impairment, this might help them decide NOT to drive for a period of time, thereby reducing the chance of having an accident (and hurting someone else), and being charged with the dui.


FF

[newyearsrevolution08]

OK, so let's assume it isn't a crime to drive drunk and its only a crime (illegal) to have an accident while under the influence. Under those circumstances, why even set a dui limit like .10%, we might as well make it .20% or more, since you won't get the dui unless you've had an accident.
FF

No that is not what I am saying at all.

Here this might make it easier.


A drunk guy with a gun = no crime

A REALLY drunk guy with a gun = no crime

A sober guy with a gun shoots someone = crime

A drunk guy with a gun shoots someone = crime

A REALLY drunk guy with a gun shoots someone = crime


It isn't the LEVEL that is the issue but rather once the crime is committed that it is an issue.

Someone COMPLETELY trashed can drive around all day without a single accident and a completely sober person can have multiple accidents in their lifetime. UNTIL an actual crime is committed why try and punish someone before.

[fr33domfightr]

No that is not what I am saying at all.

Here this might make it easier.


A drunk guy with a gun = no crime

A REALLY drunk guy with a gun = no crime

A sober guy with a gun shoots someone = crime

A drunk guy with a gun shoots someone = crime

A REALLY drunk guy with a gun shoots someone = crime


It isn't the LEVEL that is the issue but rather once the crime is committed that it is an issue.

Someone COMPLETELY trashed can drive around all day without a single accident and a completely sober person can have multiple accidents in their lifetime. UNTIL an actual crime is committed why try and punish someone before.


I think I understand your point, that you feel there shouldn't be a crime, until an accident occurs.

I'm saying, we already know that accidents will occur to some degree, depending on how drivers can drive, while under the influence of alcohol, at various concentrations.

Your gun analogy seems OK on the surface, but I don't feel its quite the same. Put that same guy in a room full of people (to represent the road full of people), now have him playing with the trigger and hammer (risky behavior). While sober, he probably won't accidently shoot someone, but it could happen. Now, let him get drunk and do the same thing. Someone will probably get shot. How many get shot will probably depend on how drunk the person is.

I think the idea of the law isn't to penalize people as much as it's to be a deterent. Although, this may not be how the law is enforced today.

If we think back to the horse and buggy days, this probably wasn't an issue, since those animals didn't go that fast as to kill or maim someone.


FF

[tod evans]

those of you who abide by this type of legislation should give thought to following it to it`s logical conclusion, that being autos that are equiped to judge not only reaction time but visual ability and blood content.....

as someone posted earlier if you where to leave the gym or even get up late after a physically exhausting night and try to start your car to drive to work this type of restraint may keep you from doing so.
what if you where old and needed to drive to the pharmacy to get your medicine?
should your car fail to start because of the chemicals in your bloodstream or possibly because you`ve had cataracts surgury?
any legislation that permits sanctions for crimes that "might" be commited or that allows public servents to invade your privacy under the guise of protecting the general public from how you choose to use your own body or what you choose to put in it should be avoided at all costs.

[fr33domfightr]

those of you who abide by this type of legislation should give thought to following it to it`s logical conclusion, that being autos that are equiped to judge not only reaction time but visual ability and blood content.....

as someone posted earlier if you where to leave the gym or even get up late after a physically exhausting night and try to start your car to drive to work this type of restraint may keep you from doing so.
what if you where old and needed to drive to the pharmacy to get your medicine?
should your car fail to start because of the chemicals in your bloodstream or possibly because you`ve had cataracts surgury?
any legislation that permits sanctions for crimes that "might" be commited or that allows public servents to invade your privacy under the guise of protecting the general public from how you choose to use your own body or what you choose to put in it should be avoided at all costs.


I believe statistically, young drivers have more accidents than seniors. Seniors probably don't see as well, nor do they have the reaction time of there younger counterparts, yet young drivers have more accidents. It probably has more to do with behavior behind the wheel than those factors. At some point in time though, Seniors do have to give up the privilege of driving. Now that will get your goat when you get that old. I'm sure many Seniors swear they can drive just fine, but their actual driving ability would prove otherwise.

Those car sensors you're talking about are actually being installed in some newer cars I've seen on TV. At least the alcohol sensor.

I personally don't like them, and if I had one I'd have it removed. The alcohol measurement is tricky, because when you have alcohol in your mouth, the measurement device will read very high, which wouldn't be a true indicator of your intoxication. You have to wait about 15 minutes for the alcohol in your mouth to be ingested.

Again, this thread isn't about drug use or alcohol use, it's specifically about drunk driving. The State has no mechanism of testing which driver is better at driving while intoxicated versus the next guy. Their only mechanism is BAC (Blood Alcohol Content). You can be a good driver while drunk, but if you get caught, and blow .08% in my state, you'll get a DUI. A law change to increase the BAC to .10% or .15% would have the effect of handing out LESS DUIs. As it is now, the state has no mechanism to measure impairment. If there was one, then that would be a better way to quantify a safe driver from a risky driver.


FF

[MikeStanart]

Absolutely not.

Granted, I think the punishment for such should be a state-by state, or county-by county decision.

Driving drunk in a rural town in the middle of nowhere has a much smaller risk of inflicting harm; so i'm perfectly ok with the punishment being less severe for drunk driving in these areas.

I'm also totally fine with drug legalization / decriminalization; but once you step behind the wheel while you are high / drunk; I truly believe you are putting others liberties at risk and therefore you should be punished.

Drunk driving legalization will never fly; so just forget about this idea. Significantly less government involvement in our lives is excellent; but drunk driving legalization is borderline bonkers.

[Nate K]

some of you take theory wayyy too far. My family was destroyed by 2 separate drunk drivers.

I wish those who drink and drive an eternity in hell.

[pastortony]

some of you take theory wayyy too far.

My thought exactly.

That's why it is so easy to destroy an ideological libertarian of this strain in a political contest - all a reporter has to do is ask him/her a question like this one and any credibility they have with voters is instantly gone.

[MikeStanart]

some of you take theory wayyy too far. My family was destroyed by 2 separate drunk drivers.

I wish those who drink and drive an eternity in hell.

Sorry for your loss.

And I totally agree with you.

There's a special place in hell for child molesters, people who drink and drive, and people who talk in the theatre.

[nodope0695]

Drunk driving is NOT a civil liberty...when one does it, they are endangering the lives, hence the rights, of others. Also, the roads are public domain, so we must follow the laws of the road. However, I don't agree that wearing seatbelts, or motorcycle helmets should be mandated by law because those laws don't serve to protect the rights of others (only the bottom line of insurance companies). Those two things are personal choices, and the person bears the consequence of the choice. I don't need a law telling me to wear a seat belt...I wear them because I don't want to have my face implanted into the windshield. My choice.

[Kludge]

On private roads, they may do as they wish, and private roads would be a goal (if only academic) because public property can only result in tyranny.

But since we can't avoid the tyranny of public property ATM, I prefer not to be endangered beyond reason by preventable actions. Drink + Drive = Revoked License, but nothing else unless the person has no license or did actual harm.

[pcosmar]

Te poll is flawed. I voted unsure.
"Drunk" Is an arbitrary term. It's meaning has changed over the years. "Drunk Driving" is an emotional and media hyped crime.
I have worked in the auto repair industry for many years, I am sure I have had a close inspection of more wrecked cars than most here.
The most serious threat on the roads are "Driving while Stupid" and "Driving Incompetence".
I also posted some facts or another thread of this type. And may look up those links again, but doubt that those whos reason is clouded by emotion would consider the FACTS.

The FACT is there are many more auto deaths caused by other than "drunk driving".
FACT , An accident is "alcohol related" if,
The driver is sober but the passenger is "drunk".
The driver is sober, but hits a "drunk"
The statistics are flaw to be favorable this Emotionally charged issue.
Fact, "alcohol related" accidents ARE NOT the leading cause of traffic fatalities. Any where.

But who cares about facts, (you can research this yourself, I did) ,everyone knows "somebody" that had an experience. And they have emotions about it.

Lets all support Pre-Crime. It will make us FEEL like we're doing something.

[ShowMeLiberty]

My thought exactly.

That's why it is so easy to destroy an ideological libertarian of this strain in a political contest - all a reporter has to do is ask him/her a question like this one and any credibility they have with voters is instantly gone.


Drunk driving is NOT a civil liberty...when one does it, they are endangering the lives, hence the rights, of others. Also, the roads are public domain, so we must follow the laws of the road. However, I don't agree that wearing seatbelts, or motorcycle helmets should be mandated by law because those laws don't serve to protect the rights of others (only the bottom line of insurance companies). Those two things are personal choices, and the person bears the consequence of the choice. I don't need a law telling me to wear a seat belt...I wear them because I don't want to have my face implanted into the windshield. My choice.


On private roads, they may do as they wish, and private roads would be a goal (if only academic) because public property can only result in tyranny.

But since we can't avoid the tyranny of public property ATM, I prefer not to be endangered beyond reason by preventable actions. Drink + Drive = Revoked License, but nothing else unless the person has no license or did actual harm.

All of the above.

One of my cousins was killed by a drunk driver who had already lost his license due to multiple drunk driving tickets. Revoking the license isn't any guarantee but it's a reasonable punishment that will work on some offenders.

In my cousin's accident he chose not to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Would a helmet have saved him? No way of knowing, but it was his choice to take that risk. It was not his choice to have a drunk driver in a car smash into him on the motorcycle. The drunk driver was convicted of vehicular homicide and went to jail. I am satisfied with that.

[wd4freedom]

Very dissapointed in some of the "freedom" arguments in this thread.

No one in this nation has the "right" to receive a driver's license. It is a privilege granted by individual states and each state has created laws governing the responsibilities that go along with that privilege. If you do not want to be caught as a drunk driver than turn in your driver's license, sell your car, and seek alternative forms of transportation.

This argument is like saying you have the right to prescribe medicine as a medical doctor without a medical license. When a person chooses to enter the medical field he understands that there are laws and rules which dictate responsibilties that come with that license to support the general welfare.

A person is free to not become a doctor just as a person is free to not drive an automobile on public roadways.

[pcosmar]

Laws based on emotional arguments and based on FLAWED statistics ought to be questioned.

Those that support these laws should ( in the interest of Intellectual Honesty) should research the facts.

I will suggest the DUI Bolg as a good place to start, but don't stop there.
http://www.duiblog.com/

Ther is information and statistics available on the web. Do some research.

[Kludge]

A person is free to not become a doctor just as a person is free to not drive an automobile on public roadways.

It's not my fault if you inhale my toxic fumes. WTF were you thinking?!!! BREATHING while there are toxic fumes around?! You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


You could have solved the whole problem if you had just worn a respirator. You can't expect ALL the air to be safe unless you want tyrannical AIR POLICE!!! Bring your own damn air, you poor statist scum!

(A hyperbole, of course)

[TER]

the results of this poll is embarrassing

[phill4paul]

What needs to be more seriously addressed when it comes to DUI laws are the loss of Constitutional rights.
Because the issue of DUI is so emotionally charged we need to pull back and look at it as facts.
With DUI laws it becomes a "feel good" issue for politicians to be over handed on.

DUI laws are the only laws which violate our Constitutional rights and are whole hardily endorsed by politicians.

Loss of Forth amendments rights. Police officers are required to have probable cause to detain or search any citizen. They have to believe you have done something criminal to stop you. However, with DUI laws it is perfectly allowable to set up checkpoints. This was decided in the Supreme Courts ruling Sitz vs. Michigan in 1990.

Miranda rights. Once you are handcuffed and under arrest in any other instance police are required to read you your rights. The Supreme Court ruled in Berkmer vs. McCathy in 1984 that they were not sure at what point Miranda was supposed to be given. So they could give it later. After first questioning you on "how many drinks tonight", "which bar" etc. and use this as testimony against you.

The Fifth Amendment is supposed to protect us against self incrimination. The Supreme court ruled in South Dakota vs. Neville in 1983 that there is no right to refuse test to prove/disprove BAC.

The law enforcement agency is not even required to retain evidence for independent testing for the defense. Trombetta vs. California 1984.

In many states there is no Constitutional right to a jury trail in a DUI case so long as it is not punishable by more that six months in jail. Blanton vs. North Los Vegas.

I could go on and on about independent testing of the BAC machines. I'm sure you can google it.

The fact is there is no parity in sentencing laws. Speeding is as big a contributing factor to fatalities as alcohol related incidents. But we don't see these draconian measures taken against speeders. Cell phones have been shown to cause impairment equal to a .10 BAC. We don't see sweeping legislation on that issue.

I think we can all agree that it is tragic when those we know and love are injured or killed by a drunk driver. That is why it is such an emotional issue.

I'm still on the ledge of pro/con. What constitutes vehicular impairment? Should we just have a zero tolerance. Should we just prosecute under existing laws like vehicular manslaughter?

[mediahasyou]

Private owners of private roads should decide this.

Public roads are funded through theft. The thieves should be brought to justice and punished.

[mediahasyou]

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.'s opinion:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

[worl]

These poll's are used to further divide people into group's & also hurts any canidate who is supported here.

[powerofreason]

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.'s opinion:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

Thats the article in quotes in the OP ;)

[powerofreason]

These poll's are used to further divide people into group's & also hurts any canidate who is supported here.

Yes. You've discovered my evil intent. I did not intend to promote an intelligent discussion as any normal person might think.

[torchbearer]

Yes. You've discovered my evil intent. I did not intend to promote an intelligent discussion as any normal person might think.

just depends on what you view as a crime. the destruction of someone's rights and the potential to destroy someone's rights.

[powerofreason]

Did anyone know that the statistic of "alcohol-related incidents" which is so often quoted by MADD and other neo-prohibitionist groups actually includes passengers who had alcohol in their blood? So the driver of an accident does not need to be drunk for it to be classified as alcohol-related. And if the driver of the car has ANY alcohol in his/her blood its automatically alcohol related. They (the government and other interest groups) pulled the exact same garbage to help push through the Americans With Disabilities Act. Maybe that will be my next poll :p

[powerofreason]

just depends on what you view as a crime. the destruction of someone's rights and the potential to destroy someone's rights.

When you start classifying the potential to destroy someones rights as an actual crime you get into dangerous territory. Every time anyone gets in the car there is the potential that that person will cause a fatal accident. Or that if someone leaves a gun in the house their kids will find it and kill someone. Or if I sell someone drugs that person could overdose. And on and on. There's really only one instance I can think of when force would be justified against a person who hasn't harmed anyone, and thats if a person points a gun at someone (and not accidentally). There is clear and present danger of harm there. Compare that to "drunk" (.08 lol) driving where a lot of drunk people are able to get home just fine.

[phill4paul]

Did anyone know that the statistic of "alcohol-related incidents" which is so often quoted by MADD and other neo-prohibitionist groups actually includes passengers who had alcohol in their blood? So the driver of an accident does not need to be drunk for it to be classified as alcohol-related. And if the driver of the car has ANY alcohol in his/her blood its automatically alcohol related. They (the government and other interest groups) pulled the exact same garbage to help push through the Americans With Disabilities Act. Maybe that will be my next poll :p

Also in some cases where no one had been drinking and there was .00 BAC on the participants all it took was for the officer to check mark the alcohol involved box to label it alcohol related.

"There are three kinds of lies...lies, damned lies and statistics." Mark Twain

[pcosmar]

It amazes me that supposedly Freedom/liberty minded people would not look at the facts, but rather base their opinions on Media distortion, Emotional response and deliberate deception.


No. The penalty should be gauged on how drunk they are.
Why,
Should it not be gauged by actual damage/harm done.




Anyway, no democratic country/state/city would actually get rid of drunk driving laws, so it doesn't really matter.

Unfortunately this is true. At least at the present time.
Most of these Laws are based on Feelings and emotions rather than real facts.

Does it really make any difference if someone is killed by a drunk rather than a purely incompetent driver, or a distracted driver or a stupid driver.
IS THE RESULT ANY DIFFERENT
Or is it just harder to place blame.

[Working Poor]

I voted no because I know that people who are drunk just have no reason to be driving unless in some extreme emergency.

I don't think people ought to go to jail for it unless someone lost their life over it. I think someone caught driving while drunk ought to have to get into some kind of rehab program...

[TER]

It amazes me how ignorant some people can be. Then we wonder why we are called weirdos.

[pcosmar]

It amazes me how ignorant some people can be. Then we wonder why we are called weirdos.

I have been called weird for many reasons, and by many people.
Which do you find weird?
Those that believe in Liberty and freedom.
Or those that wish to control others.

I think I live in a weird world, but I make the best of it.

[TER]

I have been called weird for many reasons, and by many people.
Which do you find weird?
Those that believe in Liberty and freedom.
Or those that wish to control others.

I think I live in a weird world, but I make the best of it.

I find weird the idea that people are totally OK with letting others drive intoxicated, as long as they don't kill anyone.

[TER]

Why even have stop lights? Lets just do whatever the hell we want, and hope that other don't get killed by our actions.

[pcosmar]

I find weird the idea that people are totally OK with letting others drive intoxicated, as long as they don't kill anyone.

I find it weird that people would wish to punish, and deprive of basic rights, someone that has caused NO harm.

[TER]

I find it weird that people would wish to punish, and deprive of basic rights, someone that has caused NO harm.

Let me give you some insight if you feel there is no harm.
I have worked as an ER doctor for 10 years.
I have seen more INNOCENT men, women and children DIE because of drunk drivers than you have probably seen dead people in your entire life.
Wake up and get a clue if your think it has caused no harm.

[FindLiberty]

It amazes me that supposedly Freedom/liberty minded people would not look at the facts, but rather base their opinions on Media distortion, Emotional response and deliberate deception.

Why, Should it not be gauged by actual damage/harm done.

Does it really make any difference if someone is killed by a drunk rather than a purely incompetent driver, or a distracted driver or a stupid driver.
IS THE RESULT ANY DIFFERENT Or is it just harder to place blame.

100% yes

[Josh_LA]

the drunk driving question can be solved with one question

do you have the right to walk or drive on roads safely, the answer is NO.

so no, nobody owes you your safety when you are outside of your private property.

but granted, roads are currently public owned, so whoever has jurisdiction can certainly enforce their preference as to whether drunks, retards, and angry people have the right to drive.

[Theocrat]

Let me give you some insight if you feel there is no harm.
I have worked as an ER doctor for 10 years.
I have seen more INNOCENT men, women and children DIE because of drunk drivers than you have probably seen dead people in your entire life.
Wake up and get a clue if your think it has caused no harm.

In those situations, the drunk driver should be capitally punished for killing an innocent person by their own mobile negligence. Although I agree that it is not wise to drive drunk at all, I do not see it as being as bad as killing someone while you're drunk driving. There have been many people who have driven drunk, yet they did not kill anyone on the road.

This whole issue goes back to loving one's neighbor (Matthew 22:37-39). If you love others as you love yourself, then you would be careful to not risk the lives of other people (as well as depriving family members of their loved ones by the possibility of killing someone) by driving intoxicated. Those who foolishly drive after having too many drinks show that they do not love their neighbor as they ought to. Because of this, I think the State has every right to exact justice upon those who kill others by irresponsible drinking habits and driving methods.

[Nate K]

I further considered this question..

Even though I hope those who drive drunk should burn on a cross, I think the argument against it sounds too much like the drug war argument ("crackheads can be dangerous, crack must be dangerous therefore ban crack")- the POTENTIAL for danger.. just like owning a gun, it's a potential.

I think like someone else mentioned, but more severe, they should be punished three-fold if their accident was because of drunkenness.

[heavenlyboy34]

It amazes me that supposedly Freedom/liberty minded people would not look at the facts, but rather base their opinions on Media distortion, Emotional response and deliberate deception.


Not everyone here is freedom minded. We've got our share of trolls and flamers from other sites. :(:p

[Nate K]

by the way I'm going to make a crash-proof car before i die.

[SeanEdwards]

To the people who voted yes:

I guess you wouldn't object then if I pointed a gun at your face and discharged it, as long as I missed, right? After all, no harm was done.

[pcosmar]

Let me give you some insight if you feel there is no harm.
I have worked as an ER doctor for 10 years.
I have seen more INNOCENT men, women and children DIE because of drunk drivers than you have probably seen dead people in your entire life.
Wake up and get a clue if your think it has caused no harm.

Yes,I understand. You have an emotional response.
I have had friends die too
One young man drove his snowmobile into an on coming car. It was totally stupid. and he died.
Was it the Car drivers fault? No.
What if the driver had a beer before my friend jumped in front of him. Would that have made any difference?
People DIE every day. Most of them are not alcohol related. Do you still try to place blame?
They are just as innocent and just as dead.

It is an emotional Knee jerk reaction, but it is no reason to punish those that have caused NO harm.

[pcosmar]

To the people who voted yes:

I guess you wouldn't object then if I pointed a gun at your face and discharged it, as long as I missed, right? After all, no harm was done.

I have stared down the barrels of so many guns that I have lost count.
They were always held by some asshole with an authority complex.
And yet on the only occasions when there was an actual reason for arrest, no guns were drawn.

To those others, and anyone who would deprive any person of their freedom, I can only hope that they catch a bullet. Sooner rather than later.

[TER]

Yes,I understand. You have an emotional response.
I have had friends die too
One young man drove his snowmobile into an on coming car. It was totally stupid. and he died.
Was it the Car drivers fault? No.
What if the driver had a beer before my friend jumped in front of him. Would that have made any difference?
People DIE every day. Most of them are not alcohol related. Do you still try to place blame?
They are just as innocent and just as dead.

It is an emotional Knee jerk reaction, but it is no reason to punish those that have caused NO harm.

You are .... and in your zeal for 'freedom', you threw out common sense.
I guess a drunk airline pilot should be allowed as long as he doesn't kill anyone.
I guess a 5 year old playing with a hand grenade in a busy street is okay as long as he doesn't kill any one.
This thread is a waste of time and it is people like you which piss all over everyone else just so that you could say you have freedom to urinate.

[powerofreason]

To the people who voted yes:

I guess you wouldn't object then if I pointed a gun at your face and discharged it, as long as I missed, right? After all, no harm was done.

If thats okay with the owner of the property then why would I? I'm certainly not going to be on property where its okay to do something so idiotic. And where'd the bullet go? Did it not harm somebody's property? Because that would be wrong.

[pcosmar]

You are small minded and in your zeal for 'freedom', you threw out common sense.
I guess a drunk airline pilot should be allowed as long as he doesn't kill anyone.
I guess a 5 year old playing with a hand grenade in a busy street is okay as long as he doesn't kill any one.
This thread is a waste of time and it is people like you which piss all over everyone else just so that you could say you have freedom to urinate.

A,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I am drawing a complete blank.
That is just too stupid to respond to.

[powerofreason]

You are small minded and in your zeal for 'freedom', you threw out common sense.
I guess a drunk airline pilot should be allowed as long as he doesn't kill anyone.
I guess a 5 year old playing with a hand grenade in a busy street is okay as long as he doesn't kill any one.
This thread is a waste of time and it is people like you which piss all over everyone else just so that you could say you have freedom to urinate.

Lets break this down piece by piece.


I guess a drunk airline pilot should be allowed as long as he doesn't kill anyone.

This is going to be against the rules of any airline. If its not, expect it to go out of business quickly once word gets out. But lets suppose its not a rule, and people decide to fly on that airline anyways. Wheres the harm if the plane lands safely?


I guess a 5 year old playing with a hand grenade in a busy street is okay as long as he doesn't kill any one.

Does the owner of the road have a problem with that? Again, if the owner of the road is okay with that, why are you driving on that road? If the hand grenade goes off and kills you, thats the risk you took. But if you're okay with that possibility, wheres the harm?


This thread is a waste of time and it is people like you which piss all over everyone else just so that you could say you have freedom to urinate.

Pissing on other people is something most people would not be okay with, seeing as harm is being done to their property (clothing). But if a person wants to be pissed on, you don't have a problem with that, do you?

[ShowMeLiberty]

Why even have stop lights? Lets just do whatever the hell we want, and hope that other don't get killed by our actions.

I'd like to hear responses to this from people who think drunk driving should be legal. Should we also do away with stop lights? After all, they are preventative devices with preventative laws to say you must obey them. No problem unless somebody gets hurt, right?


I further considered this question..

Even though I hope those who drive drunk should burn on a cross, I think the argument against it sounds too much like the drug war argument ("crackheads can be dangerous, crack must be dangerous therefore ban crack")- the POTENTIAL for danger.. just like owning a gun, it's a potential.

I think like someone else mentioned, but more severe, they should be punished three-fold if their accident was because of drunkenness.

I can own a gun and not behave recklessly with it. I can own a car and not behave recklessly with it. If I do behave recklessly with things that have the potential to do others serious harm, should I really be allowed to continue doing so until I finally hurt or kill someone?
Three-fold punishment does very little for the loved ones left behind or for the individual who survives but is crippled by a drunk driver.

[NaT805]

A,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I am drawing a complete blank.
That is just too stupid to respond to.

LOL but it gave me a good laugh... :D

[fr33domfightr]

I think "drunk driving" needs to be defined.

In my state, California, if you're stopped and measured at 0.08% BAC, you'll get a DUI. This DOES NOT mean you were drunk, only that you meaused 0.08%. This percentage varies depending on state, but it is somewhat arbitrary to say that's drunk, because it used to be 0.10%.



FF

[pcosmar]

I have not, at any time, said that drinking and driving is a good idea.
In my years I have known completely useless drunks, tea totalers , functioning Alcoholics and social drinkers.
I have drunk my share of alcohol in the past, and do not presently. There is no alcohol in my house.
I know people that stone cold sober are unsafe behind the wheel, I have made people stop a car and let me out. Because they were a stupid accident just waiting to happen.
I have known daily drinkers that were safe drivers, and after many years have not ever had an accident or incident.

I have fixed the same cars over and over again for people that just can't drive worth a shit.
Stupid people concern me far more than drunks.

Stupid people cause more accidents than all the drunks combined, Those that get caught and those that don't.
They just don't regulate Stupid.

[AisA1787]

I'd like to hear responses to this from people who think drunk driving should be legal. Should we also do away with stop lights? After all, they are preventative devices with preventative laws to say you must obey them. No problem unless somebody gets hurt, right?


Sure, I'll take this one. You're right -- there is no problem unless someone gets hurt. But I still want traffic lights, especially at busy or blind intersections, just like I still want yield signs and passing or no passing zones.

Consider this list of questions...

-Should we do away with stoplights?

-Should we do away with double yellow lines?

-Should we do away with passing zones?

-Should we do away with... "slippery when wet" signs, yield signs, "left lane ends in 1/4 mile" signs, and all other type of signs?

-Should we do away with roads, and just pave the entire country like one huge parking lot, with no lights, signs, or anything else?

-How about no pavement at all?

Where does it end? It all seems rather arbitrary, doesn't it? Of course, yes, it is arbitrary. You would be getting rid of everything that makes driving a reasonable and effective way of traveling from one place to another.

But I digress. The difference between traffic lights and drunk driving is so simple I can't even believe I have to explain it, but here it is... Traffic lights provide information to drivers about when it is safe to cross an intersection, and when it is not safe. Drunk driving laws punish people who have not violated anyone else's life or property. In other words drunk driving laws punish pre-crime.

Of course, "secondarily", traffic lights and drunk driving laws provide a source of revenue to the state. The police can write tickets, for example, if you drive up to a red light at 2am, look both directions and know for a fact that no one is coming and it is perfectly safe to continue through the intersection, and you then do so, harming no one. Boom. Traffic ticket. $$$. No one was harmed, except for you because the state violated your property by making you pay a ticket. Same deal with "drunk" driving (BAC >= 0.08) when you don't harm anyone. But what about when you run a red light and/or you've been drinking and you kill a little old lady crossing the street? That's a crime. But not because you ran a red light or you were drinking; it's a crime because you killed someone.

If you want to you, you could lump drunk driving laws and traffic lights into one broad category - "they make the roads safer" - but so does not allowing anyone to drive. That would make the roads extremely safe. But would you advocate for no one being allowed to drive? (I hope not...).

The only morally defensible position, if you believe in freedom, is to only punish people who violate others' life and/or property. If you believe in the state protecting you from cradle to grave, then it's really only a matter of degrees of how much freedom you're willing to give up to be "safe(er)". Have fun with that.

[SeanEdwards]

This thread is stupidity on stilts. It's a perfect example of small-minded humans attempting to force the square peg of a chaotic universe into the round hole of a political ideology. It works like this:

A dumbass arrives at the conclusion that liberty is good.

Then the dumbass extends that conclusion to the belief that anything that infringes on liberty is bad.

Pretty soon, the dumbass is spouting all kinds of ridiculous crap, like "It's fine if you shoot guns at my face if the property owner is ok with it" and "drunk driving isn't a criminal act".

The end result being that the vast majority of people think libertarians are batshit insane.

The world is not black and white, it is an infinite gradation of colors, and people that refuse to see subtlety are not principled, they're just stupid.

[Expatriate]

Here in Ontario they are apparently now treating Marijuana like alcohol in regards to driving. If they suspect you may be high you must give a blood, urine or hair sample to be tested or lose your license. The problem is, THC can be detected in your blood or urine for over a month after you smoke a joint, and for much longer in your hair, especially if you have long hair.

So essentially they are saying that if you occasionally smoke weed (which many Canadians do on a regular basis) you are not allowed to operate a vehicle for a month or more after the fact.

Also, there is no requirement for "probable cause" and no "unreasonable search" rules, and so a cop could have you tested on a hunch. If you look like the stoner type, or have red eyes from allergies or lack of sleep, you're SOL.

This is coming in the States too:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/264/druggeddriving.shtml
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press02/111902.html

[TastyWheat]

Drunk driving, drunk hunting, drunk operating-heavy-machinery, drunk flying. Pretty much all the same thing. No offense to senior citizens, but some of them should not be driving, sober or not. How about driving while drowsy? That's pretty dangerous too. What about epileptics? They could have seizure at any time and hurt someone else while driving. What about hot-rod teenagers that hate to brake for anything? Aren't they dangerous to other drivers as well?

My point here is that when we start denying people rights because they might accidentally hurt others is just idiotic. People need to take responsibility for themselves and make the right decision when they shouldn't be driving. The majority of drunk drivers, since that's specifically the group we're talking about, actually get home safely. The majority of all accidents actually occur when nobody is under the influence of anything.

Liberty is for all, not just those who act in a manner we approve of.

[TER]

This thread is stupidity on stilts. It's a perfect example of small-minded humans attempting to force the square peg of a chaotic universe into the round hole of a political ideology. It works like this:

A dumbass arrives at the conclusion that liberty is good.

Then the dumbass extends that conclusion to the belief that anything that infringes on liberty is bad.

Pretty soon, the dumbass is spouting all kinds of ridiculous crap, like "It's fine if you shoot guns at my face if the property owner is ok with it" and "drunk driving isn't a criminal act".

The end result being that the vast majority of people think libertarians are batshit insane.

The world is not black and white, it is an infinite gradation of colors, and people that refuse to see subtlety are not principled, they're just stupid.

+1.

Liberty does not equal anarchy

[Kludge]

I think "drunk driving" needs to be defined.

In my state, California, if you're stopped and measured at 0.08% BAC, you'll get a DUI. This DOES NOT mean you were drunk, only that you meaused 0.08%. This percentage varies depending on state, but it is somewhat arbitrary to say that's drunk, because it used to be 0.10%.

Street-level bureaucrats (police officers) remove the arbitrary element by pulling people over who are driving in an erratic fashion. Thus, not everyone who is legally over the limit will be arrested.

[phill4paul]

I think "drunk driving" needs to be defined.

In my state, California, if you're stopped and measured at 0.08% BAC, you'll get a DUI. This DOES NOT mean you were drunk, only that you meaused 0.08%. This percentage varies depending on state, but it is somewhat arbitrary to say that's drunk, because it used to be 0.10%.



FF

This is called a "per se" law. It allows prosecuters two shots at a conviction.

When Clinton signed in the .08 law, vs. the .10 BAC the Federal government strong armed states into cooperation by threatening to with hold highway funds.

[pcosmar]

+1.

Liberty does not equal anarchy

Never said it does.
It is the anti-liberty posters that make that equation.
I am not an anarchist, and i disagree with them, but I even more strongly disagree and oppose the Authoritarians here who call blind obedience liberty.

[pcosmar]

This thread is stupidity on stilts. It's a perfect example of small-minded humans attempting to force the square peg of a chaotic universe into the round hole of a political ideology. It works like this:

A dumbass arrives at the conclusion that liberty is good.

Then the dumbass extends that conclusion to the belief that anything that infringes on liberty is bad.

Pretty soon, the dumbass is spouting all kinds of ridiculous crap, like "It's fine if you shoot guns at my face if the property owner is ok with it" and "drunk driving isn't a criminal act".

The end result being that the vast majority of people think libertarians are batshit insane.

The world is not black and white, it is an infinite gradation of colors, and people that refuse to see subtlety are not principled, they're just stupid.

And your post generally Pro Authoritarian and anti-liberty.
You more often than not take a contrary position to Ron Paul and any that espouse Liberty.

What makes you think your opinion matters.
Oh yeah, your inflated ego.

[Scofield]

I am against drunk driving, except for in one scenario which I will mention later.

I am absolutely fine with people drinking, as well as people driving. I lose all respect for an individual who decides to mix the two. It is a proven fact that alcohol screws with your mind and messes with your reaction speed, two things that need to be in tip-top shape while you are driving. If you are going to drink, take a cab or find a designated driver.

If you are caught drinking and driving, but don't injure anyone, I support punishment up to a month in jail. If you kill someone while driving drunk, your priviledge to drive should be revoked for the remainder of your life, as well as a hefty prison term (ten years at the least).

When you drive drunk, you are essentially saying you don't care about human life, as you are not only risking your own life, but the lives of everyone on the road with you. I have zero tolerance for that kind of behavior, and I hope everyone else feels the same way. The minute we stop caring about human life, is the minute we lose all hope for saving humanity.

For situations such as leaving your key in the ignition while you sleep in the back seat, I don't support any punishment, maybe just a verbal warning from the officer letting you know that what you did was okay, just try to call a cab or get someone to drive you home next time. The minute you put the car in drive and start going down the road, you've said to the world that you don't give a fuck about my life or yours. And when I see you choosing that option, the only thing I can say is "fuck you too" and in order to protect myself and my loved ones, I feel it best we put you behind bars. For my safety and for yours.

Now, if you want to drive drunk on your own property (say you own like 10 acres of land, with a road course), feel free, as it's your land and you won't be putting any lives in danger but your own. The minute you put other lives in danger (exception, if it's on your property and you didn't invite people over and you accidentally run them over while DUI, you shouldn't be punished, as it was the negligence of the guy/girl killed which ended in their death), everything changes.

[torchbearer]

I'm with the punishment should only come when harm is done.
the harm is the crime. killing someone or destroying their property or rights because you were drunk and driving is the crime.
being stupid enough to put yourself in a bad situation is not a crime.

[Danke]

No one in this nation has the "right" to receive a driver's license. It is a privilege granted by individual states and each state has created laws governing the responsibilities that go along with that privilege.

Actually, everyone has a right to travel. Many court cases have even explicitly said so.

If the government could restrict your free movement, many of the other unalienable rights are meaningless.

Now, getting a license is a privilege. And that is where many fail to understand the system that has grown up around us, incrementally. You don't need permission from the State to travel, ie. you don't need a license. Only if you are involved in a commercial activity does one ever need a license. Otherwise, it is out of the States' jurisdiction.

[Scofield]

I'm with the punishment should only come when harm is done.
the harm is the crime. killing someone or destroying their property or rights because you were drunk and driving is the crime.
being stupid enough to put yourself in a bad situation is not a crime.

See, I normally agree with that.

I just have zero respect for those who drive drunk. It's a blatant sign of disregard for human life, and that right there is dangerous to everyone. Prison is means of keeping these types of individuals off the streets.

I am for liberty as much as the next guy, but not when your liberty puts mine (or my families...i'm not so much concerned with my life, but my families) in danger. I absolutely understand your viewpoint, as part of me agrees with what you said, but drunk driving is just one of those things that I despise.

There is also a difference between driving drunk and driving after drinking. People can still function after .08, it's the people who are threats to themselves and others which I am concerned with.

[torchbearer]

See, I normally agree with that.

I just have zero respect for those who drive drunk. It's a blatant sign of disregard for human life, and that right there is dangerous to everyone. Prison is means of keeping these types of individuals off the streets.

I am for liberty as much as the next guy, but not when your liberty puts mine (or my families...i'm not so much concerned with my life, but my families) in danger. I absolutely understand your viewpoint, as part of me agrees with what you said, but drunk driving is just one of those things that I despise.

There is also a difference between driving drunk and driving after drinking. People can still function after .08, it's the people who are threats to themselves and others which I am concerned with.

there is an inherit risk in driving. You put your family at considerable risk everytime you take trip. you will not get rid of that risk no matter how many laws you make, nor how severe the punishment.
Laws don't get rid of morons, and the only thing prison teaches you is how to be a better criminal, since you now have the label, you might as well make the most of it.

[Scofield]

there is an inherit risk in driving. You put your family at considerable risk everytime you take trip. you will not get rid of that risk no matter how many laws you make, nor how severe the punishment.
Laws don't get rid of morons, and the only thing prison teaches you is how to be a better criminal, since you now have the label, you might as well make the most of it.

Very true.

However, I do not support prison until a life is taken/harmed. And even then, there has to be significant proof to show that the drinking was what caused the accident, and not something like what happened in the Shia LaBeouf incident from a couple months back (he had been drinking earlier in the day, got in an accident, and it was presumed a DUI...however, it turns out the other driver was at fault).

I do, however, support jail time (completely different than prison) for a non-lethal DUI conviction, as it sends a message to the individual who drove drunk. If an individual spends a month in jail (not around violent felons), it might help curb said individuals behavior and help stop future incidents.

[torchbearer]

Very true.

However, I do not support prison until a life is taken/harmed. And even then, there has to be significant proof to show that the drinking was what caused the accident, and not something like what happened in the Shia LaBeouf incident from a couple months back (he had been drinking earlier in the day, got in an accident, and it was presumed a DUI...however, it turns out the other driver was at fault).

I do, however, support jail time (completely different than prison) for a non-lethal DUI conviction, as it sends a message to the individual who drove drunk. If an individual spends a month in jail (not around violent felons), it might help curb said individuals behavior and help stop future incidents.

That is where the idea of fines came from... why put someone in jail and give them free room and food... and out of production.
Or have them keep working their job and producing, but paying restitution.. for time is money.

[Scofield]

That is where the idea of fines came from... why put someone in jail and give them free room and food... and out of production.
Or have them keep working their job and producing, but paying restitution.. for time is money.

I am personally willing to pay taxes to house those who are put in jail for driving drunk. Money well spent to get threats off the street for a month, and hopefully convince them to change their ways.

The thing about fines is that wealthy individuals can pay fines easily, unless you are talking about punishing the wealthy twice as much (there goes the "we are all equal" stance).

[torchbearer]

I am personally willing to pay taxes to house those who are put in jail for driving drunk. Money well spent to get threats off the street for a month, and hopefully convince them to change their ways.

The thing about fines is that wealthy individuals can pay fines easily, unless you are talking about punishing the wealthy twice as much (there goes the "we are all equal" stance).

Jail is not a deterent. Evidence by today. Drunks drivers are still killing people, and you can go to jail today for one offense.

[Scofield]

Jail is not a deterent. Evidence by today. Drunks drivers are still killing people, and you can go to jail today for one offense.

Except, if you kill a person while driving under the influence, your punishment isn't much worse than if you are just pulled over. It took a guy six times (with the final time involving a death) before he finally got thrown in prison for his DUI convictions.

If the punishment for killing a person while DUI is increased ten-fold, hopefully people will realize that it isn't worth it to drive drunk. What's the worst that happens if we take my idea and increase the penalties? If things don't change, scrap the laws and try something else. Our current laws, however, are garbage and things do need to change.

Also, regardless of what the penalties are, people will always drive drunk. Even with all the knowledge, these people continue to do so. To them I say, if you aren't willing to respect life, why should I respect yours? They are lucky that I don't suggest the death penalty for cases involving a DUI death.
----------

I really don't know. Thinking about it, I don't want my Mom or Dad to be pulled over after having a couple drinks (still functional to drive), and end up being thrown in jail for a month (or if a death is involved, for ten years ore more).

I hope I am never in a position where I have to choose the punishment for a DUI case.

[TER]

Jail is not a deterent. Evidence by today. Drunks drivers are still killing people, and you can go to jail today for one offense.

The threat of jail does not stop reckless behavior which endangers others, but it does decrease it. The amount of innocent deaths from drunk driving would skyrocket if driving drunk was legal.

[Scofield]

The threat of jail does not stop reckless behavior which endangers others, but it does decrease it. The amount of innocent deaths from drunk driving would skyrocket if driving drunk was legal.

When we say legal, do we mean legal as in...it's okay to do it until you hurt someone?

If so, then I agree, as the cops wouldn't be able to pull people over when they are swiving all over the place, only when they actually do something. Thus, the same amount of people will will be driving drunk, just not being pulled over like they are now. If this happens, of course there will be more accidents, as the cops won't be preventing them like they are now.

However, if you mean that people will start driving drunk because it's legal, I disagree. I don't think the reason people refuse to drink and drive now is because it's illegal. I think it's because they know it's dangerous.

[TER]

When we say legal, do we mean legal as in...it's okay to do it until you hurt someone?

If so, then I agree, as the cops wouldn't be able to pull people over when they are swiving all over the place, only when they actually do something. Thus, the same amount of people will will be driving drunk, just not being pulled over like they are now. If this happens, of course there will be more accidents, as the cops won't be preventing them like they are now.

However, if you mean that people will start driving drunk because it's legal, I disagree. I don't think the reason people refuse to drink and drive now is because it's illegal. I think it's because they know it's dangerous.

What I mean is that if driving drunk had no legal repercussions unless someone else's life/property was hindered, than there would many more drunk people getting into a car and driving. Alcohol increases risk taking behavior and clouds people's judgment (as well as their reaction time, concentration, etc). Intoxicated people would be more willing to take the risks of driving impaired with the mentality that "I'm not gonna smash this car into an family of five in a SUV". "That's not gonna happen to me", hiccup.

In my younger years of binge drinking, I didn't even consider that as a possibility. It was always my ass getting thrown in jail that made me all the more concentrate on the road or, better yet, hand the keys over to a friend.

[phill4paul]

Except, if you kill a person while driving under the influence, your punishment isn't much worse than if you are just pulled over. It took a guy six times (with the final time involving a death) before he finally got thrown in prison for his DUI convictions.



Actually the driver would be charged with vehicular homicide or involuntary manslaughter, in addition to DUI.

In 1997 a jury in North Carolina served a guilty verdict of first degree murder to a drunk driver that had killed two people.

The prosecutor on this case recommended the death penalty.

Before any go celebrating "justice". Look a little closer at what went on.

We usually reserve the death penalty for murder which is premeditated. Premeditation is described as having intent to kill, time to reflect on this (i.e. not a crime of passion) and then executing this plan.

Surely this driver did not meet this criteria and that was why the jury prescribed life in prison.

Again this is an emotionally charged issue. That is why the fact that it was a DUI case lead the prosecutor to ask for the death penalty.

Everyone knows that driving too fast leads to as many fatalities as drunk driving (by NHTSA alcohol related standards ).

Should we not also prescribe the death penalty for drivers that speed, spin out of control and kill another?

[Scofield]

What I mean is that if driving drunk had no legal repercussions unless someone else's life/property was hindered, than there would many more drunk people getting into a car and driving. Alcohol increases risk taking behavior and clouds people's judgment (as well as their reaction time, concentration, etc). Intoxicated people would be more willing to take the risks of driving impaired with the mentality that "I'm not gonna smash this car into an family of five in a SUV". "That's not gonna happen to me", hiccup.

In my younger years of binge drinking, I didn't even consider that as a possibility. It was always my ass getting thrown in jail that made me all the more concentrate on the road or, better yet, hand the keys over to a friend.

Alright, after reading this I will agree that making it legal could increase the amount of drunk drivers on the road. I think it would be absolutely foolish to make DUI legal, with it only being illegal if property (including life) is damaged.

Like you said, the "I'm not gunna smash this car into a family of five in a SUV" mentality will skyrocket, causing more people to believe as long as they are careful, it's okay to drink and drive.

[Scofield]

Should we not also prescribe the death penalty for drivers that speed, spin out of control and kill another?

"A 2005 study by the German Federal Interior Ministry (Bundesministerium des Innern) indicated that Autobahn sections with unrestricted speed have the same accident record as sections with speed limits." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn)

There is a staunch difference between driving drunk and speeding.

Edit: I also wasn't being serious (realistic is more the word, because there are times I think death suits people who continuously get DUI's) when I mentioned the death penalty. I would never sentence someone to death over a traffic accident (as long as it wasn't premeditated like you said).

[phill4paul]

"A 2005 study by the German Federal Interior Ministry (Bundesministerium des Innern) indicated that Autobahn sections with unrestricted speed have the same accident record as sections with speed limits." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn)

There is a staunch difference between driving drunk and speeding.

Edit: I also wasn't being serious (realistic is more the word, because there are times I think death suits people who continuously get DUI's) when I mentioned the death penalty. I would never sentence someone to death over a traffic accident (as long as it wasn't premeditated like you said).

Where lies the difference? Driving drunk and speeding kills. Just look at the NHTSA statistics. We are in America after all not Germany.

My point being the is no parity in laws regarding drunk driving and other moving violations.

You may drive recklessly. Totally sober but riding every ones' ass, swerving in and out of traffic, talking on your cell phone while eating a cheesy MAC and yelling at your kids in the back. This would generally carry a fine. Though most states are strengthening these laws on your first offense it may just warrant a warning.

Now you may have had a few drinks at a friends dinner party. Let's say just three and feel you are alright to drive. You are obeying the rules of the road when you turn down a street and run into a road block. Now based on you weight
even though you were driving perfectly safe a machine may decide that you are an impaired driver.

Do you think they will let you off with a warning?

[MikeStanart]

This thread is stupidity on stilts. It's a perfect example of small-minded humans attempting to force the square peg of a chaotic universe into the round hole of a political ideology. It works like this:

A dumbass arrives at the conclusion that liberty is good.

Then the dumbass extends that conclusion to the belief that anything that infringes on liberty is bad.

Pretty soon, the dumbass is spouting all kinds of ridiculous crap, like "It's fine if you shoot guns at my face if the property owner is ok with it" and "drunk driving isn't a criminal act".

The end result being that the vast majority of people think libertarians are batshit insane.

The world is not black and white, it is an infinite gradation of colors, and people that refuse to see subtlety are not principled, they're just stupid.


I completely agree. Its moronic ideas like legalization of drunk driving which is

going to kill any credibility we have with ANYONE. I understand the arguments

cited here; but don't kid yourselves. Driving under the influence will never be

acceptable.

[MikeStanart]

I find these pro-legalization arguments silly.

Saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive as long as you don't hurt

anyone is like saying its ok to shoot an automatic weapon into a crowded street

as long as you don't hurt anyone.

[Scofield]

I find these pro-legalization arguments silly.

Saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive as long as you don't hurt

anyone is like saying its ok to shoot an automatic weapon into a crowded street

as long as you don't hurt anyone.

That is a great analogy.

Well done.

[trey4sports]

its simple.

you own the rights to your home/property
however
you do not own the rights to the highway/road/street therfore you do NOT have the same freedoms you do in your home
the road is property of the community so they should make the BAC rules (or lack thereof) and you abide by them.

[cordscords]

I find these pro-legalization arguments silly.

Saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive as long as you don't hurt

anyone is like saying its ok to shoot an automatic weapon into a crowded street

as long as you don't hurt anyone.

Again what are the rules that have been put in place on that street?

What was the purpose of shooting the weapon? Was there intent to harm? Or just to test out your fun little toy?

[pcosmar]

I find these pro-legalization arguments silly.

Saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive as long as you don't hurt

anyone is like saying its ok to shoot an automatic weapon into a crowded street

as long as you don't hurt anyone.

What a stupid analogy.
I just love to see these kind of Anti- gun analogies used to promote anti- liberty ideas.

First there is NO comparison. They are two entirely different things. It a just a way to bring the fear tactics and disinformation to the 2nd amendment debate.
Automobiles are designed as a means of personal transportation.
Guns are designed to kill.
Alcohol is a substance for personal consumption, with both positive and negative effects.

FACTS are often ignored in Emotional debates.
Those who wish to continue to promote social control are opposed to personal freedom, and use emotional arguments rather than facts.
We saw that very clearly in this last "election".

Drinking and driving is not a good idea or a good thing.
But the FACT is, driving a car is NOT SAFE.
Drunk drivers are the cause of a small minority of car accidents. But they are the main target for social control.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

[TER]

What a stupid analogy.
I just love to see these kind of Anti- gun analogies used to promote anti- liberty ideas.

First there is NO comparison. They are two entirely different things. It a just a way to bring the fear tactics and disinformation to the 2nd amendment debate.
Automobiles are designed as a means of personal transportation.
Guns are designed to kill.
Alcohol is a substance for personal consumption, with both positive and negative effects.

FACTS are often ignored in Emotional debates.
Those who wish to continue to promote social control are opposed to personal freedom, and use emotional arguments rather than facts.
We saw that very clearly in this last "election".

Drinking and driving is not a good idea or a good thing.
But the FACT is, driving a car is NOT SAFE.
Drunk drivers are the cause of a small minority of car accidents. But they are the main target for social control.

Would you just come to your senses already and stop making a fool out of yourself?

[Roxi]

There is a status called "legally blind" which means that you are beyond the ability of modern corrective lenses to correct your vision.

BTW, if you have a 1.0 alcohol level, you are really dead. Your blood is pure alcohol.

thats not what legally blind means.... I am "legally blind" in one eye... i can get it corrected though, with either a lens or surgery

heres the wiki definition:

legal blindness is defined as visual acuity (vision) of 20/200 (6/60) or less in the better eye with best correction possible. This means that a legally blind individual would have to stand 20 feet (6.1 m) from an object to see it—with vision correction—with the same degree of clarity as a normally sighted person could from 200 feet (61 m).

[pcosmar]

Would you just come to your senses already and stop making a fool out of yourself?

Sorry, sometimes I do feel like John the Baptist.
a Voice crying out in the wilderness.
The Socialists have been indoctrinating this country with the Gospel of social conformity and social control since the 1800s and more so since the early 1900s.
They now control the courts,the government and public education.
And yet I will speak out against it. At any opportunity.

[TER]

Sorry, sometimes I do feel like John the Baptist.
a Voice crying out in the wilderness.
The Socialists have been indoctrinating this country with the Gospel of social conformity and social control since the 1800s and more so since the early 1900s.
They now control the courts,the government and public education.
And yet I will speak out against it. At any opportunity.

:rolleyes:

I guess your smarter than most of the other posters on this forum even though your position is losing in this poll. Good thing we have you here as the voice crying out in the wilderness to warn us 'fake' liberty loving patriots. :rolleyes:

Seriously, this is a Ron Paul forum. Do you think RP would vote to have drunk driving legal? Get a clue. You live in a fantasy world and make this movement seem naive and foolish and it is positions like these that drag down liberty movements.

[pcosmar]

Seriously, this is a Ron Paul forum.

Did you read my sig line? Hmmm.
Ron Paul does Not support drug use, but does support ending the drug war.
He does support Freedom.
He opposes the Police state.
He would never support locking up someone for nothing more than personal stupidity, if that person had caused NO harm.
Read through his library. If you dare.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/


Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

[TER]

Did you read my sig line? Hmmm.
Ron Paul does Not support drug use, but does support ending the drug war.
He does support Freedom.
He opposes the Police state.
He would never support locking up someone for nothing more than personal stupidity, if that person had caused NO harm.
Read through his library. If you dare.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

I think the correct sentence would be "He would never support locking up someone for nothing more than personal stupidity, unless other people's lives or properties were at great risk"

Goverment cannot create a world without risks, but a society can form a government which helps reduce certain risks such as innocent deaths due to drunk driving. This is why most governments are formed- to decrease the risk of death, albeit from a neighboring tribe, an inhospitable environment, or an idiot drunk driver that cant make a clear thinking decision.

Ron Paul is not an anarchist. You are on the wrong web site.

Please come to your senses. Legalizing drunk driving would create many more innocent deaths. This is not rocket science.

[brandon]

Might as well let blind people drive too while your at it, silly anarchists.

OH FFS, this is just retarded. Silly tyrannical statist.

I drive with a BAC over the legal limit almost every single weekend. I have been doing this for as long as I can remember. I drive just fine and have never hurt anyone.

I'm sure there are plenty of sober drivers that have killed people in the past few years simply because they are bad drivers.

I agree with OP and Lew.

[TER]

I drive with a BAC over the legal limit almost every single weekend. I have been doing this for as long as I can remember. I drive just fine and have never hurt anyone.

This mentality is exactly my point. Legalizing drunk driving would create many more innocent deaths, pure and simple, because the drunker you are, the more likely you will believe "you won't hurt anyone".

[pcosmar]

Ron Paul is not an anarchist. You are on the wrong web site.


I am not sure who is in the wrong place.

This from Ron Paul,

Benjamin Franklin once addressed this issue by saying that anyone who would "give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." As we grieve an accidental death, we must make sure that in our sorrow we do not create a larger tragedy by allowing government to improperly take on powers and responsibilities it should not have, or to unnecessarily expand those that it does.

When the government does this great harm is inevitably done in the name of "protecting" people. The scariest words in modern lexicon are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Government cannot protect us from accidents any more than it can tax us into prosperity.

Our Constitution purposefully specifies the manner in which laws can take effect, to minimize the threat of rule by emotion of the moment. But then, our Constitution also specifically limits the powers the federal government, yet that has not stopped our federal leaders from passing laws which have no constitutional base.

As our nation grieves the loss of a man of considerable and varied talent, let us not rush to remember him in a way which discounts the rule of law, which dishonors the notions of individual responsibility, and which ignores our system of government. It's easy to look for a quick fix from government. But it is also very dangerous.

Ron does not support a Nanny State , or Social Control.

[Danke]

Seriously, this is a Ron Paul forum. Do you think RP would vote to have drunk driving legal? Get a clue. You live in a fantasy world and make this movement seem naive and foolish and it is positions like these that drag down liberty movements.

:rolleyes:

[TER]

Reckless endangerment is a law developed BY THE PEOPLE to protect the INNOCENT from those who DONT CARE. Please WAKE UP.

[Theocrat]

This mentality is exactly my point. Legalizing drunk driving would create many more innocent deaths, pure and simple, because the drunker you are, the more likely you will believe "you won't hurt anyone".

In pcosmar's defense, I think his point is if our civil government begins to regulate drivers' behaviors at every single level, where does it end (especially if the driver has done no bodily harm to another)? Would the State have the legitimacy to pass laws preventing people from listening to loud music in their own cars just because it may break their concentration? Would the government have a right to impose statutes on drivers to prevent them from drinking too much caffeine while driving on the road? Where do you draw the line between potential threat to other drivers and the rights/responsibilities of the driver himself?

[pcosmar]

Just one of many I found while researching this question a while back.
http://www.geocities.com/dammdrinker/
You can also research the government stats.

Or you could go to the Brady site to research 2nd amendment questions.


Of drivers involved in accidents, less than 127 thousandths of one percent
are drinking drivers in fatal accidents. According to numbers from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration -- THE source of traffic statistics.


And in those fatal "alcohol-related" accidents, most deaths are the drinkers (about 80%) most have
BAC's above .15 (the former legal limit), most are single-vehicle accidents and most happen in rural
areas though 80 percent of the U.S. population is urban.


Nor do they say that an "alcohol-related" accident only means that a participant had a BAC above zero. Fault is not assigned -- many if not most of the alcohol-related accidents are caused by sober drivers. A drinking pedestrian struck by a sober driver is an "alcohol-related crash," but MADD deceitfully twists all alcohol-related accidents into "drunk driver caused deaths" regardless of fault
and BAC level. Nor are other factors considered, such as road conditions or mechanical failure.

Facts are anathema to those that use emotional arguments

[TER]

Dont want to be a party pooper, but I rather 100 John Doe's get penalized for recklessly endangering the lives of others than for a family of five to die innocently because John Doe wanted to get sloshed at the office party.

Excuse me for thinking like most of the civilized world.

[phill4paul]

What a stupid analogy.
I just love to see these kind of Anti- gun analogies used to promote anti- liberty ideas.

First there is NO comparison. They are two entirely different things. It a just a way to bring the fear tactics and disinformation to the 2nd amendment debate.
Automobiles are designed as a means of personal transportation.
Guns are designed to kill.
Alcohol is a substance for personal consumption, with both positive and negative effects.

FACTS are often ignored in Emotional debates.
Those who wish to continue to promote social control are opposed to personal freedom, and use emotional arguments rather than facts.
We saw that very clearly in this last "election".

Drinking and driving is not a good idea or a good thing.
But the FACT is, driving a car is NOT SAFE.
Drunk drivers are the cause of a small minority of car accidents. But they are the main target for social control.

Spot on!

Epistlesreading if the RP forums is not a place for discussion of civil liberties then I don't know what is.

The fact is DUI legislation far surpasses the end result of reducing traffic fatalities. About 1.5 million Americans receive DUI convictions yearly. This despite the fact that the number of DUI fatalities have not reduced in the past 8 years.. The severity of these laws versus the "havoc" that is avoided is not proportional.
There has not been a significant decrease since the .08 BAC was introduced however it has resulted in more arrests.

The majority of these arrests are from first time offenders. This despite the fact that most fatalities are caused by recidivists. Most Americans would not be able to accurately judge how many drinks per body weight would result in a .08 BAC. Most would not even know the loss of BAC per hour of not drinking (.02). Current laws state that we are indeed allowed to drink and drive. The problem comes in the definition of when a driver becomes impaired.

So if the end result is reducing fatalities then the best approach would be to adopt a zero tolerance approach. Install a breathalyzer ignition device on every vehicle (actually proposed by MADD and in the works at Toyota).

While we are at it, since speeding is a comparative contributor to motor fatalities, lets up the laws regarding this heinous crime. Since a zero tolerance approach would work with DUI lets have automobiles equipped with on board computers that would report if a driver goes over 1 mile over the speed limit. Let's subject that speeder to a loss of license, jail time, mandatory mental evaluation, large fines and a 300% insurance increase.

As an E.R. doctor you should know that 50% to 60% of all ER fatalities cite alcohol and drugs as a contributing factor. So if reducing fatalities as a societal burden is a goal then we should go back to prohibition.

We have all seen where that lead the nation.

Tens of millions of Americans drink and drive everyday. With few exceptions these individuals make it home with no problem. A distinction needs to be made between the hard drinking ricidivists and the millions of Americans subjected to loss of lisence, public ridicule, economic loss and job loss. All this from an emotionally driven platform based on inflated statistics.

[TER]

In pcosmar's defense, I think his point is if our civil government begins to regulate drivers' behaviors at every single level, where does it end (especially if the driver has done no bodily harm to another)? Would the State have the legitimacy to pass laws preventing people from listening to loud music in their own cars just because it may break their concentration? Would the government have a right to impose statutes on drivers to prevent them from drinking too much caffeine while driving on the road? Where do you draw the line between potential threat to other drivers and the rights/responsibilities of the driver himself?

Of course it is a difficult decision, that is, where do we draw the line. This has been the history of this country since its inception- that is, at what point do we draw the line between too much control and too much anarchy. Either direction is fraught with dangers.

The process of issuing someone a driver's license is not a perfect one. But it's aim is to ensure as well as possible that those who operate potentially killing machines such as a motor vehicle have certain base abilities and attributes in order to have the privilege to drive on public roads.

These include age (maturity), visual ability, mental capacity (written test), and dexterity (driving test), all under the assumption that the person is in his or her right state of mind and not under the influence of any chemical that would seriously compromise those abilities.

When a person is intoxicated with a chemical substance (alcohol being amongst the most dangerous in such a situation due to it having the dangerous combination of delayed response, poor judgment, and inhibitory behavior), than their capacity is questioned in regards to the previous process listed above.

Of course, at what point and what BAL is pretty much arbritary, but based on human experiements which have proven to demonstrate compromised abilities at certain levels in the average person. Could this be different from one person or another. Of course! But as said earlier, this is not a perfect system.

The simple fact is that legalizing drunk driving will create more of it and create more unsafe public roads. There is a reason why 'we the people' have chosen such laws as reckless endangerment. It is to protect our life, liberty and happiness from those who don't care about these rights of ours.

[pcosmar]

The simple fact is that legalizing drunk driving will create more of it and create more unsafe public roads.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

Brady background checks have contributed to the decline in gun crime by making it harder for dangerous people like felons, domestic violence offenders, and fugitives from justice to purchase guns at gun dealers.

Nice to see you all are on the same page.

[brandon]

I'm actually going to drive drunk tonight. Shhh don't tell anyone!

[TER]

Facts are anathema to those that use emotional arguments


http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811016.PDF

[pcosmar]

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811016.PDF
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/brady-law-15years.pdf


There, fixed it for you
I had already posted a breakdown of the nhtsa data.

[phill4paul]

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811016.PDF

"There are three kinds of lies..lies, damned lies and statistics". Mark Twain

For a refutation of NHTSA statistics check here....

http://www.duigulag.com/stats.htm


and...

http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=532

From http://www.duiblog.com/2004/10/23/a-closer-look-at-dui-fatality-statistics/

"In 1999, the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed these figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — and issued a report stating that they "raised methodological concerns calling their conclusions into question ". The statistics, the GAO report said, "fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, by themselves, responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities." In other words, the statistics weren’t even valid when applied to alcohol-related fatalities, much less alcohol-caused deaths."

[youngbuck]

I wasn't sure until I read the article by Rockwell. Now I think, yes, it should be legal.

[ShowMeLiberty]

Did you read my sig line? Hmmm.
Ron Paul does Not support drug use, but does support ending the drug war.
He does support Freedom.
He opposes the Police state.
He would never support locking up someone for nothing more than personal stupidity, if that person had caused NO harm.
Read through his library. If you dare.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/


If a drunk driver hasn't hurt anyone or damaged property, they should only be fined and lose points on their license. Locking up is only when harm has been done.

[ShowMeLiberty]

OH FFS, this is just retarded. Silly tyrannical statist.

I drive with a BAC over the legal limit almost every single weekend. I have been doing this for as long as I can remember. I drive just fine and have never hurt anyone.

I'm sure there are plenty of sober drivers that have killed people in the past few years simply because they are bad drivers.

I agree with OP and Lew.


I'm actually going to drive drunk tonight. Shhh don't tell anyone!

I have lost all respect for you.

Legal or not, you're being stupid. Just because nothing terrible has happened yet, doesn't mean you are immune and just one accident can mean life in a wheelchair, dismemberment, disfigurement or even death.

How would you feel if you caused the death or serious injury to an innocent child? My gawd, if that thought isn't enough to stop you from driving drunk then you must be heartless.

You're playing Russian roulette with your life and the lives of people who have done you no harm. I hope you are proud of yourself for behaving like an imbecile.

[Cap'n Crunk]

its simple.

you own the rights to your home/property
however
you do not own the rights to the highway/road/street therfore you do NOT have the same freedoms you do in your home
the road is property of the community so they should make the BAC rules (or lack thereof) and you abide by them.

agreed. This whole thread is just embarrassing.

[krazy kaju]

It's obvious if you're completely hammered yet you can drive like every other person, you shouldn't be put into jail. That said, if you're like most people, and swerve when you're drunk, that obviously is reckless driving and should be illegal. Furthermore, with a system of private roads, I doubt private road operators would let you put their customers in danger.

[NaT805]

+1.

Liberty does not equal anarchy

Anarchy equals liberty. ;)

[M House]

WTF is with these responses. No you don't have the right to impair your ability to drive and improve your ability to kill someone on the road. Here's my gun analogy, get sloshed I'll hand you a loaded weapon and you just sit in a corner and play with it. It'll keep you occupied and off the road. Honestly BAC and stuff, it shouldn't be in your system driving at all. Some of you assholes are lucky this is lenient at all. Stupid shit like this is why we even need a law like this to begin with. Penalties first offense lose license for a year. 2nd lose it forever if I'm feeling nice maybe a hard option to get it back. 3rd Jail for you. Yes you'll be a better criminal when you get out so what you want a long stay...done. Kill someone on the road you'll just stamp license plates for the rest your life for other drivers. Seriously what are you gonna do say sorry...they are like dead dude. Injure someone your stampings will pay for their medical fees and it's up to them to decide when your released.

[Agent CSL]

I am very libertarian on most things, except drunk driving laws. I agree with some of them. Drunk driving comes under my "immediate lethal danger" scope. There is an immediate threat, not a perceived or fuzzy threat. You are impaired when you are drunk and it only takes a little slip to go into the other lane.

But I know where you could go with my logic.

[Archie]

If you live in the city and drink and drive your really asking for something bad to happen. No one has the right to put someone elses life in danger. Having a Beer with Food and driving an hour or so later isnt that bad the problem is people take advantage of common sense and drink 2 beers and eat a pizza slice and drive 15 mins later . So your always gonna have people taking a foot when ya give them an inch that's why I don't mind harsh penalties for drunk driving . If your way out in bumfuck nowhere I don't really have a problem with someone drunk driving even though I'd say yet retard for risking yer life over booze. But If you think its okay to live in or near a city or town where your risking other peoples lives because Booze it up and drink Your a BIG ASSHOLE in my book. Again I got no problem with someone drinking a couple beers at a dinner and then driving home 3 hours later but again I think when driving a Car you should always be as sharp as possible because of the various random things that happen on the road require full attention, put it this way even the best drivers make small mistakes on the road sometimes now factor in Boozing and driving and its only gonna increase the odds of you making that mistake.

Boozing and Driving with innocent people driving and walking around you= potential homicide IMHO

[pcosmar]

I am very libertarian on most things, except drunk driving laws. I agree with some of them. Drunk driving comes under my "immediate lethal danger" scope. There is an immediate threat, not a perceived or fuzzy threat. You are impaired when you are drunk and it only takes a little slip to go into the other lane.

But I know where you could go with my logic.

There is an immediate threat,

You are taking the False information that has been presented but the prohibitionists, and making an emotional decision.
That Facts have been presented in this thread, and yet are being ignored.

I think the real problem is the Question

Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?
Driving drunk is just dumb.
However it is not the threat that it has been presented as. The real question should be,
Should we infringe on Millions of people, violate Civil Liberties of millions of people, and lock up people that have caused no harm? And should we justify it because a very small minority do something stupid?

Of drivers involved in accidents, less than 127 thousandths of one percent
are drinking drivers in fatal accidents. According to numbers from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration -- THE source of traffic statistics.

[ShowMeLiberty]

There is an immediate threat,

You are taking the False information that has been presented but the prohibitionists, and making an emotional decision.
That Facts have been presented in this thread, and yet are being ignored.

I think the real problem is the Question

Driving drunk is just dumb.
However it is not the threat that it has been presented as. The real question should be,
Should we infringe on Millions of people, violate Civil Liberties of millions of people, and lock up people that have caused no harm? And should we justify it because a very small minority do something stupid?


Of drivers involved in accidents, less than 127 thousandths of one percent
are drinking drivers in fatal accidents. According to numbers from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration -- THE source of traffic statistics.




Also according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- THE source of traffic statistics:


Statistical Analysis of Alcohol-Related Driving Trends, 1982-2005

Overall, the percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes who had consumed alcohol and had blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or above prior to the crash steadily decreased from 1982 to 1997 and then leveled off (more or less). In an attempt to explain the 1982-1997 reduction and the 1997-2005 level trend, this report presents a statistical analysis of factors that influenced the historical alcohol-related driving trends from 1982 to 2005.

The study is based on disaggregate logistic regression of imputed Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) cases from all 50 States and the District of Columbia – to predict the probability of an alcohol-related involvement given a set of independent variables. The independent variables include alcohol-related legislation (i.e., .10 BAC, .08 BAC, Administrative License Revocation, minimum-legal-drinking-age laws), demographic factors (i.e., driver’s age and gender), per capita alcohol consumption, and external factors (i.e., day of the week, time of day, roadway function class, and posted speed limit).

The independent variables explain both the decrease in alcohol-related fatal crashes (where drivers involved in fatal crashes had BAC of .08 or above) from 1982 to 1997 and its leveling off after 1997. Large portions of the reduction are explained by the effect of alcohol-laws and by the demographic trends – the aging of the population and the increased proportion of female drivers. The leveling off after 1997 does not imply that the laws are becoming less effective. On the contrary, they effectively maintain the proportion of drivers in fatal crashes who had BAC of .08 or above at the time of the crash – at the lowest level since 1982.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.18e416bf1b09b6bbbf30811060008a0c/


Hmmmm. It would appear that the low number of drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents is because of laws and other efforts against impaired driving.


I am very libertarian on most things, except drunk driving laws. I agree with some of them. Drunk driving comes under my "immediate lethal danger" scope. There is an immediate threat, not a perceived or fuzzy threat. You are impaired when you are drunk and it only takes a little slip to go into the other lane.

But I know where you could go with my logic.

Drunk driving violates the Zero Aggression Principle. Reckless behavior is aggression when it endagers others who have done no harm to the aggressor.

[pcosmar]

Also according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- THE source of traffic statistics:



Hmmmm. It would appear that the low number of drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents is because of laws and other efforts against impaired driving.



Drunk driving violates the Zero Aggression Principle. Reckless behavior is aggression when it endagers others who have done no harm to the aggressor.

YOU missed something.

http://teamliberty.net/id36.html


NHTSA admits Misinterpretation of Alcohol-Related Traffic
Fatality Statistics by some Data Users

August 17, 2004 In a letter I received on August 15, 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has admitted that the statistics compiled by NHTSA under the heading of alcohol-related traffic fatality are on occasion, being misinterpreted by data users. This wasn't news to me, but still, it's nice to finally get some of my arguments validated. Although NHTSA did try to minimize the frequency of the misinterpretation of their statistics, I am of the belief that once is enough, especially if the misinterpretation becomes misrepresentation to our lawmakers.

I challenged NHTSA to prove that they were not in violation of the Data Quality Act. The Data Quality Act establishes guidelines designed to maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that federal agencies disseminate to the public.

Responding to my challenge, Susan White, Chief Information Officer for NHTSA offered the following thoughtful comments.

"NHTSA uses the term alcohol-related as a term of art (underline added) in reporting of data for use in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)."

"Alcohol-related is a convenient term (underline added) used to categorize the incidence of alcohol presence from reviewing law enforcement crash reports either from known alcohol test results or from an imputation method when reports fail to contain the necessary data. NHTSA does not collect information to determine the actual cause of the crash or the fatality (underline added)."

Even in plain-English, use of the term related is not translated to mean cause (underline added)."

"In addition, the panel noted that the term alcohol-related is occasionally misinterpreted (underline added) by data users."

"Acknowledging this occasional misinterpretation (underline added), NHTSA plans to take further actions to educate users and clarify NHTSA's use of the term alcohol-related. Among these actions will be the introduction of a new fact sheet in the near future that will detail the roles and BAC levels of those killed in alcohol-related crashes."

"We appreciate your attention to the accuracy of data regarding alcohol-related crashes. We agree that the information of this importance needs to be communicated as clearly as possible (underline added)."

So who are these data users that might be misinterpreting the alcohol-related traffic fatality statistics? They are members of MADD, police departments, highway patrol, and insurance companies, along with some attorneys, politicians, and newspaper editors. What troubles me most about some of these data users is their apparent lack of interest in any statistical evidence that might weaken their chances of convincing lawmakers to pass even harsher DUI laws. Isn't it the primary goal of DUI laws to reduce drunk driving traffic fatalities in the United States? If so, then why is there any need whatsoever to work with questionable, misleading, misinterpreted, or misrepresented statistics? Why are some of these data users angered by the idea that drunk driving might not be responsible for as many deaths as they once thought? What if it were to be discovered that of the approximately 17,500 alcohol-related traffic fatalities reported in 2003, only half actually were caused by a confirmed, legally intoxicated driver?

I can see the headlines now - Drunk Driving Traffic Fatalities Plummet 50% Overnight! Of course on page A-16 between the horoscopes and weather map would be this headline - 1.5 Million People Arrested for DUI in 2003 Demand a Recount!

[torchbearer]

all i see are emotional arguments versus logical arguments.

[ShowMeLiberty]

YOU missed something.

http://teamliberty.net/id36.html

I don't think so. You're quoting something from 2004 that says some users of the data misinterpreted it. It also implies at the end that 8750 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in a single year (as opposed to 17,500) is somehow acceptable.

The report I quoted was dated May 2008.

[phill4paul]

all i see are emotional arguments versus logical arguments.

QFT

A nice website providing links to both pro and con websites.

http://www.dui-web.com/DUIStatistics.htm

[pcosmar]

I would suggest a new poll

But I have never created a Poll. Not sure if I should.

Should Civil Liberties be Violated because of the Minority.

Gun laws came into being and the Constitutional Rights Violated because of a very small minority used guns in a crime or in an unsafe manner.

Many millions are subjected to Civil Rights Violations because a very small minority of drivers have accidents after drinking.

Maybe the Freedom of speech should be Violated also, Some people lie and others say stupid things.

[ShowMeLiberty]

QFT

A nice website providing links to both pro and con websites.

http://www.dui-web.com/DUIStatistics.htm

Very interesting - thank you.

I clicked http://www.motorists.org/dui/ and read through their tenets and positions. I can agree with the reasonable approach this group proposes.

[phill4paul]

Very interesting - thank you.

I clicked http://www.motorists.org/dui/ and read through their tenets and positions. I can agree with the reasonable approach this group proposes.

I too believe that the NMA has a reasonable approach to DUI.

I do not believe in zero-tolerance nor do I believe in no action until property damage or lives are endangered. However, feel good politics over an emotionally driven issue fortified by inflated statistics has created a travesty of justice that has affected the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

[mellamojuana]

Please, be my guest and guzzle down all the ethyl alcohol in any brand or strength that you wish. Especially if I'm selling it to you for a laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank profit. We both win.

Yeehaw!

Don't tell the court, jury, and me, after you killed my daughter and her classmates in a schoolbus accident involving you and your total freedom, that the problem was not you because you had a biological problem. I'm not the attorney, but the mother. Your problem was a self-chosen pharmacological state of reduced ability that you could not overcome by sheer force of will. I cannot force myself not to feel sleepy after taking certain antihistamines.

I strongly suggest you secure the services of true experts in the field of toxicology before you attempt to appease me with flawed logic.

From respect for you and others, I use a cellphone only with an earpiece when I drive. I keep my hands free for driving, and my body, mind, and blood free of drugs, legal, illegal, liquid, prescription, or otherwise. I expect the same respect from every driver on our highways, except the illegals, one of whom killed someone in a drunk driving accident this year only a few miles from where I sit.

Your respect for my daughter came too late. Only my Christian upbringing and my sound mental health will keep me from flattening your nads if you get too close. :eek:

[brandon]

Please, be my guest and guzzle down all the ethyl alcohol in any brand or strength that you wish. Especially if I'm selling it to you for a laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank profit. We both win.

Yeehaw!

Don't tell the court, jury, and me, after you killed my daughter and her classmates in a schoolbus accident involving you and your total freedom, that the problem was not you because you had a biological problem. I'm not the attorney, but the mother. Your problem was a self-chosen pharmacological state of reduced ability that you could not overcome by sheer force of will. I cannot force myself not to feel sleepy after taking certain antihistamines.

I strongly suggest you secure the services of true experts in the field of toxicology before you attempt to appease me with flawed logic.

From respect for you and others, I use a cellphone only with an earpiece when I drive. I keep my hands free for driving, and my body, mind, and blood free of drugs, legal, illegal, liquid, prescription, or otherwise. I expect the same respect from every driver on our highways, except the illegals, one of whom killed someone in a drunk driving accident this year only a few miles from where I sit.

Your respect for my daughter came too late. Only my Christian upbringing and my sound mental health will keep me from flattening your nads if you get too close. :eek:

And yet another emotional argument in support of DUI laws.

[Danke]

Hey Brandon,

You survived once again! How was last night?

[Scofield]

I'm going to go buy a rifle, park my car in Times Square, and shoot at my own tires. If I don't hurt anyone, there should be no problem...correct? It's my gun, my propery, and no one was hurt.

That is exactly what you people are trying to tell me when you say "DUI should be legal, if no one is hurt."

Let's see you try to get that kind of legislation passed.

[M House]

Wow...yeah um so I don't get why you doubt that woman so much I had people die in my community and even my high school die from drunk driving. Sure but I guess they didn't know how to handle their alcohol like the amazing you and all so you wouldn't see that way. I also asked my friend who lives in California who yeah once again person or two kicked it there during his High School days as well. I mean your mocking MADD and the statistics and all but damn dude, having people die or be harmed needlessly is kinda stupid. O well kinda hard to fight anyone who would look at this remotely from a personal freedom standpoint. Where do you guys live Canada? There are plenty of other people who use the road.

[brandon]

Hey Brandon,

You survived once again! How was last night?

hah, it was a good night. Rather uneventful. Had some thanksgiving leftovers and about 6 beers with some friends. Then I drove home and went to sleep.

[Scofield]

There is a personal benefit with Liberty, there is no personal benefit for driving drunk.

Sure, you can get yourself home, but you can do the same thing by calling a cab or having your friend drive you. If you can't do any of those, sleep in your car overnight and drive home in the morning.

All driving drunk does is put individuals in harm's way. Why in the blue hell would we make anything like that, legal?

[brandon]

Wow...yeah um so I don't get why you doubt that woman so much I had people die in my community and even my high school die from drunk driving.

That's funny, because I had people in my highschool and my community die from sober driving. This is why I think we need to ban sober driving.

[ladyjade3]

Reckless driving is what we should pay attention to. You can be just as dangerous driving while sleepy, or driving while senile, or distracted.

[danberkeley]

I'm going to go buy a rifle, park my car in Times Square, and shoot at my own tires. If I don't hurt anyone, there should be no problem...correct? It's my gun, my propery, and no one was hurt.

That is exactly what you people are trying to tell me when you say "DUI should be legal, if no one is hurt."

Let's see you try to get that kind of legislation passed.

As long as it is okay with the owner and not violating anyone else's rights. And no, the government is not a legimate owner of streets and sidewalks.


That's funny, because I had people in my highschool and my community die from sober driving. This is why I think we need to ban sober driving.

QTF!


Reckless driving is what we should pay attention to. You can be just as dangerous driving while sleepy, or driving while senile, or distracted.

Or while getting a BJ. :D

[Scofield]

As long as it is okay with the owner and not violating anyone else's rights. And no, the government is not a legimate owner of streets and sidewalks.

The tax-payer's own the public highways, and since I am a tax-payer, I do not want anyone drinking and driving on "my" roads. Therefore, it is up to me (and society) to determine the legality of drinking and driving on "our" roads, and thankfully the vast majority of us are against it.

I will say that I think the law/punishment should be left to the individual States, as it is a 10th Amendment issue.

[M House]

Please after seeing these responses you just don't wanna a general set of harsh penalties across the board. You know it won't stop them so if they get caught they could u know actually be prevented from having the chance to do the same stupid shit again.

[brandon]

The tax-payer's own the public highways, and since I am a tax-payer, I do not want anyone drinking and driving on "my" roads. Therefore, it is up to me (and society) to determine the legality of drinking and driving on "our" roads, and thankfully the vast majority of us are against it.

I will say that I think the law/punishment should be left to the individual States, as it is a 10th Amendment issue.

Do you realize that your DUI laws destroy families and lives, while not even being a successful deterrent against driving drunk?

My girlfriends mom recently got arrested for her 3rd DUI. She is a single mom and still has a 15 year old kid at living home. She is going to have to serve several months in jail for her DUI. Meanwhile, her son will be forced to move and she will be forced to sell her home because she can't make mortgage payments in jail.

Oh yea, and she never got in an accident.

[Scofield]

Do you realize that your DUI laws destroy families and lives, while not even being a successful deterrent against driving drunk?

My girlfriends mom recently got arrested for her 3rd DUI. She is a single mom and still has a 15 year old kid at living home. She is going to have to serve several months in jail for her DUI. Meanwhile, her son will be forced to move and she will be forced to sell her home because she can't make mortgage payments in jail.

Oh yea, and she never got in an accident.

Good fucking riddance. Three DUI's?

She is a threat to society, as she continuously shows that she doesn't care about human life (you don't drink and drive multiple times if you have any sense of responsibility or morality), and she should not be free to walk (or drive) on our streets. I am sorry that she will have to leave her children, but she does not deserve the same Liberties I "enjoy."

Edit: And your response is just as emotional as any of mine. We just have different emotions.

[M House]

Um...aren't you the pro drinking and driving dumbass and this doesn't make you just think a minute there's a problem with your OWN goddamn fucking actions!? I...just....don't...have...the...words...

[danberkeley]

The tax-payer's own the public highways, and since I am a tax-payer, I do not want anyone drinking and driving on "my" roads. Therefore, it is up to me (and society) to determine the legality of drinking and driving on "our" roads, and thankfully the vast majority of us are against it.

I will say that I think the law/punishment should be left to the individual States, as it is a 10th Amendment issue.

So since I am a taxpayer and I, therefore, own the roads, why cant I just give myself permission to drive drunk on roads? Also, can I sell my share of the roads to you?

[Printo]

If you are not physically able to operate a vehicle, you should not be allowed to drive. You do not have the right to threaten the lives of others with your irresponsible behavior. I dont even see how this is an argument. When you are threatening the life, liberty & property of others with your recklessness, you should be held accountable for those actions. 33% Geeez. The people on this board make no sense whatsoever sometimes.

[Danke]

This kinda talk is making me thirsty. I'm hopping in my SUV and heading to the bar.

[NaT805]

The tax-payer's own the public highways, and since I am a tax-payer, I do not want anyone drinking and driving on "my" roads. Therefore, it is up to me (and society) to determine the legality of drinking and driving on "our" roads, and thankfully the vast majority of us are against it.


Sounds like democracy!

Where did the republic go?

[NaT805]

If you are not physically able to operate a vehicle, you should not be allowed to drive.

So if someone had only a few beers and is physically capable of driving then it is ok?

[M House]

There is a already a legal limit, it's already just a few drinks for people, why would you wanna push it?

[mellamojuana]

I am delighted to learn from this thread that the Driving While Intoxicated laws are my laws. ("Your DUI laws destroy...") I am encouraged that my thoughts, votes, comments, protests, emails, letters, and financial and--ahem--emotional support actually count. Mr. Your Laws Destroy, Sir, you have made my weekend!

Laws are words on paper essentially. DWI laws don't ruin lives. I've worked and volunteered in enough of my state prisons to learn that personal choice overrides laws, verbal abuse, misogyny, rape, molestation, name-calling, addiction of all kinds, and, yes, even flawed logic.

I don't often get onto any rpaulforums because I don't enjoy the expressions of disrespect that discussions often deteriorate into. This thread, however, has made me happy as a lark. I feel truly important now. My laws. Wow! :confused:

Yes, people are free to drink kool-aid of any kind to reach any altered state they desire. People should also be allowed to feel, and to express feelings in non-combative, non-abusive, 1/2 decent ways.

[danberkeley]

If you are not physically able to operate a vehicle, you should not be allowed to drive. You do not have the right to threaten the lives of others with your irresponsible behavior. I dont even see how this is an argument. When you are threatening the life, liberty & property of others with your recklessness, you should be held accountable for those actions. 33% Geeez. The people on this board make no sense whatsoever sometimes.

What if your vehicle is voice-controlled like Batman's?

[Printo]

What is your vehicle is voice-controlled like Batman's?

What the hell does that even mean? Drunk driving threatens the life, liberty & property of others. It should be illegal. Period.

[Danke]

What is your vehicle is voice-controlled like Batman's?

Drunks slur their speech, so they'd probably injure innocent women and children with such a vehicle.

[danberkeley]

What the hell does that even mean? Drunk driving threatens the life, liberty & property of others. It should be illegal. Period.

It mean this: what IF your vehicle is voice-controlled like Batman's? My bad on the mispelling.


Drunks slur their speech, so they'd probably injure innocent women and children with such a vehicle.

couldnt the car be programmed so that it avoids injuring anyone?

[Danke]

couldnt the car be programmed so that it avoids injuring anyone?

Well, I guess if everyone was chipped so the onboard sensors in the car could detect them, then maybe...


But as well programed as your computer can be, does it ever crash? :eek:

[danberkeley]

Well, I guess if everyone was chipped so the onboard sensors in the car could detect them, then maybe...


But as well programed as your computer can be, does it ever crash? :eek:

No. It will never crash and it will never be crashed upon. It will be programmed to not be in any type of accident. Even if you are drunk and tell it to crash, it will recognize that you are drunk and will ignore you.

[cordscords]

What the hell does that even mean? Drunk driving threatens the life, liberty & property of others. It should be illegal. Period.

Everything threatens the life of others. Certain foods do. In fact California passed a ban that bans trans fat throughout the entire state. The majority of us on here find that rediculous as we should be able to eat whatever we want, but dont consider it to be as big an issue as drunk driving. Perhaps it's not, but we start to walk a slippery slope.

There remain places where mixed martial arts events are illegal. The UFC cant put on a show in NY because they have a problem with two adults giving their consent to fight each other. Again it's rediculous, but we have more important things to worry about right?

There are some people who still advocate banning tackle football. All it's going to take is a star player have the white sheet put over them on national TV. A large movement will certainly start after that. Again it's rediculous. It was just an accident to somebody who understood the risk when they took the field that day.

Eventually should we just always assume the worst? Lets make the only thing legal to sit down. Nothing bad can happen by sitting down. But wait! Eventually the chair legs will give out! We dont want to fall down and get hurt. So lets stand instead. But wait! Our legs will get tired! You see where I'm trying to go with this...

Things happen. Period. People will do whatever they want even if there are laws in place. You can get into a stats argument all you want, but there are stats to skew statistics on either side. The bottom line is that liberty needs to be protected, even in times where it is a bit extreme.

[mellamojuana]

Probability isn't absolute.

There might be "collateral damage" if someone drinks alcohol and then tries to operate a motor vehicle. There might not.

The liberty loving thing to do is to exercise one's right to drink and drive, and hope for the best; is that what you are saying, cords?

Where did the idea for the assertion that everything threatens the life of others originate?

Interesting how many things are "rediculous" [sic]. :(

[cordscords]

Probability isn't absolute.

There might be "collateral damage" if someone drinks alcohol and then tries to operate a motor vehicle. There might not.

The liberty loving thing to do is to exercise one's right to drink and drive, and hope for the best; is that what you are saying, cords?

Where did the idea for the assertion that everything threatens the life of others originate?

Interesting how many things are "rediculous" [sic]. :(

Exactly. We should trust people to do the right thing. The majority of us already do. When a person does take the privilege of drinking and driving too far (fatal accident) they should face hard punishment. The same goes for other cases of negligence. Such as a person fishing for a CD in their backseat who hits another driver and they die. Drunk drivers, and sober drivers who take their eyes off the road, are both stupid and negligent. Why come down harder on the drunk driver?

BTW- I guess I need to work on my spelling of "ridiculous" :D

[free_mail]

This is one of those cases I always talk about how people who fight or desire liberty cannot view it at ALL fronts. Only if it affects them.

I voted on YES. Why? As others have suggested there had been no victims yet. Is it more of a probability that they'll hit someone? Sure. But as others I'm sure have already pointed out, this law is criminalizing YOU for your potential to be dangerous. It's criminalizing YOU for future damages you MIGHT cause. Hmmm. Reminds me of the movie Minority Report.

Have I ever drank alcohol and driven home? Yes when I was younger (under the legal drinking age btw). Without hitting anyone. Whether I was just below the .08, just above it or wayyy above it, I have driven home "drunk". Was it a good choice for me to have done so? No. Would I ever do it again? Not a chance.

What it comes down to is individual responsibility. Was I irresponsible when I was younger? Most definitely. Could I have caused serious damage? Yes. I didn't though.

Do I need the government to force me and others to be responsible? I suppose that's the true question in this argument. Do we NEED it? We shouldn't need it.


I think I understand your point, that you feel there shouldn't be a crime, until an accident occurs.

I'm saying, we already know that accidents will occur to some degree, depending on how drivers can drive, while under the influence of alcohol, at various concentrations.

Your gun analogy seems OK on the surface, but I don't feel its quite the same. Put that same guy in a room full of people (to represent the road full of people), now have him playing with the trigger and hammer (risky behavior). While sober, he probably won't accidently shoot someone, but it could happen. Now, let him get drunk and do the same thing. Someone will probably get shot. How many get shot will probably depend on how drunk the person is.

I think the idea of the law isn't to penalize people as much as it's to be a deterent. Although, this may not be how the law is enforced today.

If we think back to the horse and buggy days, this probably wasn't an issue, since those animals didn't go that fast as to kill or maim someone.


FF

I feel the major issue with your analogy is the responsibility level of the individual. Would I want to pull the trigger on a loaded gun for S&G in a loaded room? No. If I were drunk, would I be responsible enough to say to myself "hey, I shouldn't play with that gun because I'm hammered drunk". Are there idiots out there that would? Of course. Again, the issue is with personal responsibility.

You want to criminalize risky behavior is what I'm gathering from this post....

[TER]

True liberty is to do the will of God and love your neighbor.

[free_mail]

To the people who voted yes:

I guess you wouldn't object then if I pointed a gun at your face and discharged it, as long as I missed, right? After all, no harm was done.

Are you serious with this analogy? This is equivalent to someone being pissed off and getting into a car for the soul purpose of running someone over and killing them. See the difference?

[free_mail]

The tax-payer's own the public highways, and since I am a tax-payer, I do not want anyone drinking and driving on "my" roads. Therefore, it is up to me (and society) to determine the legality of drinking and driving on "our" roads, and thankfully the vast majority of us are against it.

I will say that I think the law/punishment should be left to the individual States, as it is a 10th Amendment issue.

A Republic, where the Minority often has to be protected by the will of the Majority.

[pcosmar]

Sounds like democracy!

Where did the republic go?

It seems to have died somewhere around the beginning of the last century.
Unfortunately, our efforts to revive it are met with resistance from those that wish promote social control.

[pcosmar]

There is a already a legal limit, it's already just a few drinks for people, why would you wanna push it?

Yes,and it was pushed by people like MADD using lies, deception , and emotional manipulation.
They operate very much like the Brady folks do with the 2nd amendment.


Of drivers involved in accidents, less than 127 thousandths of one percent
are drinking drivers in fatal accidents. According to numbers from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration -- THE source of traffic statistics.

.127% of fatal accidents are caused by drunks.

Shouldn't we be concentrating on the 99+% that are not cause by alcohol?

I wonder how many of these folks are members of BOTH organizations.

[pcosmar]

Originally Posted by SeanEdwards
To the people who voted yes:

I guess you wouldn't object then if I pointed a gun at your face and discharged it, as long as I missed, right? After all, no harm was done.

And here we see the Brady / MADD analogy demonstrated.

[luke-gr]

This is a tough one for me. If we abolish DUI laws then we should abolish speed limits then no longer mandate which side of the road on which we are to drive.

I have had several alcohol related incidents and was barely over the legal limit each time. I skimmed through this thread and am playing catch-up but I know that alcohol increases risk. While I do not agree that the government should dictate what I do to my own body, I have to wonder what might become if we are allowed to drink as much as we want and drive on public highways. That being said, DUI laws did not stop me from drinking and driving.

We cannot stop accidents on the highways but we can do our best to make sure that we remove unnecessary risks.

I am well aware that there are many other irresponsible actions taking while driving; digging for a CD, text messaging, etc. For ,me, I keep coming back to the idea of IMPAIRMENT. Is alcohol not to be a factor at all? Is a drunk driver no more responsible than a driver who got distracted for a moment, both causing equal accidents?

I disagree with seat belt laws. They are in place to protect ME. Drunk driving laws are in place to protect OTHERS. At least that is how I perceive it today. ;)

[phill4paul]

Even if the first conviction for driving with a .08 BAC were increased there would still be deaths through driver negligence.

Murder carries the harshest penalties known to our justice system. Life in prison or the DEATH penalty.

There were 16,929 murders in the U.S. in 2007. Almost the same as the inflated claim of DUI related fatalities by the NHTSA.

No matter how harsh the penalty there will always be those who ignore it, are caught up by emotion or just plain crazy.

[mellamojuana]

luke_gr, you are indeed an honest person, and a very good writer, imo. Your "take" includes many viewpoints and some genuine soul-searching.

I could vote for someone like you. :D

[ryanduff]

Lets just outlaw doing anything when drunk. What happens if you "accidentally" shoot somebody when drunk? Heck, lets just outlaw alcohol again because nothing good can come of it.

By the standards some people on these forums think, its no wonder we're becoming a socialist country.

[luke-gr]

I am actually not arguing one way or the other, but I understand the reasoning behind the law. While I agree that a person can drink and drive on their own property as much as they would like, when one gets out on the state highways amongst a lot of other vehicles and people.

For those of you opposed to drunk driving laws do you oppose speed limits? Just curious?

Ryanduff, being under the influence of a substance is an aggravating factor in any incident or crime and may be the determining factor in whether or not a person is charged with a crime or not. If someone has an accident with a firearm and are intoxicated they are more likely to be charged with negligence.

[SeanEdwards]

Are you serious with this analogy? This is equivalent to someone being pissed off and getting into a car for the soul purpose of running someone over and killing them. See the difference?

No it isn't. You don't know my intent when I point a gun at your face and pull the trigger. Maybe I just meant to demonstrate my shiny handgun to you. If the bullet doesn't hit you, then by the logic of the legalize drunk driving crowd no crime was comitted because nobody got hurt.

Of course this is ridiculous, and it's the very reason why criminal negligence is not tolerated in American society. And it's exactly the same concept when an intoxicated person operates a motor vehicle on the public roads. It is an exhibition of criminally negligent behavior.

And if that's not convincing enough, for all you libertarian fanatics there is the fact that the a driver's license is a voluntary contract. The person receiving the license agrees to not violate the rules of the road, and they're even tested on their knowledge of those rules which always include a question or two regarding legal blood-alcohol limits. If some drunk doesn't like those restrictions then they are perfectly free to not drive.

[Scofield]

I have no idea what I believe anymore.

While driving back to school tonight, some retard decided it'd be a good idea to speed down the highway, regardless of the fact that it was and had been sleeting outside for hours. Needless to say, after a few miles I came across an accident (nothing too bad, just in the ditch) and guess who it was...none other than the speeding moron.

These people are just as dangerous as drunk drivers, and I have no idea how I would punish them. I honestly don't know what the correct punishment is for either case, as every case is different.

[free_mail]

No it isn't. You don't know my intent when I point a gun at your face and pull the trigger. Maybe I just meant to demonstrate my shiny handgun to you. If the bullet doesn't hit you, then by the logic of the legalize drunk driving crowd no crime was comitted because nobody got hurt.

Of course this is rediculous, and it's the very reason why criminal negligence is not tolerated in American society. And it's exactly the same concept when an intoxicated person operates a motor vehicle on the public roads. It is an exhibition of criminally negligent behavior.

And if that's not convincing enough, for all you libertarian fanatics there is the fact that the a driver's license is a voluntary contract. The person receiving the license agrees to not violate the rules of the road, and they're even tested on their knowledge of those rules which always include a question or two regarding legal blood-alcohol limits. If some drunk doesn't like those restrictions then they are perfectly free to not drive.

Are you seriously telling me that I don't know someones intent when they point a loaded hand gun to my face with your finger on the trigger? You know what my intent would be? To pull out my gun and get you before you get me. Is there really a question as to your intent in that analogy or are you just trying to be a dick?


Of course, all of this is theoretical since no state will repeal such a law but at the heart of a libertarian you must be able to truly believe in liberty. And you definitely shouldn't be fight for laws that punish someone before an actual crime is committed. You're criminalizing someone for their potential danger to society. Hell, I have potential to cause harm. I'm in Afghanistan and trained to kill. Should I not be allowed a gun when I get home in case I get an OEF flashback? I have a higher potential to kill don't I?

I am not endorsing Drinking and Driving. I am against it on a personal level. But I do believe it's the individuals responsibility to make that decision not the governments. How far will we go to force Americans to be responsible for themselves? At what point will you no longer have to be responsible for yourself because the government will do it for you? That's exactly what most of us here oppose.

[SeanEdwards]

And you definitely shouldn't be fight for laws that punish someone before an actual crime is committed.


Criminal negligence is the crime, and it is committed the moment the drunk driver gets behind the wheel.



You're criminalizing someone for their potential danger to society.


Yeah, exactly.



Hell, I have potential to cause harm. I'm in Afghanistan and trained to kill. Should I not be allowed a gun when I get home in case I get an OEF flashback? I have a higher potential to kill don't I?


Would a reasonable person conclude that your owning a firearm has a high likelihood of posing a serious risk to innocent people in your community?



I am not endorsing Drinking and Driving. I am against it on a personal level. But I do believe it's the individuals responsibility to make that decision not the governments. How far will we go to force Americans to be responsible for themselves? At what point will you no longer have to be responsible for yourself because the government will do it for you? That's exactly what most of us here oppose.

The driver agreed to not operate a vehicle while intoxicated when they acquired their license to drive. Drunk drivers are in breech of contract. The people enact government in order to enforce laws, including contract law.

[free_mail]

Criminal negligence is the crime, and it is committed the moment the drunk driver gets behind the wheel.

Yeah, exactly.

Would a reasonable person conclude that your owning a firearm has a high likelihood of posing a serious risk to innocent people in your community?

The driver agreed to not operate a vehicle while intoxicated when they acquired their license to drive. Drunk drivers are in breech of contract. The people enact government in order to enforce laws, including contract law.

Who's reasonable? You? Who's going to make the determination whether I'm suitable to own a fire arm in the US after having combat experience in Afghanistan?

Of course we all know that it's the law and driving is a privilege. The argument here is whether one believes in a law FORCING people to be responsible rather then allowing people to be responsible for themselves.

I'm still waiting for someone to acknowledge the similarities between the emotional response/rational against drunk driving and the emotional response/rational of anti-gun people.

[free_mail]

[...]The people enact government in order to enforce laws, including contract law.

Where in the Constitution did it enable the Federal Government to create or enforce such a law?

[Danke]

The driver agreed to not operate a vehicle while intoxicated when they acquired their license to drive. Drunk drivers are in breech of contract. The people enact government in order to enforce laws, including contract law.

True. So if I don't have a license, no contract? correct?

[powerofreason]

This mentality is exactly my point. Legalizing drunk driving would create many more innocent deaths, pure and simple, because the drunker you are, the more likely you will believe "you won't hurt anyone".

Bullshit.

[powerofreason]

SeanEdwards, how are you harmed by potential danger? What are your damages as a result of potential danger? What bills do you have to pay as a result of it? What money did you lose from missing work? Oh thats right. Potential danger is just that, potential. When I get in the car and drive to school every day there is potential danger of me being in an accident. But I'm not going to demand that a person who almost crashed into me the other day be put in a jail cell. For what?

[powerofreason]

Government does not legitimately own roads, because roads are funded with stolen property. To draw an analogy, if I stole millions of dollars from someone and built myself a palace with it the palace would rightfully belong to the person I stole that money from. If some private road owner said that people with a BAC over 0.8 are not allowed to drive on the roads, and everyone is subject to sobriety tests at any time I would be okay with that because thats a real contract, and a real agreement. I am not opposed at all to rules. I am opposed to forced rules, and thats what government is. Force. Men with guns claiming to own at least a part of me, and my life. I don't accept that, and I don't bow down to criminals whether you call yourself government or the pope or The Dear Leader I don't give a shit.

[SeanEdwards]

SeanEdwards, how are you harmed by potential danger? What are your damages as a result of potential danger? What bills do you have to pay as a result of it?


My life insurance rates are increased because of the increased potential for harm.



What money did you lose from missing work? Oh thats right. Potential danger is just that, potential. When I get in the car and drive to school every day there is potential danger of me being in an accident. But I'm not going to demand that a person who almost crashed into me the other day be put in a jail cell? For what?

For what? To prevent the reckless unsafe driver from killing some innocent person with their vehicle.

You clowns have taken a reasonable philosophy of individual liberty, and run with it all the way to the land of utter fucktard absurdity. Good luck recruiting political allies and advancing a small government agenda with this ridiculous anarchist ideology.

[M House]

...and forced to take responsibility for your own BAC, sounds pretty reasonable to me. Your not really living up to your name here. Though 175 million get murdered by shitty governments according to your sig, plenty get murdered by blatant stupidity. Have all of you pro drinkers even thought about how ridiculous this is, you can already drink and drive.

[Danke]

My life insurance rates are increased because of the increased potential for harm.



Then don't buy insurance or buy from an insurance company that won't pay out if you are drunk in an accident.

[cordscords]

I am actually not arguing one way or the other, but I understand the reasoning behind the law. While I agree that a person can drink and drive on their own property as much as they would like, when one gets out on the state highways amongst a lot of other vehicles and people.

For those of you opposed to drunk driving laws do you oppose speed limits? Just curious?

Ryanduff, being under the influence of a substance is an aggravating factor in any incident or crime and may be the determining factor in whether or not a person is charged with a crime or not. If someone has an accident with a firearm and are intoxicated they are more likely to be charged with negligence.

Yes I am. There is already a 5-10 MPH leeway that is given to us already. The police doesnt enforce the posted limit. Whats the point of the current system? And as evident by the 41-mill+ speeding tickets that are handed out per year, we don't care about that leeway either. We are going to speed no matter what. Also speeding statistics are also skewed by certain groups:


A report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows the fatality rate on the western autobahn has been virtually identical to the death rates on U.S. Interstates for over ten years. In a letter to NMA President James J. Baxter, Martinez claimed the error was an innocent mistake due to "inconsistencies in data collection" and would be deleted from future releases. Some activists who have been lobbying for an increase in highway speed limits point to the misleading statistics as clear evidence of deliberate misrepresentation by NHTSA.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/nhtsalie.html

I think that speed limits should become speed suggestions. If you take advantage of the privilege that has been given to you by driving recklessly and causing an accident, then you should face hard consequences.

[Danke]

Yes I am. There is already a 5-10 MPH leeway that is given to us already. The police doesnt enforce the posted limit. Whats the point of the current system? And as evident by the 41-mill+ speeding tickets that are handed out per year, we don't care about that leeway either. We are going to speed no matter what. Also speeding statistics are also skewed by certain groups:



http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/nhtsalie.html

I think that speed limits should become speed suggestions. If you take advantage of the privilege that has been given to you by driving recklessly and causing an accident, then you should face hard consequences.

When I was in Germany, if you went above 130kph, insurance would not cover your accident.

In the states, if you are going the speed limit, but traffic is moving faster, you can get a ticket. You are causing a hazard.

Many places don't ticket during rush hour, but speed in the same place on a Saturday, etc., will result in a ticket.

[M House]

KPH does not equal MPH, I'm just cringing from this blatant stupidity. In fact 130kph=about 80mph which is typically about where you gotta start worrying about tickets in the US on most Highways. Should they give less tickets yeah but just look at what you just argued for.

[Danke]

KPH does not equal MPH, I'm just cringing from this blatant stupidity. In fact 130kph=about 80mph which is typically about where you gotta start worrying about tickets in the US on most Highways. Should they give less tickets yeah but just look at what you just argued for.

Fuck you. I know conversion, dumbass. Stating fact, not arguing for or against, not opinion.

[phill4paul]

Hell, I have potential to cause harm. I'm in Afghanistan and trained to kill. Should I not be allowed a gun when I get home in case I get an OEF flashback? I have a higher potential to kill don't I?

Actually, freemail, that is exactly what the government is pushing for. You'd better not mention to your C.O. that you are having a bad day.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/26/bill_on_gun_restrictions_bogged_down/

Freedom is stolen incrementally.

With driving we began with a .15 BAC which was lowered to a .10.
From .10 it was lowered to a .08 even though there wasn't compelling evidence that lowering BAC would save more lives.
And you know what?
Since the FED strong armed states in the year 2000 to adopt a .08 BAC there has not been a decrease in fatalities. Only more arrests.

Add to this the loss of 4th,5th and 6th Constitutional rights.

Coming soon. .05 BAC, "scarlett" letter license plates, and ignition locks.

For a more reasonable approach to DUI laws check here:

http://www.motorists.org/dui/

[Crash Martinez]

I'm with Lew.

[brandon]

KPH does not equal MPH, I'm just cringing from this blatant stupidity. In fact 130kph=about 80mph which is typically about where you gotta start worrying about tickets in the US on most Highways. Should they give less tickets yeah but just look at what you just argued for.

Kill yourself, please.

[brandon]

//

[KenInMontiMN]

The problem is massive overcriminalization; the solution lies in maintaining strict enforcement budget limits and decriminalization while still regulating.

1. The Federal gov't had no business whatsoever demanding that states set lower and uniform bac levels in order to recapture monies taxed from those states. Unconstitutional to meddle in state business, and most states would not have enacted those lower limits voluntarily. Even the founder of MADD joined forces with the hospitality industry in the 90's to lobby against those lower limits. MADD has become a Federally funded business with paid administrative and research positions and is no longer a self-sustaining grassroots victim advocacy group. In short its become a quasi-gov't institution.

2. States need to reduce enforcement to levels they can afford, focusing on and prioritizing those cases that actually resulted in damage of one sort or another. Not to worry, that's going to happen anyway as more and more states can no longer afford the bills resulting from preventative criminalization mentality.

3. Through regulation all of the positive potential is still there to take the obviously impaired driver off the road, impound vehicles, affect drivers license eligibility, and require treatment/counseling for reinstatement. But gone are the ridiculous and compounding criminalization aspects for people that have never inflicted harm on anyone, and all of the social impediments that go along with that in the way of impaired employability for families with such an offender in their midst and all of the compounding social costs associated with mass incarceration and making felons out of people for nothing more than some highly questionable preventative intents. And for those who do inflict damage while behind the wheel nothing is changed in the way of penalties and the law.

4. While every state unfortunately chose to reduce to the new levels or risk losing transportation funding from the Feds, all states still make their own decisions as to prosecution and enforcement levels, and that's where there is hope for a return to sanity on this. Just like a degree of enforcement and prosecutorial discretion gets applied to allowing for margin on speed infractions, the same needs to be done for blood alcohol content levels and criminal prosecutions. And like so many other 'preventative laws,' it may be easier to control the cancerous growth in the justice system these past several decades by taking control of those justice system budgets and insisting on limiting them to traditional and historical levels adjusted for inflation and population growth only. In short quit relying on legislatures to make sound and cost effective judgments as to new laws and penalties, let them play their antisocial games to their hearts' content while simultaneously insuring that the enforcement system is managed in a way that precludes disproportional growth and keeps it lean, efficient, and cost-effective through the application of sound discretion in all matters.

[powerofreason]

You clowns have taken a reasonable philosophy of individual liberty, and run with it all the way to the land of utter fucktard absurdity. Good luck recruiting political allies and advancing a small government agenda with this ridiculous anarchist ideology.

"utter fucktard absurdity"
I'll give you credit, you can crank out some decent ad hominems, but I would request you stick to logic and reason in this thread. And I don't need to go around campaigning for the repeal of drunk driving laws. Once people have been introduced to the idea of liberty they will likely come to that conclusion after a while. I am also not an "anarchist." Anarchists are leftists and I am definitely not a leftist. I prefer free-marketeer.

Lets see if I can't sum up my "utter fucktard absurdity" as you so eloquently put it.

1. There is no service we as free people can't provide for each other without institutionalizing violence.

2. Privately owned property always or nearly always finds its best use in a free market.

3. The initiation of force is always wrong. Violence may only be used in self defense.

Sounds like common sense to me.

[NaT805]

I have no idea what I believe anymore.

While driving back to school tonight, some retard decided it'd be a good idea to speed down the highway, regardless of the fact that it was and had been sleeting outside for hours. Needless to say, after a few miles I came across an accident (nothing too bad, just in the ditch) and guess who it was...none other than the speeding moron.

These people are just as dangerous as drunk drivers, and I have no idea how I would punish them. I honestly don't know what the correct punishment is for either case, as every case is different.

There is an easy answer: punish them based upon actual harm to individuals and physical damage of property, and with a jury :D.

[andrewh817]

Might as well let blind people drive too while your at it, silly anarchists.

That's a great idea but they'll all crash pretty much immediately until they add Braille to our highways. :p

I think the reason so many people are for this zero tolerance bullshit is that they don't question what they hear from the media on it. Every news story on drunk driving is about how someone drunk kills a pedestrian, passenger, or other driver.

While I'm not trying to say stories of people making it home safely while intoxicated are newsworthy, look at the other side every once in a while! It's really the same phenomenon that causes ignorance on drug policies. When was the last positive illegal drug story you heard on TV?? On the other hand, I bet half the people reading this could whistle the Enzyte Male Enhancement commercial theme song. This proves the media is basically another branch of government working with the other three to hide the truth.

My opinion on drunk driving?? If you are swerving the fact you are drunk is irrelevant, so you still get the reckless driving ticket. The twist is, if you hurt anyone else (not in your car) or destroy anyone else's property in your accident the DUI fine is added on to the principle.

The way I see it, this will solve the "routine traffic stop" (routine civil liberties suspension) bullshit and let people drive in peace without wasting their time and law enforcement's time.

[andrewh817]

:rolleyes:

I guess your smarter than most of the other posters on this forum even though your position is losing in this poll. Good thing we have you here as the voice crying out in the wilderness to warn us 'fake' liberty loving patriots. :rolleyes:

Seriously, this is a Ron Paul forum. Do you think RP would vote to have drunk driving legal? Get a clue. You live in a fantasy world and make this movement seem naive and foolish and it is positions like these that drag down liberty movements.

I'm pretty sure the libertarian movement isn't mainly focused on repealing drunk driving laws and by saying the chat of a few hundred people on the Internet is representative of the "movement" as a whole is extremely ignorant.

And why did you even mention Ron Paul? Are we all supposed to blindly support his every political belief instead of forming our own opinions? That undermines the whole point of his message! Many people on this forum disagree with Ron Paul on abortion for example, are you going to call these people naive and foolish as well?

[Matisa]

No, drunk driveing kills, and cause's outragous medical bills and insurance bills.

Peoples lives are alot more important then that...

No way should it ever be legallized !

[Danke]

No, drunk driveing kills, and cause's outragous medical bills and insurance bills.

Peoples lives are alot more important then that...

No way should it ever be legallized !

But if the Air Force gave us helmet mounted lazor sights to keep drunk drivers driving straight on the road, would you object?

[Anti Federalist]

In reading through this thread, I now understand why Congress still gets re-elected by 90% margins.

Just like every other congressman is an idiot, except my congressman,(The only people who can make that claim, and be correct, are the people of TX-CD14)everybody else is an idiot driver, except me, of course.

In 1982, when all this MADD crap started, 60 percent of driving fatalities were caused by drunk drivers. In 2008, after tossing the fourth, fifth and tenth amendments, roadblocks, checkpoints, "wolfpacks" of cops, 21 year old drinking age, .08 BAC, endless "crackdowns" and with more people in jail than any other country on earth, that figure stands at 41%. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/18/national/main533451.shtml)

Just like the "drug war", it's not worth it.

I'll take my chances with freedom.

Based on my own experience, I have more to worry about from a cop than a drunk driver.

[phill4paul]

In reading through this thread, I now understand why Congress still gets re-elected by 90% margins.

Just like every other congressman is an idiot, except my congressman,(The only people who can make that claim, and be correct, are the people of TX-CD14)everybody else is an idiot driver, except me, of course.

In 1982, when all this MADD crap started, 60 percent of driving fatalities were caused by drunk drivers. In 2008, after tossing the fourth, fifth and tenth amendments, roadblocks, checkpoints, "wolfpacks" of cops, 21 year old drinking age, .08 BAC, endless "crackdowns" and with more people in jail than any other country on earth, that figure stands at 41%. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/18/national/main533451.shtml)

Just like the "drug war", it's not worth it.

I'll take my chances with freedom.

Based on my own experience, I have more to worry about from a cop than a drunk driver.

Also notice in the article the subtle shift. It used to be end drunk driving. Now it has become end drinking and driving.

"Enjoy the holidays. Have a great time. Just don't drink and drive," he warned.

Marilena Amoni, NHTSA's associate administrator, said drivers need to be held responsible when they choose to drink and drive.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiled the state-by-state statistics to encourage states at the bottom of the rankings to get tough on drivers who drink.

Also notice NHTSAs cited goals are directly related to MADDS.

Very evident in this article is the NHTSAs methodology for related statistics.

NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

Thats right. A driver with .01 from drinking cough medicine is a raving drunken fiend that has caused a fatality.

[brandon]

Also notice in the article the subtle shift. It used to be end drunk driving. Now it has become end drinking and driving.

"Enjoy the holidays. Have a great time. Just don't drink and drive," he warned.

Marilena Amoni, NHTSA's associate administrator, said drivers need to be held responsible when they choose to drink and drive.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiled the state-by-state statistics to encourage states at the bottom of the rankings to get tough on drivers who drink.

Also notice NHTSAs cited goals are directly related to MADDS.

Very evident in this article is the NHTSAs methodology for related statistics.

NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

Thats right. A driver with .01 from drinking cough medicine is a raving drunken fiend that has caused a fatality.

This is a good point. As I said early in the thread , I drink and drive almost every weekend. However, I almost never drive when I am too drunk. I can set my own limit better then the government can set some arbitrary "one limit fits all" BAC that I can't even measure effectively until it's already too late.

Some unexperienced light drinkers may have trouble driving after only two drinks. While heavier, experienced drinkers may be able to consume 8 - 10 drinks and still drive responsibly. For me, I know if I am stumbling on my way to my car that I should look for another way home.

[brandon]

Have you guys ever been driving somewhere, and a few minutes into your trip you realize that you are way to smashed to be driving? This has happened to me once or twice. When this happened to me, I wanted to immediately pull over and get a few hours of sleep in my car until I sobered up enough to drive safely. However, DUI laws forced me to stay on the road.

If I pulled over on the side of the road, at some point in the night the cops would have approached my vehicle to see if everything was alright. When they found me they would have smelled the alcohol, gave me a breathalyzer, and locked me up. Yes, it is a crime to sit in the drivers seat of a car while intoxicated, even if the car is parked and the keys are not in the ignition.

[free_mail]

Have you guys ever been driving somewhere, and a few minutes into your trip you realize that you are way to smashed to be driving? This has happened to me once or twice. When this happened to me, I wanted to immediately pull over and get a few hours of sleep in my car until I sobered up enough to drive safely. However, DUI laws forced me to stay on the road.

If I pulled over on the side of the road, at some point in the night the cops would have approached my vehicle to see if everything was alright. When they found me they would have smelled the alcohol, gave me a breathalyzer, and locked me up. Yes, it is a crime to sit in the drivers seat of a car while intoxicated, even if the car is parked and the keys are not in the ignition.

Funny, something like that actually happened to someone I knew a while back. Was drunk, started to drive home but decided against it. He parked at a Taco Bell parking lot, grabbed a late night burrito and passed out. Hour or so later he was being arrested and charged with a DUI.

I'll take my chances with freedom too. As many have said, the arguments against Drunk Driving is the same thing used for Gun Bans and War on Drugs. More control and less freedom for what seems like safety.

[Anti Federalist]

Also notice in the article the subtle shift. It used to be end drunk driving. Now it has become end drinking and driving.

"Enjoy the holidays. Have a great time. Just don't drink and drive," he warned.

Marilena Amoni, NHTSA's associate administrator, said drivers need to be held responsible when they choose to drink and drive.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiled the state-by-state statistics to encourage states at the bottom of the rankings to get tough on drivers who drink.

Also notice NHTSAs cited goals are directly related to MADDS.

Very evident in this article is the NHTSAs methodology for related statistics.

NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

Thats right. A driver with .01 from drinking cough medicine is a raving drunken fiend that has caused a fatality.

Yes, it's written off as "drunk driving", without taking into account whether actual impairment had occured.

[tribute_13]

It should be fine for people to do whatever they want to their own bodies. But no one has the right to endanger someone else's body. And if you seriously think that people who are drunk pose the same risk as sober people, you need to grow up. Its completely obvious and observable that alcohol impairs most people's ability to drive. So like I say with all drugs and mind altering substances: It's fine if you want to screw your own body up but you have no right to screw mine up.

[brandon]

But no one has the right to endanger someone else's body.

Almost any action an individual takes can have the possibility of endagering someone elses body. Should a person with a gait not be allowed to walk on a public sidewalk for fear that they will step on someone elses foot? Should we criminalize sky diving because of the risk someone's parachute doesn't open and they land on an innocent bystander?

Ok maybe that example is a bit extreme, but I think it conveys the general idea. We don't live in a safe world. Everything we do carries an associated risk, both to ourselves and to others. Do we really want the government dictating what levels of risk are acceptable and what levels are not? Do you think they can accurately calculate the risk involved for every action? Or should the government just force us all to live in isolated padded cells to make sure we never endanger anybody?

[revolutionist]

No. It's not a crime. Privatize the roads and let businesses best decide how to handle their roads.

This


But as far as public roads at the moment are concerned, it should be left to the states. I personally think that drunk driving should be prohibited, but it should be through the guise of reckless driving. If a police officer sees that you pose a clear and present danger to the road, he can pull you over and make you stop driving. It shouldn't be BAC based.

[KenInMontiMN]

This is a statistic that is a very good indicator of how much your state is supporting the growth of government in all its aspects, but in particular the justice system, criminal & civil.

Of course the primary reason there are wildly diverging opinions on this issue even within our 'Liberty' group is because of different points of view of the principles involved; but the other side of the coin is that we reside in different states, and the general enforcement of this and many other prohibitions varies wildly across the country, perhaps to a greater degree than many of us realize. Att'y density correlates to those enforcement levels quite accurately as well.

Needless to say there is no compatibility between small, limited gov't and high atty density. High att'y density is a sure sign of the over-regulated, authoritarian state. My state has gone a bit batshit crazy in growing its justice system to immense proportion, particularly in comparison to neighboring states in the region- so this is a statistic I've been watching closely for a good number of years now.

Active & practicing att'y numbers courtesy of the American Bar Association's marketing research people; population estimates courtesy of the US Census Bureau. Links at the bottom. Density calculations courtesy of Microsoft Excel.

RANK.....STATE................ATTY'S*.....POPULATI ON**.....ATTY DENSITY
........Dist. of Columbia.....46,689..........588,292.............. ...7.936% :eek::mad::(
1......New York...............150,542.....19,297,729......... ........0.780%
2......Massachusetts........42,501.......6,449,755 .................0.659%
3......Connecticut.............19,013.......3,502, 309.................0.543%
4......Illinois......................61,259.....12 ,852,548.................0.477%
5......New Jersey..............39,384.......8,685,920........ .........0.453%
6......Minnesota................21,944.......5,197 ,621.................0.422%
7......California...............148,399.....36,553 ,215.................0.406%
8......Louisiana.................16,965.......4,29 3,204.................0.395%
9......Colorado..................18,894.......4,86 1,515.................0.389%
10....Missouri....................22,602.......5,8 78,415.................0.384%
11....Rhode Island..............4,055.......1,057,832......... ........0.383%
12....Maryland..................20,996.......5,618 ,344.................0.374%
13....Pennsylvania...........46,065.....12,432,792 .................0.371%
14....Vermont.....................2,183..........6 21,254.................0.351%
15....Alaska........................2,385......... .683,478.................0.349%
16....Washington.............22,276.......6,468,42 4.................0.344%
17....Oklahoma................12,357.......3,617,3 16.................0.342%
18....Florida.....................59,953.....18,25 1,243.................0.328%
19....Hawaii.......................4,126.......1,2 83,388.................0.321%
20....Ohio........................36,644.....11,46 6,917.................0.320%
21....Michigan..................32,131.....10,071, 822.................0.319%
22....Texas......................73,505.....23,904 ,380.................0.307%
23....Oregon....................11,344.......3,747 ,455.................0.303%
24....Montana....................2,844..........95 7,861.................0.297%
25....Wyoming....................1,537..........52 2,830.................0.294%
26....Delaware...................2,526..........86 4,764.................0.292%
27....Nebraska...................5,117.......1,774 ,571.................0.288%
28....Alabama...................13,231.......4,627 ,851.................0.286%
29....Georgia....................27,227.......9,54 4,750.................0.285%
30....Kansas.......................7,855.......2,7 75,997.................0.283%
31....Kentucky..................11,876.......4,241 ,474.................0.280%
32....Virginia.....................21,183.......7, 712,091.................0.275%
33....Maine.........................3,594.......1, 317,207.................0.273%
34....New Mexico................5,267.......1,969,915....... ..........0.267%
35....Wisconsin.................14,448.......5,601 ,640.................0.258%
36....West Virginia..............4,618.......1,812,035....... ..........0.255%
37....New Hampshire..........3,309.......1,315,828.......... .......0.251%
38....Tennessee................15,199.......6,156, 719.................0.247%
39....Nevada.......................6,105.......2,5 65,382.................0.238%
40....Utah...........................6,215.......2 ,645,330.................0.235%
41....Iowa...........................6,959.......2 ,988,046.................0.233%
42....Mississippi..................6,723.......2,9 18,785.................0.230%
43....Idaho.........................3,330.......1, 499,402.................0.222%
44....South Dakota.............1,761..........796,214......... ........0.221%
45....Indiana.....................13,564.......6,3 45,289.................0.214%
46....North Dakota..............1,345..........639,715........ .........0.210%
47....North Carolina..........18,966.......9,061,032.......... .......0.209%
48....South Carolina............8,961.......4,407,709......... ........0.203%
49....Arizona.....................12,793.......6,3 38,755.................0.202%
50....Arkansas.....................5,700.......2,8 34,797.................0.201%

........TOTAL...................1,148,465...301,62 1,157.................0.381%

*http://www.abanet.org/marketresearch/2008_NATL_LAWYER_by_State.pdf
**http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html

[mellamojuana]

Forgive my lack of quoting posts made here, and the written works of people who have spent much of their lives in study of the effects of ethyl (alcohol) on the human body, and /or the relationships of accidents and impairment caused by imbibing. My ancient, slow, and moody computer won't allow much play.

I haven't read every word of this thread, but I get the sense that people who choose to drink and then drive feel harassed, singled out for unfair punishment, and generally rained on. I've been pulled over numerous times for everything from not having headlights on while it was raining--I had moved and didn't realize the law in the new state--to a "busted" tail-light. I have never once been caught drinking and driving because I am a teetotaler. I decided in high school that not drinking was one of the easiest, least expensive, most responsible, smartest things I could do for myself. Once when I was pulled over, it was obvious that the officer was smelling my breath which reeked of vanilla ice cream and cone. He looked at my hand holding a drippy cone in miserably hot weather and intoned, "Well, I see why you can't drive!" He was actually rather nice about it, but I decided then that I would do my best not to eat and drive again. I realized that I could easily have an accident while I'm taking care of my growling stomach.

Cellphone use is with earpiece. I just can't afford an accident.

Yes, I'm free as everyone else to eat and drive, or drink booze and drive. I prefer to reduce my risks as much as possible because I know now from reading this thread that it demands all my skill and experience to be a good defensive driver. I have to take care not only of myself, but also have to watch out for the other vehicles in one to five other lanes whose drivers may be distracted or impaired to some degree, whether staggeringly drunk or just buzzy enough to have a slowed reaction time, or just a little uncoordinated enough to--oopsy daisy--wander a tad into my lane. I never have liked the sound of metal car against metal truck, or any other combination.

I feel sad--someone had better rush to condemn my emotions--that women, who have lost a baby, child, or adult son or daughter to death because of a liquid drug that caused some degree of impairment of the driver of the vehicle that ended their loved one's life, and who have responded to their grief by trying to prevent other mothers and families from experiencing such trauma, have their actions called "crap" by some liberty-loving individuals. Those who would be free to drink alcoholic beverages indiscriminately do not want to afford liberty to deeply hurt and grieving mothers to organize to try to keep people from dying.

MADDs' reducing the rate of deaths caused by driving while impaired/intoxicated from 60% to 41% is spoken of as a failure. (I hope I'm remembering accurately; I won't go back with this cantankerous 'puter.) And, indeed, it is a dismal lack of victory, except for the 19 people of 100 who didn't die because of someone else's booze, and for the families, loved ones, and friends of those who didn't die because of MADDs' active grief. MADD began as grassroots, just as this forum did, just as activism regarding bailouts did. Somehow, I can't see that as manure. If MADD is now quasi-government, then those who object to that can contact them and Congress. :eek:

Please enjoy Happy, Safe, and Drugfree (liquid & otherwise) highway travel during Advent, the solstice, Hanukkah, and Christmas Holy-Days. :D

[phill4paul]

I feel sad--someone had better rush to condemn my emotions--that women, who have lost a baby, child, or adult son or daughter to death because of a liquid drug that caused some degree of impairment of the driver of the vehicle that ended their loved one's life, and who have responded to their grief by trying to prevent other mothers and families from experiencing such trauma, have their actions called "crap" by some liberty-loving individuals. Those who would be free to drink alcoholic beverages indiscriminately do not want to afford liberty to deeply hurt and grieving mothers to organize to try to keep people from dying.

MADDs' reducing the rate of deaths caused by driving while
impaired/intoxicated from 60% to 41% is spoken of as a failure. (I hope I'm remembering accurately; I won't go back with this cantankerous 'puter.) And, indeed, it is a dismal lack of victory, except for the 19 people of 100 who didn't die because of someone else's booze, and for the families, loved ones, and friends of those who didn't die because of MADDs' active grief. MADD began as grassroots, just as this forum did, just as activism regarding bailouts did. Somehow, I can't see that as manure. If MADD is now quasi-government, then those who object to that can contact them and Congress.

I don't call the emotions of someone who has lost a child to a drunk driving fatality "crap". However, I do think that their judgement concerning drinking and driving can become clouded. Even the mother that started MADD now condemns this organization as neo-prohibitionist.

"MADD was founded in 1980 by California realtor Candy Lightner. That year, Lightner’s 13-year-old daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver with four previous arrests for drunk driving, including one only two days earlier. She was angry, and rightfully so.

“Through MADD, I found a way to deal with my anger,” she wrote in her memoirs, “a way to address a serious social problem that had taken my daughter from me.”

Then something happened. In October of 1985, MADD’s board of directors, largely salaried male executives at that point, fired Candy Lightner. They claimed she was making excessive demands on the budget, she claimed it was a coup d’etat by radical prohibitionists who had infiltrated the organization.
Disturbed by the shift from attacking drunk driving to attacking drinking in general, the founder of MADD later joined the liquor lobby, declaring, “I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction. (The .08 legislation) ignores the real core of the problem. If we really want to save lives, let’s go after the most dangerous drivers on the road.”

As far as the reduction in fatalities I attribute the largest part of this number to the introduction of safety laws. Safety belt laws and more importantly safety airbags were introduced during this period.

I don't disagree that there should be a law regulating driver impairment. I do however feel that current laws are draconian. They disregard three Constitutional rights and are based on skewed statistics.

For a less emotionally driven and rational response to DUI laws check the National Motorists Association page:

http://www.motorists.org/dui/