PDA

View Full Version : Petty Bureaucrat In A Black Robe Is Putting Lindsey Lohan In A Filthy Cage




low preference guy
07-06-2010, 08:10 PM
Writes Lew (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/61025.html)...


So a petty bureaucrat in a black robe is putting Lindsey Lohan in a filthy cage for three months, with three-months of further ownership, for the crime of…actually, no crime. She harmed no one, took nothing from anyone without permission, though she did refuse to attend anti-alcohol indoctrination skool, and engaged supposedly in the non-crime of drunk driving. So the judge, envious government loser that she is, revels in terrorizing a young, pretty, well-to-do actress. Ah yes, justice.

silverhandorder
07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
Lindsay Lohan is not pretty but otherwise I would agree with Lew. Maybe drunk driving is a bit too far tho.

RideTheDirt
07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
yup it's 2010 and we are still letting morons in costumes rule our lives.

RileyE104
07-06-2010, 08:14 PM
Wait.. I don't get it.
Is he defending her as a drunk driver or a drug user??

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 08:18 PM
Wait.. I don't get it.
Is he defending her as a drunk driver or a drug user??

Lew is against drunk-driving laws. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html) But that's controversial. I just liked how he made fun of the situation overall.

noxagol
07-06-2010, 08:49 PM
Wait.. I don't get it.
Is he defending her as a drunk driver or a drug user??

Both. Drunk driving in and of itself is not a crime since there is no victim. If you collide with someone, then you have committed a crime since there is now a victim. Same with drugs.

And she was pretty hot before she lost the red hair and her curvy figure and became a stick.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 08:54 PM
Lindsay Lohan is not pretty
She ain't ugly.
http://www.enjoyfrance.com/images/stories/world/celebrities/Lindsay-Lohan-house-broken0into.jpg

spudea
07-06-2010, 09:01 PM
Lew is uniformed. She has hurt others and her use of alcohol and drugs continues to endanger herself and others. This judge gave her a wake up call to straighten out her life.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1643089/20100706/lohan_lindsay.jhtml

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 09:23 PM
her use of alcohol and drugs continues to endanger herself and others

that's what Lew claims is not a crime and shouldn't be prosecuted. i agree with Lew here.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:24 PM
He doesn't think Drunk Driving is a crime? So it shouldn't be illegal to endanger the lives of others? I like Lew, but this is an absurd position, and I just lost a little respect for him.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 09:26 PM
He doesn't think Drunk Driving is a crime? So it shouldn't be illegal to endanger the lives of others?

By that reasoning, are you not endangering the lives of others while driving even while sober?

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 09:27 PM
I like Lew, but this is an absurd position, and I just lost a little respect for him.

Did you read the article I linked to where he explains his position?

Fozz
07-06-2010, 09:27 PM
I disagree with Lew here. Drunk driving kills people, so therefore it absolutely should be illegal.

Driving is not a right, so it should be regulated.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:28 PM
By that reasoning, are you not endangering the lives of others while driving even while sober?

If you are driving recklessly, than yes, that is why we have speeding tickets, moving violations and such.

silverhandorder
07-06-2010, 09:29 PM
Yeah his explanation for it sounds totally different then what first comes to mind when he says it. He basically wants people punished for endangering others and not for drinking. If you happen to drink and that being the reason why you endangered other well tough shit.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 09:30 PM
If you are driving recklessly, than yes, that is why we have speeding tickets, moving violations and such.

so one has to be driving recklessly to get in an accident or hurt another?

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:30 PM
Did you read the article I linked to where he explains his position?

I glanced at it. It doesn't change my view though, and I think his position is incredibly naive.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:31 PM
so one has to be driving recklessly to get in an accident or hurt another?

No, but those driving recklessly and driving drunk get in more accidents than those who don't.

silverhandorder
07-06-2010, 09:34 PM
I glanced at it. It doesn't change my view though, and I think his position is incredibly naive.

What is naive to recognize that the law is being enforced arbitrarily?

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 09:35 PM
No, but those driving recklessly and driving drunk get in more accidents than those who don't.

People on average commit more crimes (unrelated to driving) when drunk than when they are are sober. Should we ban alcohol when one isn't driving also, since those who drink while not driving commit more crimes than those who don't drink while not driving?

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:38 PM
What is naive to recognize that the law is being enforced arbitrarily?

It isn't arbitrary, and it is naive to prosecutes manslaughter and property damage committed by drunk drivers, who do so because they are drunk, yet not prosecuting someone for drunk driving, thus allowing them the possibility of committing the act. We need to preempt a possible accidents by prosecuting drunk driving and reckless driving.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 09:38 PM
No, but those driving recklessly and driving drunk get in more accidents than those who don't.

so you agree, you endanger other people with the simple act of driving. So driving should be outlawed.

silverhandorder
07-06-2010, 09:40 PM
It isn't arbitrary, and it is naive to prosecutes manslaughter and property damage committed by drunk drivers, who do so because they are drunk, yet not prosecuting someone for drunk driving, thus allowing them the possibility of committing the act. We need to preempt a possible accidents by prosecuting drunk driving and reckless driving.

Do harsher punishments really deter crime?

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:40 PM
People on average commit more crimes (unrelated to driving) when drunk than when they are are sober. Should we ban alcohol when one isn't driving also, since those who drink while not driving commit more crimes than those who don't drink while not driving?

No. And I would say more drunk driving accidents versus non drunk accidents occur in relation to drunk non driving crimes versus sober crimes. You also have to remember that a car is a lethal weapon.

Andrew-Austin
07-06-2010, 09:42 PM
It isn't arbitrary, and it is naive to prosecutes manslaughter and property damage committed by drunk drivers, who do so because they are drunk, yet not prosecuting someone for drunk driving, thus allowing them the possibility of committing the act. We need to preempt a possible accidents by prosecuting drunk driving and reckless driving.

Foolish slippery slope. Here comes Minority Report.

The only argument for punishing drunk driving is that they are public roads which need to be managed by public policy, which I can't really disagree with. Lew Rockwell is for privatizing roads though.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:43 PM
so you agree, you endanger other people with the simple act of driving. So driving should be outlawed.
There is a certain level of danger with driving. That is why we have licenses, speeding laws, moving laws, and drunk driving laws, so as to curb the risk.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:44 PM
Do harsher punishments really deter crime?

Getting drunk drivers off the road stops them from getting into accidents.

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 09:45 PM
No. And I would say more drunk driving accidents versus non drunk accidents occur in relation to drunk non driving crimes versus sober crimes.

What's the number that draws the line and make it a good idea to make something illegal?

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:46 PM
What's the number that draws the line and make it a good idea to make something illegal?

It isn't a number, but the fact is, a car is far more lethal and more damaging. than a pair of fists

silverhandorder
07-06-2010, 09:49 PM
Getting drunk drivers off the road stops them from getting into accidents.

They maybe stop 1% of drunks. Do you think we should be spending tax payer money on this crap? I understand if it was 100% of drunks as soon as they get on the road.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 09:49 PM
It isn't a number, but the fact is, a car is far more lethal and more damaging. than a pair of fists

Well since men are more likely to get into both a fistfight or a serious car accident I'd say men should be outlawed.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:54 PM
They maybe stop 1% of drunks. Do you think we should be spending tax payer money on this crap? I understand if it was 100% of drunks as soon as they get on the road.

I would like to see some proof of those numbers. And yes, I have no problem with municipal money being spent to keep dangerous people off the road. Public safety should be one of the few functions of a local municipality.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 09:56 PM
Well since men are more likely to get into both a fistfight or a serious car accident I'd say men should be outlawed.

And I would say that is ridiculous and is a spin on my reasoning. It shows the weakness in your defense.

But I would say domestic violence should be prosecuted, and we should have things like restraining orders so as to curb assaults.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:00 PM
And I would say that is ridiculous and is a spin on my reasoning. It shows the weakness in your defense.

Not really. You want make things illegal just because they are more likely to result in accidents. Using this logic anything that has an above average chance should be made illegal.



But I would say domestic violence should be prosecuted, and we should have things like restraining orders so as to curb assaults.
Domestic violence has a crime committed, somebody has been assaulted. Should you start prosecuting people for the mere increased liklihood that they might assault somebody even if they haven't yet done so?

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:01 PM
yup it's 2010 and we are still letting morons in costumes rule our lives.

you'd rather have morons without costumes rule your life?

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:03 PM
Lew is against drunk-driving laws. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html) But that's controversial. I just liked how he made fun of the situation overall.

the situation is not a joking matter if drunk driving was a valid charge, with evidence.

Lew is against drunk driving "laws"? Or is he for drunk driving?

silverhandorder
07-06-2010, 10:03 PM
I would like to see some proof of those numbers. And yes, I have no problem with municipal money being spent to keep dangerous people off the road. Public safety should be one of the few functions of a local municipality.

I don't have the numbers but what does your personal intuition tell you? People close to me drive after drinking all the time, I bet many times over the limit that the cops set. I have yet to hear of one arrest. How good can enforcement possibly be when no one treats it seriously?

In Lohan's case none of the laws stopped her from causing damage.

So maybe neither one of us has numbers but would you not first want to get all of this information before making your decision?

I would certainly not want my local municipality to have a law on the books and enforce it that only stops 1% of offenders. It is a waste of resources even thought perfectly within the constitutional bounds.

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:04 PM
Domestic violence has a crime committed, somebody has been assaulted. Should you start prosecuting people for the mere increased liklihood that they might assault somebody even if they haven't yet done so?

It's a slippery slope.

Ultimately, the solution is to increase the number of roads that are privately owned and allow them to experiment with their own rules. Competition will then show which practices are best. Unfortunately, no one is allowed to set their own rules in their own private roads today (as far as I know).

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 10:04 PM
Domestic violence has a crime committed, somebody has been assaulted. Should you start prosecuting people for the mere increased liklihood that they might assault somebody even if they haven't yet done so?
We do prosecute people for increased likelihood, we have restraining orders on repeat and prior offenders, we have probation, and things like that.

RileyE104
07-06-2010, 10:06 PM
Sorry, but I think being against drunk-driving laws is just... well, it's too anarchist for me.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 10:07 PM
Not really. You want make things illegal just because they are more likely to result in accidents. Using this logic anything that has an above average chance should be made illegal.


No, I want to prohibit behavior that increases risk, I don't want to get rid of all risk, that would be impossible. But drunk drivers pose a far greater risk and commit far more harm than people who are sober, and their driving needs to be curbed and restricted.

ClayTrainor
07-06-2010, 10:08 PM
It's a slippery slope.

Ultimately, the solution is to increase the number of roads that are privately owned and allow them to experiment with their own rules. Competition will then show which practices are best. Unfortunately, no one is allowed to set their own rules in their own private roads today (as far as I know).

Good answer!

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:09 PM
Sorry, but I think being against drunk-driving laws is just... well, it's too anarchist for me.

I'm actually cool with it and I'm not an anarchist. People who commit accidents while drunk-driving will still be punished. I like punishing actual crimes, but punishing for probabilities is a slippery slope which I prefer to disallow.

Natalie
07-06-2010, 10:09 PM
I think she should definitely go to jail. She got TWO duis within less than two months of each other. How reckless and irresponsible. She could have killed someone. Any normal person would have learned their lesson after the first dui. It's not like she blew a .08 or anything. She blew twice the legal limit. She had cocaine on her both times, which I do not think should be illegal. But she violated her probation many times by failing to attend her alcohol classes and drinking while she had that ankle bracelet thing on. I just don't think it's fair that some people who get only one dui have to go serve time in jail, and she was given like a million chances.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:11 PM
Sorry, but I think being against drunk-driving laws is just... well, it's too anarchist for me.

no kidding.

I understand there may be excessive punishment, unreasonable measures, and not all drunk drivers hurt people, but how many should we allow before it's unacceptable? How many killed by drunk drivers is acceptable?

What benefit do we (as a city, State, country) get by allowing people to drive intoxicated?

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:12 PM
We do prosecute people for increased likelihood, we have restraining orders on repeat and prior offenders, we have probation, and things like that.

Huh? You are claiming people get prosecuted for domestic violence who have never committed an assault; but have an increased liklihood to do so? and you think that is ok? repeat offenders/prior offenders, probation is for people that have already committed a crime! not somebody that has an increased liklihood of it.

spudea
07-06-2010, 10:12 PM
She ain't ugly.
http://www.enjoyfrance.com/images/stories/world/celebrities/Lindsay-Lohan-house-broken0into.jpg

Counter argument:

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/129171122339312800.jpg

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:12 PM
No, I want to prohibit behavior that increases risk, I don't want to get rid of all risk, that would be impossible. But drunk drivers pose a far greater risk and commit far more harm than people who are sober, and their driving needs to be curbed and restricted.

Somehow people believe that drunk drivers are equally likely to get into fatal accidents as sober drivers.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 10:13 PM
I don't have the numbers but what does your personal intuition tell you? People close to me drive after drinking all the time, I bet many times over the limit that the cops set. I have yet to hear of one arrest. How good can enforcement possibly be when no one treats it seriously?

In Lohan's case none of the laws stopped her from causing damage.

So maybe neither one of us has numbers but would you not first want to get all of this information before making your decision?

I would certainly not want my local municipality to have a law on the books and enforce it that only stops 1% of offenders. It is a waste of resources even thought perfectly within the constitutional bounds.
My personal intuition tells me that heavily impaired drivers generally get pulled over or get in accidents. An I want proof that it is 1%, I won't let you get away with pulling bullshit numbers.

I think most people treat it seriously, maybe we associate with different classes of people, but I don't associate with people who drive heavily inebriated. And if there is as serious of a problem as you are saying, than I think we need more checkpoints, and more patrol cars on the road.

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:14 PM
no kidding.

I understand there may be excessive punishment, unreasonable measures, and not all drunk drivers hurt people, but how many should we allow before it's unacceptable? How many killed by drunk drivers is acceptable?

What benefit do we (as a city, State, country) get by allowing people to drive intoxicated?

Have drunk driving related accidents stopped after making it illegal? No.

There is really no way to know whether the laws increase or reduce accidents if we don't have anything to compare against. Up to this moment, all roads have drunk driving laws so we don't have any evidence whatsoever to empirically examine the efficiency of drunk driving laws.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:14 PM
Huh? You are claiming people get prosecuted for domestic violence who have never committed an assault; but have an increased liklihood to do so? and you think that is ok? repeat offenders/prior offenders, probation is for people that have already committed a crime! not somebody that has an increased liklihood of it.

what's wrong with increased likelihood?

Using your reasoning, a credible threat isn't a crime either, because the actual act of physical harm isn't done.

Do you believe likelihood should EVER be considered?

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:17 PM
Have drunk driving related accidents stopped after making it illegal? No


Decreased? Definitely.

What amount of statistics would convince you?




There is really no way to know whether the laws increase or reduce accidents if we don't have anything to compare against.


Actually, there is.





Up to this moment, all roads have drunk driving laws so we don't have any evidence whatsoever to empirically examine the efficiency of drunk driving laws.

Even if drunk driving laws didn't exist, police have every right to pull a person over and ask him not to drive if he's shown to be unable to drive safely, that's true regardless of whether he's impaired with alcohol.

I'm not for drunk driving laws, I'm for safer roads.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 10:17 PM
Huh? You are claiming people get prosecuted for domestic violence who have never committed an assault; but have an increased liklihood to do so? and you think that is ok? repeat offenders/prior offenders, probation is for people that have already committed a crime! not somebody that has an increased liklihood of it.

I never claimed such a thing, stop lying, please. And there is absolutely no comparison between the two acts, there is no set of characteristics that make someone more prone to a first act of domestic violence(other than say, public inebriation, which we do prosecute). But we certainly prohibited them from repeating by giving strict punishments.

ClayTrainor
07-06-2010, 10:18 PM
Somehow people believe that drunk drivers are equally likely to get into fatal accidents as sober drivers.

That's an absurd straw-man. No one has presented that argument in this thread, as far as I can tell.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:18 PM
what's wrong with increased likelihood?
Using your reasoning, a credible threat isn't a crime either, because the actual act of physical harm isn't done.
Do you believe likelihood should EVER be considered?

Sure maybe for sentencing or probation as punishment for an actual crime. But we are talking about punishing for pre-crime. I'm going to have to error on the side of freedom.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:20 PM
That's an absurd straw-man. No one has presented that argument in this thread, as far as I can tell.

Ok. So that means everybody agrees they're an increased likelihood?

Good, let's move on, how much likelihood would justify making it illegal?

Or, better yet, not drunk driving illegal, but, is there any amount of incompetence that should warrant a policeman to stopping a person from driving? The police don't need to prove you're doing something illegal, they can instruct you to cease what you do if they believe it's dangerous, even if it's perfectly legal.

RileyE104
07-06-2010, 10:20 PM
I'm actually cool with it and I'm not an anarchist. People who commit accidents while drunk-driving will still be punished. I like punishing actual crimes, but punishing for probabilities is a slippery slope which I prefer to disallow.

Now that I think about it more, I get what you're saying.

If one is driving drunk or under the influence of something and doesn't smash his car into anyone or anything, a crime in which someone or something is harmed hasn't occurred. I get that, and I see the case for an argument.


Many people take MEDICATION and then drive on the road.

In my opinion, those people are just as dangerous as a drunk driver.


I can't really decide my mind on this issue, but after thinking about it more I have to say I'm leaning more to your side now.


I think this issue would best be settled by each individual State allowing their People to vote on it.



Also, one more thing:
I think the BEST way to end drunk driving is not by making laws against it, but by EDUCATING more people on it.
I would never get drunk and then drive my car. In fact, I don't even drink alcohol because I know the health risks that come with it.

Natalie
07-06-2010, 10:20 PM
Counter argument:

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/129171122339312800.jpg


This would make a good anti-drugs poster.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:20 PM
But we certainly prohibited them from repeating by giving strict punishments.

Ironically I think that is what most would argue for. Don't punish precrime, but make punishments for actual crime stricter. I have no problem with that.

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Actually, there is.

Care to show me?

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Sure maybe for sentencing or probation as punishment for an actual crime. But we are talking about punishing for pre-crime. I'm going to have to error on the side of freedom.

how much likelihood would justify punishing pre-crime?

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:22 PM
This would make a good anti-drugs poster.

Or a promotional ad for beer goggles.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 10:22 PM
Ironically I think that is what most would argue for. Don't punish precrime, but make punishments for actual crime stricter. I have no problem with that.

but by your logic, we shouldn't prosecute public inebriation, since it is "pre crime", in your opinion. We would no doubt have an increase in overall assaults and rapes if this was legalized.

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:22 PM
I think this issue would best be settled by each individual State allowing their People to vote on it.

Yep, if only we had real federalism.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:22 PM
how much likelihood would justify punishing pre-crime?

I'm pretty sure I've been arguing against punishing for pre-crime in this thread.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:24 PM
Now that I think about it more, I get what you're saying.

If one is driving drunk or under the influence of something and doesn't smash his car into anyone or anything, a crime in which someone or something is harmed hasn't occurred. I get that, and I see the case for an argument.


Many people take MEDICATION and then drive on the road.

In my opinion, those people are just as dangerous as a drunk driver.


I can't really decide my mind on this issue, but after thinking about it more I have to say I'm leaning more to your side now.


I think this issue would best be settled by each individual State allowing their People to vote on it.

Oh c'mon, you HAD TO KNOW that people who are drunk have varying degrees.

Not all drunks are dangerous, but some are. I don't know if people who say drunk driving shouldn't be illegal mean that there's NEVER a time when they should be stopped, or that there should be a fairer way to measure their ability to drive.

We already have "dry counties" which do exactly that. And no, you can't compare dry counties to wet ones, as they may only reflect their original consumption, not consumption + driving rate.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:24 PM
but by your logic, we shouldn't prosecute public inebriation, since it is "pre crime", in your opinion.

How am I hurting somebody if I am drunk in public?


We would no doubt have an increase in overall assaults and rapes if this was legalized.
You maybe. I have my doubts. Plenty of people get drunk in bars all the time and don't rape or assault others.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:24 PM
I'm pretty sure I've been arguing against punishing for pre-crime in this thread.

So threatening to murder somebody isn't a crime, correct?

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:24 PM
but by your logic, we shouldn't prosecute public inebriation, since it is "pre crime", in your opinion. We would no doubt have an increase in overall assaults and rapes if this was legalized.

People are not going to do something just because it's legal. I lived for some time in a city in South America where there were no laws against public inebriation, and there weren't drunk people in the street any more than in a regular night in an American city where public inebriation is illegal.

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:25 PM
//

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:25 PM
How am I hurting somebody if I am drunk in public?


You are if you're holding or operating an object that can kill somebody, such as a gun, or vehicle.



You maybe. I have my doubts. Plenty of people get drunk in bars all the time and don't rape or assault others.

you don't think they've restrained themselves from rape and assault because it's illegal?

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:26 PM
So threatening to murder somebody isn't a crime, correct?

Why should it be? Anybody stupid enough to threaten murder is more than likely going to get caught and I'm pretty sure that would make it 1st degree murder.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 10:27 PM
How am I hurting somebody if I am drunk in public?


You maybe. I have my doubts. Plenty of people get drunk in bars all the time and don't rape or assault others.

You are posing a risk to public safety, posing a threat to others and yourself. And there is a difference between being buzzed and being dangerously intoxicated to the point where you are prone to hurting yourself or others. Dangerously drunk people are more prone to violence.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:27 PM
Yep, if only we had real federalism.

yeah right.

I'm done with these "states rights" arguments, as soon as Arizona votes to tough up on immigration, "individualist" or "less government" arguments come back again.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:27 PM
You are if you're holding or operating an object that can kill somebody, such as a gun, or vehicle.

How so? I hurt others just by driving? I dont' see it.




you don't think they've restrained themselves from rape and assault because it's illegal?
Who is saying that rape or assault should be legal?

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:28 PM
You are posing a risk to public safety, posing a threat to others and yourself. And there is a difference between being buzzed and being dangerously intoxicated to the point where you are prone to hurting yourself or others. Dangerously drunk people are more prone to violence.

according to these people, there's no varying level of intoxication, which makes me wonder if they believe there's a difference between intoxication and sobriety at all.

ClayTrainor
07-06-2010, 10:29 PM
Ok. So that means everybody agrees they're an increased likelihood?

Why did you try to pretend like people were making that argument, when they weren't? Seems like a dishonest way of engaging in debate, to me.



Good, let's move on, how much likelihood would justify making it illegal?


If you've been reading this thread, you should already know your oppositions answer to this question.



Or, better yet, not drunk driving illegal, but, is there any amount of incompetence that should warrant a policeman to stopping a person from driving?

Wreckless driving, driving on the wrong side of the road, swerving all over the place, etc.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:29 PM
according to these people, there's no varying level of intoxication, which makes me wonder if they believe there's a difference between intoxication and sobriety at all.

Please point out where anybody in this thread said that. Thanks.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:29 PM
How so? I hurt others just by driving? I dont' see it.


no, you increase the possibility of hurting others by driving.

let me ask you, should you be allowed to drive blind folded?

I can't prove to you you'll absolutely hurt people, but can you see? (no pun intended)



Who is saying that rape or assault should be legal?

whoever here that says "drunk driving hasn't stopped, so why bother"

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:30 PM
yeah right.

I'm done with these "states rights" arguments, as soon as Arizona votes to tough up on immigration, "individualist" or "less government" arguments come back again.

I'm not answering any of your posts until you answer this:


Actually, there is.


Care to show me?

silverhandorder
07-06-2010, 10:32 PM
My personal intuition tells me that heavily impaired drivers generally get pulled over or get in accidents. An I want proof that it is 1%, I won't let you get away with pulling bullshit numbers.

I think most people treat it seriously, maybe we associate with different classes of people, but I don't associate with people who drive heavily inebriated. And if there is as serious of a problem as you are saying, than I think we need more checkpoints, and more patrol cars on the road.

First of all I told you I don't know the numbers. The 1% I am using to illustrate and example and tell my own experience. Don't take it any more then that.

Most people do treat driving seriously. However some do not. I don't see how you can rationalize the effectiveness of cops. There is much more drivers then cops and the area they have to cover is huge. Yes you can expand resources harassing citizens to catch a drunk guy every so often.

However first I would like to see how effective this all is. Again based on my experience not at all.

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:32 PM
no, you increase the possibility of hurting others by driving.
let me ask you, should you be allowed to drive blind folded?

I can't prove to you you'll absolutely hurt people, but can you see? (no pun intended)

Sure why not? And if I hurt somebody I should be punished severely.




whoever here that says "drunk driving hasn't stopped, so why bother"
The difference is, those are crimes where somebody has been injured. You purposefully look past this facet which is of critical importance. No victim = no crime.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 10:32 PM
Why should it be? Anybody stupid enough to threaten murder is more than likely going to get caught and I'm pretty sure that would make it 1st degree murder.

It should be because those threatening murder are more likely to commit it, also, you are causing undue emotional and mental harm to the victim. Threats of violence must be preempted.

MRoCkEd
07-06-2010, 10:33 PM
What if I open fire into a crowd but nobody is hit? ;)

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:34 PM
What if I open fire into a crowd but nobody is hit? ;)

Good question! Give it a try!

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 10:35 PM
First of all I told you I don't know the numbers. The 1% I am using to illustrate and example and tell my own experience. Don't take it any more then that.

Most people do treat driving seriously. However some do not. I don't see how you can rationalize the effectiveness of cops. There is much more drivers then cops and the area they have to cover is huge. Yes you can expand resources harassing citizens to catch a drunk guy every so often.

However first I would like to see how effective this all is. Again based on my experience not at all.

Good, so you don't know the numbers, so stop using them. And if you are, like you say, driving with people well over the legal limit, then the cops are doing enough. We must prosecute reckless driving. More of your friends should have records and DUIs, they are threatening their fellow citizens.

I have no problem with harassing reckless drivers.

Natalie
07-06-2010, 10:36 PM
You are posing a risk to public safety, posing a threat to others and yourself. And there is a difference between being buzzed and being dangerously intoxicated to the point where you are prone to hurting yourself or others. Dangerously drunk people are more prone to violence.

Yeah, it's not like she was just a little buzzed. She drove into a bush. And then proved that she wasn't remorseful by getting another dui a month and a half later.

silverhandorder
07-06-2010, 10:40 PM
What if I open fire into a crowd but nobody is hit? ;)

This is a reckless behavior. Same would be driving drunk and losing control of the vehicle. Both should go to jail. This is not a fair comparison.

Driving drunk =/= reckless. Driving wasted is and the punishment should be for endangering others and not for the mere fact of being drunk. The way you determine fault is not by arbitrarily assigning a blood alcohol level. The way to do it is to demonstrate that the perpetrator in fact is not in control of the car.

ClayTrainor
07-06-2010, 10:42 PM
Good, so you don't know the numbers, so stop using them. And if you are, like you say, driving with people well over the legal limit, then the cops are doing enough. We must prosecute reckless driving. More of your friends should have records and DUIs, they are threatening their fellow citizens.

That will be about as successful as trying ot kill every "terrorist". Canada is constantly making harsher DUI laws and yet, whenever I go to a party here, it's obvious that a large chunk of the people are over the limit when they leave in their cars.


I have no problem with harassing reckless drivers.

You don't base your position on how they are driving.

silverhandorder
07-06-2010, 10:42 PM
Good, so you don't know the numbers, so stop using them. And if you are, like you say, driving with people well over the legal limit, then the cops are doing enough. We must prosecute reckless driving. More of your friends should have records and DUIs, they are threatening their fellow citizens.

I have no problem with harassing reckless drivers.

Where did I say my friends were reckless? I'm personally a new driver and don't risk driving drunk. However my friends are good drivers and part of the reason they have never been caught was because they know at when they can handle the car and when they can't.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 10:44 PM
That will be about as successful as trying ot kill every "terrorist". Canada is constantly making harsher DUI laws and yet, whenever I go to a party here, it's obvious that a large chunk of the people are over the limit when they leave in their cars.



You don't base your position on how they are driving.

Just because we can nab everyone, doesn't mean we can't nab anyone, that is poor logic

Yes I do, I do base my position on how someone is driving, how else do cops pull people over and give them a BAC test?

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:45 PM
Sure why not? And if I hurt somebody I should be punished severely.


Why not be allowed to drive blind folded?

I give up.



The difference is, those are crimes where somebody has been injured. You purposefully look past this facet which is of critical importance. No victim = no crime.

If the critical importance is whether a person's actually physically injured, do you believe threats should be legal?

silverhandorder
07-06-2010, 10:47 PM
Why not be allowed to drive blind folded?

I give up.



If the critical importance is whether a person's actually physically injured, do you believe threats should be legal?

Driving blind folded is reckless... Driving drunk is not reckless if you are in control of the car. It is that simple you need a non arbitrary criteria.

Whether you hurt some one or not is not the point at all. We all agree that hurting some one by reckless action should be punished.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:47 PM
I'm not answering any of your posts until you answer this:

I don't care to show you until you tell me what would satisfy your criteria of proof.

Stopping on drunk driver from killing a cat is sufficient for justifying it for me.

CCTelander
07-06-2010, 10:48 PM
I think that very soon now this debate will be entirely moot. Cars will be capable of correcting for any mistakes made by their drivers, and probably even capable fo driving themselves. The technology already exists, it just needs a little more development. At that point, who cares how drunk the driver may be?

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:48 PM
I give up.

Good, we won't be agreeing. You want to use the state to punish people for not actually hurting anybody else.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:49 PM
Driving blind folded is reckless... Driving drunk is not reckless if you are in control of the car. It is that simple you need a non arbitrary criteria.


Says who blind folded is reckless and drunk is not?

Oh, you had an IF, so IF you are not in control, it's reckless and therefore OK to make illegal?





Whether you hurt some one or not is not the point at all. We all agree that hurting some one by reckless action should be punished.

No, we don't.

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:49 PM
I don't care to show you until you tell me what would satisfy your criteria of proof.

Stopping on drunk driver from killing a cat is sufficient for justifying it for me.

A study which shows that a road without drunk driving laws had more accidents that a road with drunk driving laws. I explicitly said so in my post.

Now, where is the study?

WaltM
07-06-2010, 10:49 PM
Good, we won't be agreeing. You want to use the state to punish people for not actually hurting anybody else.

So threats should be legal, correct?

specsaregood
07-06-2010, 10:51 PM
So threats should be legal, correct?

define "threat"? I thought you were giving up.

CCTelander
07-06-2010, 10:54 PM
define "threat"? I thought you were giving up.


It seems to me he never gives up. Nor does he seem to ever argue in an intellectually honest manner. The only way to win this game is not to play.

ClayTrainor
07-06-2010, 10:55 PM
Just because we can nab everyone, doesn't mean we can't nab anyone, that is poor logic

You missed the point. Just because your "nabbing" people doesn't mean you're doing anything to reduce risk or solve the problem. No statistics can account for all the people drinking and driving, that make it home safely.



Yes I do, I do base my position on how someone is driving,

No, you base your position on what they have in their blood.



how else do cops pull people over and give them a BAC test?

Cops can also pull sober people over who are driving wrecklessly :eek:

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 10:56 PM
It seems to me he never gives up. Nor does he seem to ever argue in an intellectually honest manner. The only way to win this game is not to play.

Fourth person in this thread that claims WaltM argues dishonesty. Maybe he'll finally consider not doing that? He has done so in many other threads, and not just today, so I'm not that optimistic.

CCTelander
07-06-2010, 10:58 PM
Fourth person in this thread that claims WaltM argues dishonesty. Maybe he'll finally consider not doing that? He has done so in many other threads, and not just today, so I'm not that optimistic.


I don't know about you, but I ain't holdin' my breath!

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:17 PM
define "threat"? I thought you were giving up.

the fact you need me to define it means you're already willing to say "some yes, some no". Good start.

Let's say, if Jack told Jill "I'm going to rape you, and I mean it!"
(Jill doesn't think Jack is kidding, or she'd not be frightened enough to call the police about it)

Are we to take Jack's word for it? Does he have to prove to you he's going to do it? Or should it be legal for him to make such a statement as he's done ZERO PHYSICAL HARM?

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:18 PM
It seems to me he never gives up. Nor does he seem to ever argue in an intellectually honest manner. The only way to win this game is not to play.

I gave up on arguing with him what's legal driving, as he admitted that blind folded driving should be allowed.

I was asking afterwards, whether threats should be legal, since nobody was harmed physically (or monetarily, look, we got a bonus!)

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:22 PM
You missed the point. Just because your "nabbing" people doesn't mean you're doing anything to reduce risk or solve the problem. No statistics can account for all the people drinking and driving, that make it home safely.


just like no statistics can account for people who don't leave their home and are safe all night.

leaving your home, driving, driving late, driving drunk, have different degrees of risk.



No, you base your position on what they have in their blood.


Don't they only take that AFTER they show that you're unable to hold yourself?



Cops can also pull sober people over who are driving wrecklessly :eek:

that's basically what he said, based on how they're driving, then take a BAC test.

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 11:23 PM
WaltM, where is the study you claimed there is? I posted what would satisfy me. Where is the study? Or were you lying?

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 11:25 PM
You missed the point. Just because your "nabbing" people doesn't mean you're doing anything to reduce risk or solve the problem. No statistics can account for all the people drinking and driving, that make it home safely.



No, you base your position on what they have in their blood.



Cops can also pull sober people over who are driving wrecklessly :eek:

Yes they are, we are prohibiting them from driving on the roads at an increased risk of endangering others when we nab them.

Drunk driving checkpoints statistically reduce alcohol related crashes by 20% and 80% of people say they would be discouraged from drunk driving if they knew there was a checkpoint.
http://www.madd.org/getattachment/a7885731-6ff2-4e2b-928f-134270753f68/Drunk-Driving-and-Enforcement-Fact-Sheet.aspx

No, I base my opinion on how they are driving. They are not pulled over for their BAC, they are pulled over for their driving. There BAC is then checked and a correlation can be made between their BAC and driving behavior, and they can be charged with a DUI. Use your brain please.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-06-2010, 11:27 PM
just like no statistics can account for people who don't leave their home and are safe all night.

leaving your home, driving, driving late, driving drunk, have different degrees of risk.



Don't they only take that AFTER they show that you're unable to hold yourself?



that's basically what he said, based on how they're driving, then take a BAC test.

No, what he is saying that a BAC test is irrelevant. I know people who are sober as day with .10 BAC. Under your reasoning everything should be illegal that increases the risk of driving. This would include not enough sleep (Everyone must get 8 hours sleep in a 24 hour period before driving), using a cell phone, looking in the back seat by turning your head, not having both hands on the wheel, not driving exactly the speed limit, breaking too fast, eating while driving, listening to music while driving, etc. I don't think I need to show most here how absolutely incongruous this is.

CCTelander
07-06-2010, 11:27 PM
Yes they are, we are prohibiting them from driving on the roads at an increased risk of endangering others when we nab them.

Drunk driving checkpoints statistically reduce alcohol related crashes by 20% and 80% of people say they would be discouraged from drunk driving if they knew there was a checkpoint.
http://www.madd.org/getattachment/a7885731-6ff2-4e2b-928f-134270753f68/Drunk-Driving-and-Enforcement-Fact-Sheet.aspx

No, I base my opinion on how they are driving. They are not pulled over for their BAC, they are pulled over for their driving. There BAC is then checked and a correlation can be made between their BAC and driving behavior, and they can be charged with a DUI. Use your brain please.


Drunk driving checkpoints are a clear and flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. But hey, as long as they "work"...

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-06-2010, 11:29 PM
Yes they are, we are prohibiting them from driving on the roads at an increased risk of endangering others when we nab them.

Drunk driving checkpoints statistically reduce alcohol related crashes by 20% and 80% of people say they would be discouraged from drunk driving if they knew there was a checkpoint.
http://www.madd.org/getattachment/a7885731-6ff2-4e2b-928f-134270753f68/Drunk-Driving-and-Enforcement-Fact-Sheet.aspx

No, I base my opinion on how they are driving. They are not pulled over for their BAC, they are pulled over for their driving. There BAC is then checked and a correlation can be made between their BAC and driving behavior, and they can be charged with a DUI. Use your brain please.

I suppose you are also making the same redundant borish argument that Walt is. In clearer terms, their BAC is irrelevant, so is any either factor. Prosecute the crime, not the activity.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:29 PM
Drunk driving checkpoints are a clear and flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. But hey, as long as they "work"...

No, it's not.

a) you've left your house
b) it's not unreasonable
c) they have probably cause

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:31 PM
Use your brain please.

you mean, use their high BAC brain? Please!

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-06-2010, 11:31 PM
No, it's not.

a) you've left your house
b) it's not unreasonable
c) they have probably cause

I suppose its reasonable to assume that everyone driving is driving "drunk". I live in Walt's fantasy land now I suppose. :D

CCTelander
07-06-2010, 11:32 PM
No, it's not.

a) you've left your house
b) it's not unreasonable
c) they have probably cause


A) Irrelevant. It applies to my person as well.
B) It most certainly IS unreasonable.
C) There is NO probable cause. It amounts to a fishing expedition.

ClayTrainor
07-06-2010, 11:32 PM
just like no statistics can account for people who don't leave their home and are safe all night.

leaving your home, driving, driving late, driving drunk, have different degrees of risk.


Even drinking and driving has different degrees of risk, based on how much you've drunk.



Don't they only take that AFTER they show that you're unable to hold yourself?


No, definitely not in my experience. I got breathalyzed once, and blew 0%. He pulled me over for a dead tail light, and claimed he smelled alcohol on my breath.



that's basically what he said, based on how they're driving, then take a BAC test.

The punishment he is advocating is entirely based on the blood content, not the reckless driving.

CCTelander
07-06-2010, 11:32 PM
I suppose its reasonable to assume that everyone driving is driving "drunk". I live in Walt's fantasy land now I suppose. :D


Another excellent point. It's a presumption of guilt.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 11:33 PM
I suppose you are also making the same redundant borish argument that Walt is. In clearer terms, their BAC is irrelevant, so is any either factor. Prosecute the crime, not the activity.

There BAC is not irrelevant, in this case, correlation does equal causation, and is the cause of their reckless driving, thus, they are charged with drunk driving.

And borish isn't even a word, so if you are going to try to be condescending in place of defending your asinine arguments, use real words. ;)

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:35 PM
I suppose its reasonable to assume that everyone driving is driving "drunk". I live in Walt's fantasy land now I suppose. :D

No, it's NOT. that's what "The Patriot" and I are saying, they first see people who show signs of reckless driving.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:37 PM
Even drinking and driving has different degrees of risk, based on how much you've drunk.



No, definitely not in my experience. I got breathalyzed once, and blew 0%. He pulled me over for a dead tail light, and claimed he smelled alcohol on my breath.



The punishment he is advocating is entirely based on the blood content, not the reckless driving.

he and i may disagree slightly. But neither of us believe it's always OK.

You don't seem to believe it's always OK either.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-06-2010, 11:37 PM
There BAC is not irrelevant, in this case, correlation does equal causation, and is the cause of their reckless driving, thus, they are charged with drunk driving.

And borish isn't even a word, so if you are going to try to be condescending in place of defending your asinine arguments, use real words. ;)

It is a word, I forgot to add another "o". The cause of the actual crime is irrelevant. I suppose from now on we should criminalize factors. Like I said, lack of sleep is another big factor for impaired driving. Under your reasoning, it should be illegal to drive if you have not had a certain amount of sleep in a certain amount of time. Of course, you will probably say this is absurd, because how can you prove that everyone needs the same amount of sleep? I say to you, it is absurd to assume that everyone that has the arbitrary amount of BAC is impaired. BAC is as I said, irrelevant. Only the actual act, is relevant. Can you comprehend?

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-06-2010, 11:38 PM
No, it's NOT. that's what "The Patriot" and I are saying, they first see people who show signs of reckless driving.

You must not know what a checkpoint is then.

CCTelander
07-06-2010, 11:39 PM
It is a word, I forgot to add another "o". The cause of the actual crime is irrelevant. I suppose from now on we should criminalize factors. Like I said, lack of sleep is another big factor for impaired driving. Under your reasoning, it should be illegal to drive if you have not had a certain amount of sleep in a certain amount of time. Of course, you will probably say this is absurd, because how can you prove that everyone needs the same amount of sleep? I say to you, it is absurd to assume that everyone that has the arbitrary amount of BAC is impaired. BAC is as I said, irrelevant. Only the actual act, is relevant. Can you comprehend?


Yeah but Mothers Against Changing the Radio Station While Driving just doesn't have the same ring!

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:40 PM
It is a word, I forgot to add another "o". The cause of the actual crime is irrelevant. I suppose from now on we should criminalize factors.


Yes, we should if there's a good reason to believe it's a credible threat.



Like I said, lack of sleep is another big factor for impaired driving. Under your reasoning, it should be illegal to drive if you have not had a certain amount of sleep in a certain amount of time. Of course, you will probably say this is absurd, because how can you prove that everyone needs the same amount of sleep?


Nobody claims everybody is equally drunk based on the amount they drank either. That's what BAC accounts for.



I say to you, it is absurd to assume that everyone that has the arbitrary amount of BAC is impaired. BAC is as I said, irrelevant. Only the actual act, is relevant. Can you comprehend?

yes, he can comprehend, what act? The state of being impaired? or the actual damage done from loss of control in driving?

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 11:40 PM
You must not know what a checkpoint is then.

WaltM: Just so you know... checkpoints stop people randomly.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:41 PM
Yeah but Mothers Against Changing the Radio Station While Driving just doesn't have the same ring!

But mother's against blinking (or breathing) drivers DOES!

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:42 PM
WaltM: Just so you know... checkpoints stop people randomly.

yeah, but you don't own the road, so who are you to complain you didn't have a detour?

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 11:43 PM
yeah, but you don't own the road, so who are you to complain you didn't have a detour?

LOL at your attempt to distract from the fact that your post was flat out wrong.

The Patriot
07-06-2010, 11:46 PM
It is a word, I forgot to add another "o". The cause of the actual crime is irrelevant. I suppose from now on we should criminalize factors. Like I said, lack of sleep is another big factor for impaired driving. Under your reasoning, it should be illegal to drive if you have not had a certain amount of sleep in a certain amount of time. Of course, you will probably say this is absurd, because how can you prove that everyone needs the same amount of sleep? I say to you, it is absurd to assume that everyone that has the arbitrary amount of BAC is impaired. BAC is as I said, irrelevant. Only the actual act, is relevant. Can you comprehend?

No, the cause of the crime is not irrelevant, because the reckless driving in this case would not have occurred without the drunk driving.

And in New Jersey and California, for example, driving while drowsy is illegal.

http://www.californiaduihelp.com/drowsy_driving/driving_while_drowsy.html

http://www.webmd.com/news/20031001/driving-drowsy

It is not absurd, their BAC is the cause of their reckless driving, you admitted this yourself. And no one said that everyone beyond a certain BAC is impaired. But certainly reckless drivers are impaired and their BAC is the cause.

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:52 PM
LOL at your attempt to distract from the fact that your post was flat out wrong.

if it's stationary ,it's not random for location, it's there because they believe it's got a high rate of success. if you're just so unlucky to drive by a location where they think they'll have high odds of fishing up drunks, would you happen to be sober?

WaltM
07-06-2010, 11:53 PM
And no one said that everyone beyond a certain BAC is impaired. But certainly reckless drivers are impaired and their BAC is the cause.

and quote the denier : BUT ITS ARBITRARY!

low preference guy
07-06-2010, 11:54 PM
if it's stationary ,it's not random for location, it's there because they believe it's got a high rate of success. if you're just so unlucky to drive by a location where they think they'll have high odds of fishing up drunks, would you happen to be sober?

Sober people are detained at checkpoints often.

Also, what happened with the study you claimed existed? I already stated what would satisfy me. So where is it? Or were you just lying?

american.swan
07-07-2010, 12:14 AM
Lew is uniformed. She has hurt others and her use of alcohol and drugs continues to endanger herself and others. This judge gave her a wake up call to straighten out her life.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1643089/20100706/lohan_lindsay.jhtml

+1
Lohan has created "victims" of her antics. Therefore, I have to agree with the judge, not Lew.

j6p
07-07-2010, 05:54 AM
Why is Lew defending a hollywood actor??? They already think, they are above the law and that laws are for the little people.

silverhandorder
07-07-2010, 06:17 AM
Yes, we should if there's a good reason to believe it's a credible threat.
The cause is reckless behavior as in going on the road in an impaired state. Not the act of being drunk.



Nobody claims everybody is equally drunk based on the amount they drank either. That's what BAC accounts for.
That is exactly the opposite of what all your opponents in this thread are saying. Some people are perfectly good drivers at a BAC of .10



yes, he can comprehend, what act? The state of being impaired? or the actual damage done from loss of control in driving?

The state of being impaired which is different from the state of being drunk. They do overlap at one point tho.


No, the cause of the crime is not irrelevant, because the reckless driving in this case would not have occurred without the drunk driving.

When "drunk" is defined by BAC and when people become impaired at different levels of BAC then you have no real criteria for figuring out who is impaired and who is not.

Even the cops admit that one can have alcohol in blood and not be drunk, this is why we have a BAC after all. You are basically arguing what not even proponents of the law would argue.


And in New Jersey and California, for example, driving while drowsy is illegal.

http://www.californiaduihelp.com/drowsy_driving/driving_while_drowsy.html

http://www.webmd.com/news/20031001/driving-drowsy

Kinda absurd to heap on additional punishment to reckless behavior. So if some asshole just drives recklessly it should be a lesser crime then if a perfectly good driver becomes reckless by not taking care of him self an example would be getting adequate sleep?


It is not absurd, their BAC is the cause of their reckless driving, you admitted this yourself. And no one said that everyone beyond a certain BAC is impaired. But certainly reckless drivers are impaired and their BAC is the cause.

Their drinking and driving is the cause and not their blood alcohol level (BAC). They should be punished for driving when they know they are impaired and not for simply having alcohol in their blood.


if it's stationary ,it's not random for location, it's there because they believe it's got a high rate of success. if you're just so unlucky to drive by a location where they think they'll have high odds of fishing up drunks, would you happen to be sober?
Which is not what you claimed of criteria being for administering BAC test. Just several posts ago you said the criteria is reckless driving. So now it is also ok to violate my privacy to catch drunks?

Original_Intent
07-07-2010, 06:26 AM
Yes, this is the old libertarian "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." argument. Well, if someone went around constantly punching "at" people and stopping an inch short of their nose, first they would be told to stop, and if they continued to exercise their "right" then likely someone would get sick of it and a real fight would ensue. Lew's drunk driving argument is no different, saying people have a "right" to drive drunk and haven't done anything wrong until they hit someone. Sorry Lew, you are wrong on this one.

Natalie
07-07-2010, 06:37 AM
I just don't understand what the pro-drunk drivers think a suitable punishment would have been for her. She drove off the road and into a bush. What if that had been a little kid? Then gets another dui a short while later. She wasn't even going to be sent to jail at first. The judge gave her the opportunity to go to alcohol classes and prove she can stay sober. Perfectly reasonable to me. After she failed to comply with these two simple tasks, the judge got fed up and sent her to jail. What else was supposed to do? Send her to rehab? Lohan has already been to rehab. Twice I believe. So clearly that is not working.

speciallyblend
07-07-2010, 06:39 AM
agrees with judge,except for that fact she won't spend 90 days but should spend 90days in jail!!!!

silverhandorder
07-07-2010, 06:41 AM
Guys read the thread. No one is defending Lohan or the act of driving impaired. All we are talking about is that drunk driving does not mean a person is impaired. Many people can drive perfectly fine at .10 BAC which would get them thrown in jail.

Krugerrand
07-07-2010, 06:48 AM
She had to have agreed to the terms of her probation. She violated those terms. Broken contracts can be enforced. If the terms had been that she can't wear green lipstick and she does ... then she violated the terms of the probation. I have no sympathy for her.

pcosmar
07-07-2010, 06:50 AM
I disagree with Lew here. Drunk driving kills people, so therefore it absolutely should be illegal.

Driving is not a right, so it should be regulated.

Sober drivers kill far more than drunk driving. THAT IS A PROVABLE FACT!
(statistics and the manipulation of statistics have been posted in previous threads)
DUI laws are just plain stupid and a leftover from a prohibition mentality.

pcosmar
07-07-2010, 06:55 AM
There is a certain level of danger with driving.
True, There is a level of danger walking or living for that matter.


That is why we have licenses, speeding laws, moving laws, and drunk driving laws, so as to curb the risk.
Wrong. They are to produce revenue for the State. They are meant as control conditioning.
They make nothing safer.

specsaregood
07-07-2010, 06:55 AM
DUI laws are just plain stupid and a leftover from a prohibition mentality.

M.A.D.D. was referred to in this thread. The organization was started with lofty goals, but since then the founder of the organization left it stating that "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned." That's right, MADD has the ultimate goal now of banning alcohol completely.

GunnyFreedom
07-07-2010, 07:18 AM
Well, the way I see it, being drunk while driving should not be a crime in and of itself, but it SHOULD be a multiplier for crimes that already exist.

IE: Crossing the centerline sober = a moving violation (ticket) but crossing the centerline while drunk = that plus 30day suspended license (1st offense in 4 years) 90day suspended license (2nd offense in 4 years) 1 year suspension (3rd offense) 5 year suspension (4th offense)

IE: Striking another vehicle sober = moving violation and damages but striking another vehicle drunk = that plus 30 day county lockup misdemeanor and 2.5 year suspended license

IE: Killing a pedestrian/other driver sober = involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide but killing a person drunk = 3rd/2nd degree murder (circumstances depending)

Not meant to be an actual litany of laws meant to be passed, but just an example of a "multiplier."

It is unconscionable for a "free society" to punish "pre-crime" in any sense. Bottom line is that if nobody gets hurt, (or ACTUALLY endangered ie crossing the centerline in traffic) there is no crime against anybody. That should not be prosecuted by the state. Yet, driving drunk does in fact create a lot more danger on the roads than driving sober, so if you make it a 'multiplier' and jack up the consequences enough, it should do MORE to stop drunk driving than even current laws which punish victimless crimes. (or at least stop the drunk and reckless types who do damages)

The system alluded to above would likely have done more to deter Lohan than our current system. If you look at that list of "incidents" which someone posted above, she had already committed a variety of actual crimes while drunk, but in those cases 'drunk' was offered as an excuse to get out of proper consequences for those crimes, and probation and rehab were given in lieu actual consequences and damages.

This would strike a far more proper balance of not punishing people who have committed no real endangerment or actual crime, while ruthlessly dropping the book on people who look to impairment as an "excuse" for their dangerous and damaging behaviors.

As Ron Paul always says, "with freedom comes responsibility." In this case the freedom is to drive home from the bar unmolested, the responsibility is if you commit a driving crime while drunk you get 10x the gavel on the forehead.

This is one, however, that I do not expect to pursue in the State Legislature at this point in time, society is just not ready. :( That will be your job to prepare society for such reforms, whereupon people like me in the Legislatures can pursue that kind of reform.

specsaregood
07-07-2010, 07:23 AM
IE: Crossing the centerline sober = a moving violation (ticket) but crossing the centerline while drunk = that plus 30day suspended license (1st offense in 4 years) 90day suspended license (2nd offense in 4 years) 1 year suspension (3rd offense) 5 year suspension (4th offense)


My only problem with this is "proof". I would only agree with that statement IF there is actual proof (dashboard cam) that they actually did cross that centerline. I simply can't take police officers at their word anymore.

GunnyFreedom
07-07-2010, 07:24 AM
My only problem with this is "proof". I would only agree with that statement IF there is actual proof (dashboard cam) that they actually did cross that centerline. I simply can't take police officers at their word anymore.

I agree 100%, actually. :)

specsaregood
07-07-2010, 07:32 AM
I agree 100%, actually. :)

I'm not surprised. :)

Did you know that cops in many areas are collecting overtime pay the entire time they are in court? Talk about an incentive to unjustly issue traffic citations that people want to fight in court. ie: "I'll give this guy a ticket, just because I know he will fight it, then I'll get paid time and a half to show up in court to defend it."

I don't like that, I think it should be treated like a salaried position, and it would just be a requirement of the job. Or they should only get the same pay as jurors get. They aren't risking their lives or doing anything that requires special skills or training, not while in court they aren't. So no justification to pay them more.

chudrockz
07-07-2010, 07:37 AM
My only problem with this is "proof". I would only agree with that statement IF there is actual proof (dashboard cam) that they actually did cross that centerline. I simply can't take police officers at their word anymore.

If I'm walking to the grocery store later today, and someone driving a car hits and kills me, it matters to me NOT A WHIT whether they did so because they were drunk, or sober, or distracted by their kids in the backseat, or headbanging listening to ultra loud Pantera. I'm still dead.

GunnyFreedom
07-07-2010, 08:11 AM
If I'm walking to the grocery store later today, and someone driving a car hits and kills me, it matters to me NOT A WHIT whether they did so because they were drunk, or sober, or distracted by their kids in the backseat, or headbanging listening to ultra loud Pantera. I'm still dead.

Nope, doesn't matter to you not one bit. I couldn't agree more. It is, however, a form of depraved indifference. Someone who is going to mow you down with their Mercedes just to get their jollies and rocks off (be it for the fun of killing or the need for intoxication) is expressing a form of depraved indifference which is an act more criminal than a mere accident.

While the value of deterrence is disputable, someone who kills a pedestrian because of a genuine error in judgment has in fact performed a lesser offense than someone who kills a pedestrian because they just don't give a dam if they live or die.

That principle goes back at least to Moses, if not all the way to ancient Sumeria.

AuH2O
07-07-2010, 08:23 AM
I haven't read a single post in this thread, but I find the title strangely arousing...

osan
07-07-2010, 08:34 AM
Lew is against drunk-driving laws. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html) But that's controversial. I just liked how he made fun of the situation overall.

I don't think it is controversial at all. Want to drive drunk? OK. Hurt someone and spent at least 10 years in a cage. I am, however, in favor of citizens being allowed to prevent a drunk from getting into a car and driving. I might be wrong on that point.... anyone?

brandon
07-07-2010, 09:07 AM
I routinely drive above the legal limit and have never hurt anyone. On the other hand, I have caused two minor accidents while driving sober.


DUI laws are about as totalitarian as you can get. Outlawing the content of a person's blood? Give me a fucking break.

brandon
07-07-2010, 09:09 AM
I don't think it is controversial at all. Want to drive drunk? OK. Hurt someone and spent at least 10 years in a cage. I am, however, in favor of citizens being allowed to prevent a drunk from getting into a car and driving. I might be wrong on that point.... anyone?

Do you think citizens should be allowed to prevent the elderly and Asian women from driving too?

What about someone with not enough sleep? Or teenagers who have been driving for less than a year? What about someone with muscle fatigue from lifting weights? Or maybe someone who is really angry because they just found out their spouse cheated on them?


Or do you just like to persecute drinkers?

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 09:11 AM
Or do you just like to persecute drinkers?

ding ding ding!!!

fisharmor
07-07-2010, 09:41 AM
Well, the way I see it, being drunk while driving should not be a crime in and of itself, but it SHOULD be a multiplier for crimes that already exist.

Well, this is the crux of the matter right here.
Intoxication isn't a multiplier, it's a mitigator.
Our legal system has declared that drunkenness is an excuse for committing crime.
It happens all the time: my brother even got out of a cocaine possession charge because he was so drunk when they picked him up.

So you're all missing the point here. The drunk driving laws aren't there for any other reason than to try to punish people for unpunishable crimes. I fail to see how the solution is to throw people in a cage for having the heat on in their cars while they sleep in the back seat. The solution is much more obvious: actually hold those people accountable for any damage they do while drunk.

There's an elephant in this room, and it's the fact that drunks get away with murder, literally. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all drunk driving laws are is the second wrong.


I am also not afraid of blindfolded drivers, in the same way that I'm not afraid of heights or even afraid of falling. I'm afraid of what happens at the end of those chains of events, and that's what I tend to focus on.

MelissaWV
07-07-2010, 10:15 AM
Do you think citizens should be allowed to prevent the elderly and Asian women from driving too?

What about someone with not enough sleep? Or teenagers who have been driving for less than a year? What about someone with muscle fatigue from lifting weights? Or maybe someone who is really angry because they just found out their spouse cheated on them?

Or do you just like to persecute drinkers?

Personally, I think if someone wants to nose in and be a hero in those instances, then sure... cool. They also shouldn't be shocked when someone who they had deemed "unable" to drive turns around and yells at them, smacks them, or otherwise lets them have it for trying to prevent them from getting into their vehicle and driving away. That's a two-way street.

I generally offer to drive if the person doesn't seem up to it. This has included people who were drunk, high, angry, bereaved, too short (and missing a cushion, so they couldn't see over the dash), too distracted (parents... most of them really shouldn't drive but have to), etc.. If they refuse, then I would probably get a ride elsewhere, but people seem to welcome the respite from having to drive.

Drunk drivers would probably rather either still be partying, sleeping, or not having to drive so they can focus on whether or not they REALLY have to throw up. I like to put drunks in the back seat so they can hop around or sleep at their leisure. That's not an "I don't trust you" sentiment; it's a "my reflexes are a lot better right now, and you should probably devote yourself to shaking off the booze" sentiment.

But yeah, like I said in the other thread, punish the consequences or, one step earlier, punish really bad behavior on the roads. People are asking "shouldn't it be legal to stop something that's obviously about to happen?" but the leap in logic from someone being over an arbitrary legal limit, to saying that person is dangerous, is a big leap indeed. If someone is swerving around, cutting people off, going really stupidly slow compared to flow of traffic, going the wrong way down the street, driving at night with no lights on, or anything else really obviously dangerous, I think it IS right to stop them and figure out what's going on. It might be something simple. It might be someone's in medical distress. It might be someone drunk or high or tired or talking on their phone or sleep-driving or a toddler behind the wheel by accident; I don't care. There should be a real reason for stopping someone, and certainly no "checkpoints" and the like, or arrests for people "drunk driving" in their parked cars.

TheEvilDetector
07-07-2010, 10:26 AM
I routinely drive above the legal limit and have never hurt anyone. On the other hand, I have caused two minor accidents while driving sober.


DUI laws are about as totalitarian as you can get. Outlawing the content of a person's blood? Give me a fucking break.

I would imagine that if you were seriously injured (eg. paralysis) on the road by someone who was intoxicated to the point of not being able to stand up unassisted, you POV may change.

When you get on the road, do you prefer to get from point A to point B safely, or do you enjoy extreme sports with a high risk of injury?
Perhaps a second set of roads where drug limitations are non-existent needs to be developed.

Now if you could pick from a road with drug limits and a road with no drug limits, which would you choose?

There is your answer about your own attitude to the value of your life.
(this actually can change as people age)

People like different amounts of risk on the roads.

The ones that want to risk more, do not like the extra safety.

Ones that want little risk, do not want the extra danger.

Briefly on the anarchy topic (since your post seems to show that you lean towards anarchy):

As anarchists attempt to gain control of this board, it is important to consider how your own point of view may change in different situations.

Anarchy is very seductive to be sure, but it is not the solution, it is in fact a swift road into a different kind of tyranny altogether.

Specifically, tyranny of the local mob and the whim of the charismatic psychopath who guides the neighbouring herd.

Track record shows that the population will continue to be guided by whoever is most charismatic and this has nothing to do with honesty or good will, but more with the art of manipulation.

I don't necessarily see how it is an improvement over status quo to have more plentiful despots in constant conflict with each other (ie. tribal warfare) as would be the case without a governing authority as we understand the term today.

If you remove government, can you also remove psychopaths who lust for power with a gift for persuasion? I don't think so.

I personally like minarchy.

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 10:27 AM
As anarchists attempt to gain control of this board, it is important to consider how your own point of view may change in different situations.

Are you suggesting that being against drunk driving laws implies that someone is an anarchist? I'm not an anarchist and I'm against drunk driving laws.

silverhandorder
07-07-2010, 10:30 AM
Are you suggesting that being against drunk driving laws implies that someone is an anarchist? I'm not an anarchist and I'm against drunk driving laws.

Ditto.

I am a minarchist before I am an anarchist.

MelissaWV
07-07-2010, 10:33 AM
I've been called many things... but never an anarchist.

specsaregood
07-07-2010, 10:34 AM
Are you suggesting that being against drunk driving laws implies that someone is an anarchist? I'm not an anarchist and I'm against drunk driving laws.

It seems that some have been so domesticated that they can't envision a more limited government than we currently have. Only full govt or lack of govt....

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 10:36 AM
I've been called many things... but never an anarchist.

I thought you were one. Didn't you make a post about having protection agencies instead of police? That's a pretty strong suggestion of supporting anarchy.

constituent
07-07-2010, 10:37 AM
Are you now or have you ever been an anarchist?

silverhandorder
07-07-2010, 10:38 AM
It is actually rather scary how the arguments are structured the same way that liberals argue. "If you are against the way drunk driving laws are today then you want a FFA on the roads with elderly grandmas being hit every other block." I did see WaltM say in other thread that he would entertain the idea of actually punishing for reckless behavior. And earlier in this thread he did claim that police should stop based on how the driver is behaving before administering the breathalyzer test. Maybe this is simply an emotionally charged topic for some and we all need to cool down and come back to this after a day of deliberation?

MelissaWV
07-07-2010, 10:41 AM
I thought you were one. Didn't you make a post about having protection agencies instead of police? That's a pretty strong suggestion of supporting anarchy.

It's a smart thing on these forums to phrase your argument for your audience. There are people on here who are anarchists, and voluntaryists, and what I said makes sense along the entire spectrum.

Currently, it would be the police charged with pulling over people who are driving like crap.

In another type of society, it would be up to whoever owned that stretch of road to provide security that would pull over people who are, in the eyes of that security agency, driving unsafely.

The basic point remains the same: pull over the people who are demonstrably endangering others and property. Determine the cause. Take further action or not, based on what's been found out.

This is absolutely different than: ticket/fine/jail people who are over the legal limit and behind the wheel, whether they are parked or not, and whether they are capable of driving normally or not. Generally ignore those others who are driving like crap, because you are busy staffing a DUI checkpoint. Flood the courts with so many worthless minor tickets that they can't see the forest from the trees.

pcosmar
07-07-2010, 10:43 AM
I thought you were one. Didn't you make a post about having protection agencies instead of police? That's a pretty strong suggestion of supporting anarchy.

You don't have to be an "anarchist" to oppose a Police State. Or to support Constitutional Law enforcement.

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 10:44 AM
You don't have to be an "anarchist" to oppose a Police State.

I made no such claim.

Krugerrand
07-07-2010, 10:48 AM
Again ... Ms. Lohan is not going to jail for a DUI. She's going to jail for violating the terms of her probation.

This is the article Lew quotes. Lew got it wrong.

Lindsay Lohan was sentenced to 90 days in jail followed by a 90-day in-patient rehab program for violating probation on a previous DUI case. Lohan broke down in tears as Judge Marsha Revel revealed her decision. Lohan must surrender to the court on July 20 at 8:30am to begin serving her time.

Dina Lohan tells PopEater exclusively, "This is so not fair to do this to my child."

Lohan was given an opportunity to address the court before sentencing was set. She spoke for several minutes, tearfully apologizing and claiming she thought she was fulfilling her probation.

"I wasn't expecting any special treatment aside from the understanding that I have to provide for myself, I have to work. My schedule is, unfortunately, very different," Lohan told the court. "Having said that, I did do everything I was told to do and did the best I could to balance jobs and showing up."

"I'm not taking this as a joke. It's my life, it's my career," she continued. "I've learned from my experiences, I take responsibility for my actions, I've tried to do the best I can."

Ultimately, the judge didn't buy Lohan's defense, pointing out a pattern of violations dating back to 2007 when she was first placed on probation in 2007. "Because the program let her have some leeway, she thought it was OK. The court just doesn't buy it," the judge said.

Sheriff's spokesperson Steve Whitmore said many female inmates in Lohan's situation only serve about 25% of their sentence--which means about 23 days for Lohan.

Judge Revel heard testimony today from employees of Right On, the alcohol education program monitoring Lohan, who admitted the actress hadn't complied with the judge's orders to attend classes each week. Lohan missed a total of 7 meetings over the last 27 weeks.

Though the judge asked Lohan to surrender immediately to begin her sentence, Lohan's lawyer, Shawn Chapman Holley, requested a two-week delay so the actress could have time to prepare. The judge gave permission but required Lohan to keep her SCRAM device in place for the duration of the two week period.

Lohan was calm and collected in the Beverly Hills courtroom earlier this morning; she arrived early to the hearing with her lawyers and appeared in good spirits.

The actress may not have been fully aware of how badly her day could end. She took to Twitter in the early morning to voice her excitement about a sale on Louis Vuitton bags.

During the court proceedings, the judge ruled that she would not allow the prosecutor to present evidence that Lohan was drinking after the MTV Movie Awards on June 7.

The 24-year-old actress got on Judge Revel's bad side in May after failing to appear at a mandatory progress hearing over the terms of her probation, claiming she'd had her passport stolen while attending the Cannes Film Festival in France. A livid Revel issued a warrant, but Lohan avoided arrest by posting $100,000 bail while still overseas.

Upon her return to the States, Lohan appeared in court, where Revel scolded the actress by ordering her to lay off the Red Bull and vodkas, submit to random drug testing and wear an alcohol-monitoring device, called a SCRAM, around her ankle.

Two weeks later, the device detected an "alcohol-related" violation, as prosecutors coined it, while Lohan was partying after the MTV Movie Awards. Though the star and her lawyers downplayed the incident and it was later determined she had not been drinking, an enraged Revel doubled Lohan's bail to $200,000.

Since that incident, Lohan has not dialed back her nightlife activities, and she is routinely spotted -- with her SCRAM firmly in place -- at clubs and restaurants. But even without booze helping to fuel her exploits, Lohan has been keeping the paparazzi and gossip bloggers busy. While celebrating her 24th birthday on July 2, Lohan was allegedly punched in the face by a jealous waitress at club Voyeur.

This string of legal woes for Lohan stems from a June 2007 arrest in which she was taken into custody for suspicion of drunk driving and cocaine possession. Just a month earlier, she was arrested on another DUI charge. Lohan spent a total of 84 minutes in jail after pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of being under the influence of cocaine and no contest to two counts of driving with a blood-alcohol level above 0.08 percent and one count of reckless driving.

She was rapped with three years of probation, but in October asked for a year-long extension because she had fallen behind on her court-ordered alcohol-education classes. She attended 10 of the 13 required classes and officials said her "attitude is positive and receptive to ideas regarding lifestyle changes."

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 10:51 AM
Again ... Ms. Lohan is not going to jail for a DUI. She's going to jail for violating the terms of her probation.

What was the probation for? A previous DUI case. Therefore the first arrest should have never taken place, so the probation for that arrest should also have never taken place.

pcosmar
07-07-2010, 10:58 AM
I made no such claim.

No, Not directly.

Originally Posted by low preference guy
I thought you were one. Didn't you make a post about having protection agencies instead of police? That's a pretty strong suggestion of supporting anarchy.

I am in favor of Disbanding police departments. I oppose the Standing Army in our streets.
I am not an Anarchist.
I am in favor of eliminating 99% of the laws on the books, an having the remainder enforced by the duly elected Sheriff.

I am in favor of limits on Government. not the elimination of government.

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 11:02 AM
strong suggestion =\= "have to be"

Krugerrand
07-07-2010, 11:03 AM
What was the probation for? A previous DUI case. Therefore the first arrest should have never taken place, so the probation for that arrest should also have never taken place.

Then she should not have plead guilty nor agreed to the terms of her probation.

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 11:06 AM
Then she should not have plead guilty nor agreed to the terms of her probation.

Those are tricky situations. Sometimes you get a harder sentence for not pleading guilty to a non-crime. It's like paying taxes. The "right thing to do" is to not give money under coercion, but you might end up dead or jailed, so most people decide to pay.

Still, Lew's point is valid because the arrest that started the whole thing shouldn't have taken place because Lindsay committed no crime.

constituent
07-07-2010, 11:12 AM
Again ... Ms. Lohan is not going to jail for a DUI. She's going to jail for violating the terms of her probation.

Oh, ok then. That makes it all better. :rolleyes: ;)


Then she should not have plead guilty nor agreed to the terms of her probation.

...And been locked in a cage. Yea, makes sense...

Krugerrand
07-07-2010, 11:21 AM
Oh, ok then. That makes it all better. :rolleyes: ;)

...And been locked in a cage. Yea, makes sense...

I don't like our current judicial setup of pleading guilty to lesser crimes to save the system from having to prove guilty. I think it's encouraged an out of control judicial system. If everybody who believed themselves innocent fought their convictions it would force the system to only try cases that are worthwhile. They would never have the resources to do otherwise. Here you have somebody who had the resources and notoriety to actually fight the stupid laws and try and make a change.

Instead she agreed to the terms of her probation and should have heeded them more carefully.

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 11:24 AM
Putting someone in jail for violating the terms of probation resulting from a non-crime makes a lot of sense. In Krugerrands's world.

constituent
07-07-2010, 11:30 AM
I don't like our current judicial setup of pleading guilty to lesser crimes to save the system from having to prove guilty. I think it's encouraged an out of control judicial system. If everybody who believed themselves innocent fought their convictions it would force the system to only try cases that are worthwhile. They would never have the resources to do otherwise. Here you have somebody who had the resources and notoriety to actually fight the stupid laws and try and make a change.

Instead she agreed to the terms of her probation and should have heeded them more carefully.

Which, of course, completely justifies locking her in a cage.

YumYum
07-07-2010, 11:37 AM
There is a biased towards being drunk, whether a person is driving or not. People are arrested for being "Publicly Intoxicated", even when they haven't committed a crime.

A while back there was a documentary on drunk driving. In Virginia, an electrical engineer who was also an executive, and who never drank, went to a company Christmas party and got drunk. So did everybody else, which meant that nobody could drive him home. He made a foolish decision by driving home. While driving home he ran a red light and hit a van and it exploded; killing a father, mother and their five children. He got life imprisonment.

Here was a man that was a good citizen; did not have a criminal record(not even a traffic violation), and the book was thrown at him. Had he not been drinking when he got into the accident, he would have received 5 to 7 years for involuntary manslaughter. Instead he was convicted of murder.

His conviction is paramount to a "hate crime". If I kill a minority because I am in a rage, I will be convicted and sentenced based on the circumstances and evidence of my actions and my motivation. If I kill a minority because I hate and want to kill minorities, under the "hate crime law", I will receive a more severe penalty than if I had committed premeditated murder (provided that I didn't murder that person because of his or her race).

If your drunk, your guilty as charged, even if you haven't violated any laws. You can thank Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) for this. My uncle got fed up with MADD, and he belongs to DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers).

Krugerrand
07-07-2010, 11:42 AM
Putting someone in jail for violating the terms of probation resulting from a non-crime makes a lot of sense. In Krugerrands's world.

I believe in a rule of law. I believe that probation can fit that rule of law. If there was a problem with Ms. Lohan's probation, then she should have fought it in some other way than partying in Europe.

Heck - if she just announced that she thought it was a stupid law and therefore was going to ignore the probation, I'd consider having sympathy.

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 11:45 AM
I believe in a rule of law. I believe that probation can fit that rule of law. If there was a problem with Ms. Lohan's probation, then she should have fought it in some other way than partying in Europe.

Heck - if she just announced that she thought it was a stupid law and therefore was going to ignore the probation, I'd consider having sympathy.

That's your belief. Lew believes (and I agree) she shouldn't be punished for a non-crime, or for being in probation due to a non-crime, and nothing that you said refutes Lew's point.

Krugerrand
07-07-2010, 11:46 AM
There is a biased towards being drunk, whether a person is driving or not. People are arrested for being "Publicly Intoxicated", even when they haven't committed a crime.

A while back there was a documentary on drunk driving. In Virginia, an electrical engineer who was also an executive, and who never drank, went to a company Christmas party and got drunk. So did everybody else, which meant that nobody could drive him home. He made a foolish decision by driving home. While driving home he ran a red light and hit a van and it exploded; killing a father, mother and their five children. He got life imprisonment.

Here was a man that was a good citizen; did not have a criminal record(not even a traffic violation), and the book was thrown at him. Had he not been drinking when he got into the accident, he would have received 5 to 7 years for involuntary manslaughter. Instead he was convicted of murder.

His conviction is paramount to a "hate crime". If I kill a minority because I am in a rage, I will be convicted and sentenced based on the circumstances and evidence of my actions and my motivation. If I kill a minority because I hate and want to kill minorities, under the "hate crime law", I will receive a more severe penalty than if I had committed premeditated murder (provided that I didn't murder that person because of his or her race).

If your drunk, your guilty as charged, even if you haven't violated any laws. You can thank Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) for this. My uncle got fed up with MADD, and he belongs to DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers).

Let's not forget, this is a cocaine use DUI. I'm not familiar with the circumstance of the arrest as to if there was property damage, etc. Yet, I would rather see people allowed to ingest whatever they want and penalties only for reckless driving or for damages regardless of cause.

WaltM
07-07-2010, 11:48 AM
That's your belief. Lew believes (and I agree) she shouldn't be punished for a non-crime, or for being in probation due to a non-crime, and nothing that you said refutes Lew's point.

So if Lew believed making verbal threats is a non-crime, he'd want people who made them go unpunished. Yeah, I heard you.

Krugerrand
07-07-2010, 11:49 AM
That's your belief. Lew believes (and I agree) she shouldn't be punished for a non-crime, or for being in probation due to a non-crime, and nothing that you said refutes Lew's point.

I see a difference between:
Non crime -> jail
Non crime -> guilty plea -> probation -> violate probation -> jail

Lew painted this as the former. I find that more than misleading.

WaltM
07-07-2010, 11:51 AM
I don't think it is controversial at all. Want to drive drunk? OK. Hurt someone and spent at least 10 years in a cage. I am, however, in favor of citizens being allowed to prevent a drunk from getting into a car and driving. I might be wrong on that point.... anyone?

I'm with you, I think anybody capable of helping, can and should. not sure how easy it is for you to pull a person over peacefully, without a badge and strobe lights though.

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 11:51 AM
I see a difference between:
Non crime -> jail
Non crime -> guilty plea -> probation -> violate probation -> jail

Lew painted this as the former. I find that more than misleading.

The difference is irrelevant, at least for me. Both start with non crime and end in jail. That's the most important thing to me. Whether she was a probation for the non-crime is completely irrelevant in my book, and therefore not worth mentioning. For those who are interested in the complete details of the case, like you, you are free to read a complete news article instead of a blog post.

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 11:53 AM
Question for Krugerrand:

When prohibition ended, everyone who was jailed for alcohol charges was freed, even those who violated their probations. Do you think those who were in jail for violating their probations should have remained in jail?

WaltM
07-07-2010, 11:54 AM
I see a difference between:
Non crime -> jail
Non crime -> guilty plea -> probation -> violate probation -> jail

Lew painted this as the former. I find that more than misleading.

Hardly.

It could have been jail in the first place, or it's a non-crime (unpunishable).

I don't think you can go to jail for something that's not a crime, you only go to probation as an alternative to jail , and then go to jail because you "gave up" or "failed" the alternative.

There's no guilty plea if it's a non-crime.
There's no probation on its own worth jailing if it wasn't for a crime to begin with.

Yes, the process and length of time is different, and in the latter case, Lindsay is more deserving of punishment, but she COULD HAVE been punished from the beginning too.

WaltM
07-07-2010, 11:55 AM
Question for Krugerrand:

When prohibition ended, everyone who was jailed for alcohol charges was freed, even those who violated their probations. Do you think those who were in jail for violating their probations should have remained in jail?

that all depends on whether he believes a law is just, or whether people should be freed when their crime is legalized.

Krugerrand
07-07-2010, 11:58 AM
Question for Krugerrand:

When prohibition ended, everyone who was jailed for alcohol charges was freed, even those who violated their probations. Do you think those who were in jail for violating their probations should have remained in jail?

Case by case basis. There is so much of pleading guilty to lesser charges ... that it should be open to the DA to retry if applicable.

WaltM
07-07-2010, 11:59 AM
I routinely drive above the legal limit and have never hurt anyone.


Was it because you were careful? Or nobody was around? Or did you get close, but didn't do it by being lucky?



On the other hand, I have caused two minor accidents while driving sober.


Would that have been prevented if you drank some?




DUI laws are about as totalitarian as you can get. Outlawing the content of a person's blood? Give me a fucking break.

No, outlawing the content of your blood IF YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO OPERATE A MACHINE WHICH CAN KILL SOMEBODY, AND STATISTICS SUPPORT THAT THE RISKS INCREASE. You're free to drink yourself dead if you don't drive.

I guess you would complain even more for outlawing minors, outlawing amputation, outlawing retardation as they're unable to drive legally. (Nevermind that context was left out, as brandon intentionally did)

YumYum
07-07-2010, 12:01 PM
The only people who are opposed to drunk driving laws are drunks (with the exception of the ancaps):). Drunks always drive drunk. Moderate drinkers rarely drive drunk. America could pass a law like the "zero tolerance" law that Finland has and the drunks would protest. On the other hand, while the moderate drinkers may not like a zero tolerance law, they would not challenge it and they would make sure that they don't drink and drive.

YumYum
07-07-2010, 12:07 PM
Let's not forget, this is a cocaine use DUI. I'm not familiar with the circumstance of the arrest as to if there was property damage, etc. Yet, I would rather see people allowed to ingest whatever they want and penalties only for reckless driving or for damages regardless of cause.

Like Natalie said, Lohan has been given chance after chance. Until our government collapses, we have laws that protect our fellow citizens that we have to abide by. Lohan was in multiple accidents while intoxicated, so her sentence is actually very lenient. I would have given her a year in jail with a five year probation (I would also have made it mandatory that she take acting lessons).

MelissaWV
07-07-2010, 12:07 PM
The only people who are opposed to drunk driving laws are drunks (with the exception of the ancaps):). Drunks always drive drunk. Moderate drinkers rarely drive drunk. America could pass a law like the "zero tolerance" law that Finland has and the drunks would protest. On the other hand, while the moderate drinkers may not like a zero tolerance law, they would not challenge it and they would make sure that they don't drink and drive.

I don't drink. I think "drunk driving laws" are total bullshit.

dannno
07-07-2010, 12:11 PM
I don't drink. I think "drunk driving laws" are total bullshit.

I drink.. I don't drink and drive.. I also think "drunk driving laws" are total bullshit.

I also think Lindsey Lohan is hot.

YumYum
07-07-2010, 12:12 PM
I don't drink. I think "drunk driving laws" are total bullshit.

You need to get drunk and drive. When you wake up in the driver's seat doing 90 miles an hour you will change your mind.

WaltM
07-07-2010, 12:19 PM
The only people who are opposed to drunk driving laws are drunks (with the exception of the ancaps):). Drunks always drive drunk.


I can live without these people.



Moderate drinkers rarely drive drunk. America could pass a law like the "zero tolerance" law that Finland has and the drunks would protest. On the other hand, while the moderate drinkers may not like a zero tolerance law, they would not challenge it and they would make sure that they don't drink and drive.

you are right.

Though lots of moderates and libertarians would protest it either on authority and utilitarian basis, they're taking it less personally. I doubt a zero tolerance law would work as well as Finland, but you're right, it'll deter rational people from making stupid decisions, and punish the stupid ones (yes, I said drunks are stupid, got a problem?).

For those who say "what about those who are wrongly accused and wrongly convicted?!" My answer : at least they're alive, what about those who were accidentally killed by drunks?

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 12:42 PM
The only people who are opposed to drunk driving laws are drunks (with the exception of the ancaps):).

I don't drink, am not an ancap, and I'm opposed to drunk driving laws.

osan
07-14-2010, 10:21 AM
Do you think citizens should be allowed to prevent the elderly and Asian women from driving too?

What about someone with not enough sleep? Or teenagers who have been driving for less than a year? What about someone with muscle fatigue from lifting weights? Or maybe someone who is really angry because they just found out their spouse cheated on them?


Or do you just like to persecute drinkers?

No need to respond as if you were an imbecile. I asked a legitimate question. If you have an intelligent answer, then give it. You know barely the first thing about me, yet you respond with this manner of of rank drivel and a sarcastic tone. Get over yourself and learn some manners.

That said, your point about elderly and sleep-deprived is well taken. Your addition of Asian women was a weak attempt at implying racist qualities on my part. Give it a rest and try growing up a bit.

Krugerrand
07-14-2010, 10:26 AM
No need to respond as if you were an imbecile. I asked a legitimate question. If you have an intelligent answer, then give it. You know barely the first thing about me, yet you respond with this manner of of rank drivel and a sarcastic tone. Get over yourself and learn some manners.

That said, your point about elderly and sleep-deprived is well taken. Your addition of Asian women was a weak attempt at implying racist qualities on my part. Give it a rest and try growing up a bit.

Sorry, Osan, but the first thing that came to mind when I saw a (slighlty) old thread with you on it made me wonder if you're considering the run for Byrd seat?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2770682#post2770682
Any word on the GOP or Libertarians looking to run anybody?

Imaginos
07-14-2010, 10:34 AM
I think she should definitely go to jail. She got TWO duis within less than two months of each other.
+1
I am all for drinking and using recreational drugs.
I do NOT use them but I fully support others' right to use whatever substance they like.
I support the legalization of the entire spectrum of recreational drugs, not just pot.
However, as a libertarian, I have to draw the line somewhere and the line is 'you don't have a right to endanger other person's property or life'.
Using alcohol and recreational drugs is one thing but driving under the influence of the aforementioned substances is entirely different issue.
For that reason, although she has a right to use whatever substance she likes, she doesn't have a right to do so while driving.

Natalie
07-14-2010, 10:38 AM
This reminds me of a joke my bf told me a little while ago:

Why was Helen Keller a bad driver? Because she was a woman!

HAHAHAHA! :p