Confessions of a drunk driver

[Michigan11]

Alright here goes, I had my first dui after leaving a bowling alley with my girlfriend at the time, we got into a fight, while leaving, I met her nearby in a restaurant parking lot next door beforehand. When we left the bowling alley, we pulled over into the parking lot and I got out and bolted towards my truck and got in and drove.

I was pretty damn drunk, so I drove south then west, the complete opposite directions from my home, and ended up as I stated in a text to my girlfriend at the time in "willy wonka land". I drove thru small town streets, went thru a self serve car wash that took my ladder rack partially off, but my ladders completely off. Went thru the side road ditch next, and then ended up on the small town road of 35 mph, when a cops sirens went off.

Once I saw those sirens I pulled left into a industrial park and took a hard right into a parking spot driving right over a parking sign, then reversed it of course, then shut my lights and engine off. Then I waited hoping this guy would get the hell out of here, but he pulled right up behind me, and had a flash light. I got out of my truck, asking what was going on, he said, hey have you been drinking, I said of course, he started laughing and we took it from there. He also said were those my ladders on the side of the road back there, I said no of course not I don't even have a ladder rack, as I saw one of the two ladder racks still on my truck.

Anyways, I was pretty drunk, at .016, and the next day I got out of the jail at 7am still buzzed, picked up from my girlfriend, who took me to my truck that was at some lot. When I saw my F-250, $40,000 truck it looked like it was rolled over a hill a few times, and I was pissed! So I went to court and got a good lawyer, and the lawyer knew a good judge, who was just happening to retire at that time, and told me, that if I didnt get that judge out of the 3 judges, I would be screwed. So I lucked out I guess and got that particular judge, and it was also his last day in court, before retirement. Before I went in with my lawyer, I told him, I would pay him a bonus if he got me out of these circumstances. He said well, I pay around $3,000 a month for my advertising budget. As I and my lawyer went into the court room, only the judge, my lawyer and I, which really shocked me, since every other court room had people watching, I waited and I got 6 months probation, without having to blow breathalizers each month, and a fine. The normal fine was supposed to be over a grand, yet, when my lawyer and I left the room and went to the window to pay, it showed $150, not a grand whatever, and my lawyer pointed it out and said, oh wow lets hurry up and pay this. It was like winning at the casino. I paid it and then threw the lawyer a bonus, and when I showed up for the once a month probation the lady gave me a breathalizer still each time, even though the judge said no need. Anyways, what I realized was that the courts are corrupt, the good lawyers know the judges and prosecutors, and it depends how much money you have to spend. Most people don't have thousands to spend to get out of something like a DUI, so they go straight to jail and get fucked. I was pretty drunk that night, but I wish there was another option of just being pulled over and told to take a break. My uncle told me how he used to open the door to a cop being pulled over and have beer bottles falling out of the car, and being told to hed up the road and get a coffee.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BoHNsCYTbw

[phill4paul]

I would really like to read this. Unfortunately I don't read 'wall-o-texts.' Please, reformat your account.

[juleswin]

You might wanna space it out abit. It's hard to read with all the words jumbled together like that

[kcchiefs6465]

I was pretty damn drunk, so I drove south then west, the complete opposite directions from my home, and ended up as I stated in a text to my girlfriend at the time in "willy wonka land". I drove thru small town streets,
Now I am going to read the rest, but thought I'd pause for a moment, ^ THIS ^ was your problem. I know the feeling though, especially after a drunken argument with a gf.

[The Northbreather]

The alternative, Gods Green Herb and having to drive reeaaaaal slow cause your eyes are so squinted. :D

Oh yea. have the girlfriend trained to stay sober and drive you when you get drunk.

[presence]

I would really like to read this. Unfortunately I don't read 'wall-o-texts.' Please, reformat your account.



...and I get hell for formatting the shit out of my ops. wtf?

[Christian Liberty]

I still find it somewhat weird that some hardcore libertarians even have a problem with DWI laws. Granted, I am all for road privatization but I have no doubt private roads would enforce safety standards like this as well...

[Ranger29860]

From what I can gather from that wall of text.

1. You were driving drunk
2. you had pieces falling off of your truck. Endangering other drivers.
3. Once a cop tried to pull you over you tried to hide and got caught. While also running over someones parking sign.
4. your truck got damaged between you being picked up and you going to get it from a lot.
5. You then got off what sounds like really easily.
6. Then at the end of that wall you say you would like there to be a catch and release program for drunk drivers? (as in let you keep going)


Yeah..... It sounds like you got of way to easy for what could have been

1. DUI
2. Littering
3. Running from a cop (not sure what the actual term for this is)
4. Damage of private property

And probably a slew of other charges. Then you come on here and it comes off as if you are bragging about the whole ordeal.

Again maybe I am misreading this since my brain can't comprehend that many squished words together lol.

[phill4paul]

Now I am going to read the rest, but thought I'd pause for a moment, ^ THIS ^ was your problem. I know the feeling though, especially after a drunken argument with a gf.

Took a left when you generally take a right??????????? Must be Monday.........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6xwDchNXxc

[RickyJ]

I was pretty drunk that night, but I wish there was another option of just being pulled over and told to take a break.

Pulling you over and putting you in jail is a break, a break for all the other drivers and pedestrians out there too. I got no sympathy for drunk drivers, too many people have been killed by them.

[kcchiefs6465]

Went thru the side road ditch next, and then ended up on the small town road of 35 mph, when a cops sirens went off. Once I saw those sirens I pulled left into a industrial park and took a hard right into a parking spot driving right over a parking sign, then reversed it of course, then shut my lights and engine off

[SNIPPED]

Anyways, I was pretty drunk, at .016, and the next day I got out of the jail at 7am still buzzed, picked up from my girlfriend, who took me to my truck that was at some lot.

When I saw my F-250, $40,000 truck it looked like it was rolled over a hill a few times, and I was pissed!

Damn, you must have been fucked up. I assume you mean .16 though? .016 isn't even a half a beer for the average sized person. It's all for profit. Though you, running over a stop sign etc. should have been cited for reckless driving, at the least. I used to drive drunk a couple years ago and never had a problem. I drove through blizzards and sleet and while everyone around me was sliding into ditches I made it home. Some by the Grace of God I believe. I got let off once where I was driving two hours away back home and was speeding. The trip took 4-5 hours with how bad it was. People were going into the wall on the interstate driving 15 MPH. A clear stretch finally opened up and I was doing about 45-50 in a 35. He let me go with just a speeding ticket when I was clearly 'intoxicated.' [though I sober up pretty quickly talking to the police] I was underage too and didn't have proof of insurance on me. He checked on the ticket that I showed. Great cop and I can't even remember his name. He was old school.

[phill4paul]

Damn, you must have been fucked up. I assume you mean .16 though? .016 isn't even a half a beer for the average sized person. It's all for profit. Though you, running over a stop sign etc. should have been cited for reckless driving, at the least. I used to drive drunk a couple years ago and never had a problem. I drove through blizzards and sleet and while everyone around me was sliding into ditches I made it home. Some by the Grace of God I believe. I got let off once where I was driving two hours away back home and was speeding. The trip took 4-5 hours with how bad it was. People were going into the wall on the interstate driving 15 MPH. A clear stretch finally opened up and I was doing about 45-50 in a 35. He let me go with just a speeding ticket when I was clearly 'intoxicated.' [though I sober up pretty quickly talking to the police] I was underage too and didn't have proof of insurance on me. He checked on the ticket that I showed. Great cop and I can't even remember his name. He was old school.

I h8 u now. Not really.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I would really like to read this. Unfortunately I don't read 'wall-o-texts.' Please, reformat your account.


You might wanna space it out abit. It's hard to read with all the words jumbled together like that

Alright here goes.

I had my first DUI, after leaving a bowling alley. I was with my girlfriend at the time. We got into a fight while leaving. I met her nearby in a restaurant parking lot next door beforehand. When we left the bowling alley we pulled over into the parking lot and I got out and bolted towards my truck and got in and drove.

I was pretty damn drunk, so I drove south and then west, the complete opposite directions from my home. I ended up as I stated in a text to my girlfriend at the time in "willy wonka land". I drove thru small town streets, went thru a self serve car wash that took my ladder rack partially off, but my ladders completely off. I went thru the side road ditch next and then ended up on the small town road with a speed limit of 35 mph.

A cops sirens went off. Once I saw those sirens I pulled left into a industrial park and took a hard right into a parking spot driving right over a parking sign. Then I reversed it of course and then shut my lights and engine off. I waited hoping this guy would get the hell out of here, but he pulled right up behind me and had a flash light.

I got out of my truck asking what was going on. He said, hey have you been drinking? I said of course. He started laughing and we took it from there. He also said were those my ladders on the side of the road back there. I said, no, of course not. I don't even have a ladder rack, as I saw one of the two ladder racks still on my truck.

Anyways, I was pretty drunk at .16, and the next day I got out of the jail at 7 a.m. still buzzed, picked up from my girlfriend, who took me to my truck that was at some parking lot. When I saw my F-250, a $40,000 truck, it looked like it was rolled over a hill a few times and I was pissed! So I went to court and got a good lawyer, and the lawyer knew a good judge, who was just happening to retire at that time. He told me that if I didn't get that judge out of the 3 judges I would be screwed. So I lucked out I guess and got that particular judge. It was also his last day in court, before retirement.

Before I went in with my lawyer I told him I would pay him a bonus if he got me out of these circumstances. He said, I pay around $3,000 a month for my advertising budget. As my lawyer and I entered the court room we were alone with the judge, which really shocked me since every other court room had people watching.

I waited for the judge's decision and I got 6 months probation, without having to blow breathalyzer each month and a fine. The normal fine was supposed to be over a thousand, yet when my lawyer and I left the room and went to the window to pay it showed $150. It was not a thousand dollars however. My lawyer pointed that out and said, oh wow lets hurry up and pay this!

It was like winning at the casino. I paid it and then threw the lawyer a bonus.

When I showed up for the once a month probation the lady gave me a breathalyzer test each time even though the judge said there no need. Anyways, what I realized was that the courts are corrupt and the good lawyers know the judges and prosecutors. Of course it depends on how much money you have to spend. Most people don't have thousands to spend to get out of something like a DUI so they go straight to jail and get fucked. I was pretty drunk that night, but I wish there was another option instead of just being pulled over and told to take a break. My uncle told me once how he used to open the door while being pulled over by a cop and had beer bottles falling out of the car. The cop just told him to head up the road and get a coffee.

[angelatc]

I still find it somewhat weird that some hardcore libertarians even have a problem with DWI laws. Granted, I am all for road privatization but I have no doubt private roads would enforce safety standards like this as well...


Don't believe in victimless crime. Like the OPs grandfather, I remember a time when the cops would follow you home to make sure you made it ok. Now they take $20,000 out of your bank account.

[brandon]

Pulling you over and putting you in jail is a break, a break for all the other drivers and pedestrians out there too. I got no sympathy for drunk drivers, too many people have been killed by them.

Not as many as have been killed by sober drivers.

[kcchiefs6465]

I h8 u now. Not really.
Luckily I have the "See something say something" number on speed dial.

Maybe I'd be better suited posting a 'haters gonna hate' whistling fat guy? :D

[anaconda]

I got no sympathy for drunk drivers, too many people have been killed by them.

It's a lot of politics and a money making racket for local governments. Meanwhile, cops and other government employees flash their badge and get off. And good lawyers get people off while others don't. Something's not right. Having said that, don't drive if you're going to be near the legal limit. It doesn't take much and it has nothing to do with "how you feel" or if you "think you're OK to drive." It has to do with what you blood alcohol is (BAC). Don't give this bullshit system a chance to make your life miserable.

[MRK]

I recall hearing stories of older people in my area complaining when they would get a $100 fine infraction for drunk driving. Now, you get a felony in many cases. Personally I am terrified of driving after drinking. If I have 3 beers, I will wait at least an hour after finishing them all before driving again. This way I am at the very least under 0.06.

The formula I learned is:
One 12 ounce beer = 1 glass of wine = 1 shot

Each one of these counts as 0.03. For a male it takes 1 hour to eliminate 0.03, for a female it takes 1.5 hours.

Also, not to encourage anyone, but there is a proven method of reducing how much you blow. If you curl your tongue up along the roof of your mouth so your exhale blows through the sides of your mouth, you will blow less. Significantly less. I was told this by a friend back in college, and years later tried it out once with a bunch of people with a breathalyzer machine at a bar. It takes a decent chunk off the numbers and could easily mean the difference between a dewey or not.

[phill4paul]

Alright here goes.

I had my first DUI, after leaving a bowling alley. I was with my girlfriend at the time. We got into a fight while leaving. I met her nearby in a restaurant parking lot next door beforehand. When we left the bowling alley we pulled over into the parking lot and I got out and bolted towards my truck and got in and drove.

I was pretty damn drunk, so I drove south and then west, the complete opposite directions from my home. I ended up as I stated in a text to my girlfriend at the time in "willy wonka land". I drove thru small town streets, went thru a self serve car wash that took my ladder rack partially off, but my ladders completely off. I went thru the side road ditch next and then ended up on the small town road with a speed limit of 35 mph.

A cops sirens went off. Once I saw those sirens I pulled left into a industrial park and took a hard right into a parking spot driving right over a parking sign. Then I reversed it of course and then shut my lights and engine off. I waited hoping this guy would get the hell out of here, but he pulled right up behind me and had a flash light.

I got out of my truck asking what was going on. He said, hey have you been drinking? I said of course. He started laughing and we took it from there. He also said were those my ladders on the side of the road back there. I said, no, of course not. I don't even have a ladder rack, as I saw one of the two ladder racks still on my truck.

Anyways, I was pretty drunk at .16, and the next day I got out of the jail at 7 a.m. still buzzed, picked up from my girlfriend, who took me to my truck that was at some parking lot. When I saw my F-250, a $40,000 truck, it looked like it was rolled over a hill a few times and I was pissed! So I went to court and got a good lawyer, and the lawyer knew a good judge, who was just happening to retire at that time. He told me that if I didn't get that judge out of the 3 judges I would be screwed. So I lucked out I guess and got that particular judge. It was also his last day in court, before retirement.

Before I went in with my lawyer I told him I would pay him a bonus if he got me out of these circumstances. He said, I pay around $3,000 a month for my advertising budget. As my lawyer and I entered the court room we were alone with the judge, which really shocked me since every other court room had people watching.

I waited for the judge's decision and I got 6 months probation, without having to blow breathalyzer each month and a fine. The normal fine was supposed to be over a thousand, yet when my lawyer and I left the room and went to the window to pay it showed $150. It was not a thousand dollars however. My lawyer pointed that out and said, oh wow lets hurry up and pay this!

It was like winning at the casino. I paid it and then threw the lawyer a bonus.

When I showed up for the once a month probation the lady gave me a breathalyzer test each time even though the judge said there no need. Anyways, what I realized was that the courts are corrupt and the good lawyers know the judges and prosecutors. Of course it depends on how much money you have to spend. Most people don't have thousands to spend to get out of something like a DUI so they go straight to jail and get fucked. I was pretty drunk that night, but I wish there was another option instead of just being pulled over and told to take a break. My uncle told me once how he used to open the door while being pulled over by a cop and had beer bottles falling out of the car. The cop just told him to head up the road and get a coffee.

Then you rolled along easy way. It's arbitrary and it is monetary based. As most cases are.

[Michigan11]

Sorry for that wall of text. I typed that as I remembered it and just rolled with it. If you take the time to read it in full, I hope you read it in a Ron Burgandy style, not a research style.

[MRK]

Sorry for that wall of text. I typed that as I remembered it and just rolled with it. If you take the time to read it in full, I hope you read it in a Ron Burgandy style, not a research style.

I was reminded of the rich scent of mahogany throughout its reading and enjoyed it rather much.

[heavenlyboy34]

I really like the OP, as it illustrates the inherent corruption and stupidity of involuntary government law.

[Michigan11]

I really like the OP, as it illustrates the inherent corruption and stupidity of involuntary government law.

It really has nothing more to do with who your attorney is, how much money you have to spend. While in my attorney's office I found two subjects littering his library. One subject - DUI. 2nd subject - Domestic Violence. That was it, and he also readily admitted he helps fund the judges. The prosecutors knows the good attorneys and they are all friends with each other. This lawyer was a friend of my family, who has used him for other matters in the past.

The real point goes much deeper though, it has to do with growing up, and the trouble many go thru, learning how to grow up. As Jefferson stated, he would rather have the troubles of freedom rather than the troubles of tyranny. I grew up in a small town, and I got into alot of trouble, and as the police state has grown, kids today and their families can't really "afford" to get into "any" trouble. A perfect society we have today.

[Anti Federalist]

Each one of these counts as 0.03. For a male it takes 1 hour to eliminate 0.03, for a female it takes 1.5 hours.

Also, not to encourage anyone, but there is a proven method of reducing how much you blow. If you curl your tongue up along the roof of your mouth so your exhale blows through the sides of your mouth, you will blow less. Significantly less. I was told this by a friend back in college, and years later tried it out once with a bunch of people with a breathalyzer machine at a bar. It takes a decent chunk off the numbers and could easily mean the difference between a dewey or not.

That's good info to save for a rainy day.

+rep

[chudrockz]

I used to drink. ALOT. And I used to drink and drive quite a bit. Now, I rarely drink. That being said, I can only recall a couple of times being drunk enough that I thought I was driving poorly. The way I used to do it, if I was okay to walk steadily to my car, I drove just fine. If I was in a condition where I would have driven like shit, I probably would have fallen over on the way to my car and passed out till the next day. I never understood how people could drink and drive, and be "all over the road" or running red lights, etc. I am quite sure I never did that, even while "intoxicated."

And I never got stopped or got a DUI in my life.

[brandon]

I used to drink. ALOT. And I used to drink and drive quite a bit. Now, I rarely drink. That being said, I can only recall a couple of times being drunk enough that I thought I was driving poorly. The way I used to do it, if I was okay to walk steadily to my car, I drove just fine. If I was in a condition where I would have driven like shit, I probably would have fallen over on the way to my car and passed out till the next day. I never understood how people could drink and drive, and be "all over the road" or running red lights, etc. I am quite sure I never did that, even while "intoxicated."

And I never got stopped or got a DUI in my life.

Same experience here. I haven't drove drunk in years now, but for a while it was happening once or twice a week. The amount of times that I actually had trouble driving good were very rare. I do think this is a skill that some people can learn and become quite good at. I've never had a DUI. I have had two at-fault accidents (I rear ended someone) and both times I was stone cold sober.

[Anti Federalist]

The OP's account doesn't sound like a night of crime to me.

A spirited night of adventure maybe.

I've had a few myself, before we turned into pussified, pansy ass, police/safety state.

Hunter Thompson would approve. :p

[Wooden Indian]

I see a case for destruction of property (the sign), but nothing else. Someone please name the victims in the case against the OP? I'll wait right here.

[squarepusher]

That would have been hilarious if you killed someone.

[TheGrinch]

I see a case for destruction of property (the sign), but nothing else. Someone please name the victims in the case against the OP? I'll wait right here.

Should we then issue licenses to the sight-impaired and wait for them to kill or harm someone to do anything about it?

Should we let off those who recklessly and needlessly discharge a firearm in public, just because they didn't kill someone?

Do you wait until a criminal who has a gun pointed at innocent people shoots them before you stop him?

This notion that drunk driving is a victimless crime is absurd. It is at very least grossly negligent and is a huge threat to the liberty and safety of those around you when you hop into a 2 ton hunk of moving steel without the motor skills required to operate it.

I've been there in the OP's situation before, but it doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong jsut because he got lucky and didn't hurt anyone with his reckless drunken behavior.

[KingNothing]

Drunk driving is ridiculously stupid. Be glad that you got caught and punished, and that the penalty was not severe.

Chalk it up as a lesson learned and a lucky break, and never do it again.

You're a member of a civilized society. Have some respect for the magnitude of that. Don't do things that not only put other people at risk, but also could make your loved ones lose someone they care about.

[KingNothing]

The OP's account doesn't sound like a night of crime to me.

A spirited night of adventure maybe.

I've had a few myself, before we turned into pussified, pansy ass, police/safety state.

Hunter Thompson would approve. :p


All he did was roll the dice. He was gambling with lives. The one and only reason that nobody was injured is that he got lucky.

You're an even worse person than I took you for if you're willing to just brush the stupidity of the action aside.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm not trying to rehash this debate but what do you think should be done Grinch? I am a superb drunk driver. Then again, I regularly drink and am not affected as much as someone who only drinks on St. Patty's or New Years. The times I have almost died in auto-accidents I was not the driver and the driver was stone cold sober. Of the few near death experiences I've had two were just because the person was a horrible driver. I don't even think I could put into words the scenario so I'm not even going to try. The worst part about it [besides almost dying] was that my entire family was outside of the house in their driveway and they didn't even see it.

My whole thing is this, I'm a good drunk driver. I can pass sobriety tests virtually blacked out. I should not be arbitrarily labeled as incapable to drive just because some people swerve or what have you at .08. If I exhibit that I can properly drive at .09 I should be able to drive where I'm heading. Some people swerve or cause wrecks at .03. Some people swerve or cause wrecks stone sober. I would really love to do a driving course over the limit. Then when I flawlessly pass when I'm .24 they should put as much on my license to where I not be considered for a DUI under that point.

The laws are ruining kids' lives. And my suspicions are that it is solely motivated by money and not public safety. We will never have the numbers of how many millions of people drive drunk flawlessly each year. I suspect that the number of DUI fatalities are but a .001 of a percent of total times people have driven drunk yearly without incident. If you further broke down the DUI fatalities I am sure some of those were not the fault of the person 'driving impaired.' As I said earlier, some people are just shitty drivers. Sure it is not a good idea to drive shitfaced drunk. But at what point is enough, enough? I'd argue that we've reached that point long ago and that it's time we start questioning the real motives behind DUI laws. We should start with check points and per se DUI laws.

[KingNothing]

The legal limit should NOT be federally mandated (which is effectively the case) and it should not be .08. The numbers show that almost all fatal drunk driving accidents happen above .16, I believe. Should that be the limit then? I think it should be lower than .16, but I don't think society gains anything by lowering the limit from .1 to .08.

I will rage day and night against drunk driving, but I'll also criticize nanny-staters like MADD who are taking things entirely too far.

[kcchiefs6465]

Drunk driving is ridiculously stupid. Be glad that you got caught and punished, and that the penalty was not severe.

Chalk it up as a lesson learned and a lucky break, and never do it again.

You're a member of a civilized society. Have some respect for the magnitude of that. Don't do things that not only put other people at risk, but also could make your loved ones lose someone they care about.
This is what I'm talking about. Your post illustrates perfectly my problem with 'society.' I haven't come close to harming anyone. I've driven on learner permits with a fifth in my system matching a cop speed for speed, side by side, when we were the only two cars on the road, flawlessly. I've taken 7-10 xanax bars, smoked more blunts than I have fingers, drank enough beer as to have to stop multiple times at various stores, and drove flawlessly for close to 20 hours straight. All over the damn state. Three beers and people want to claim I shouldn't be driving a car? Must be out their damn mind. My piss is above .08.

My near death experiences are from people who can't drive for shit. Sober drivers, who are more of a danger than I ever was. A guy literally almost hit us head on, as the driver of the car I was in pulled halfway into the other lane and froze up. The oncoming car was traveling 60 or so miles per hour and went off of the road. He dodged like 6 telephone poles and ramped a hill before coming to a stop. The most incredible thing I've ever seen. I'm surprised he left without 'having a word' with my brother in law. It was probably because he had been drinking. We were right by the camp grounds that is notorious as a party spot.

Everyone I know 'drives under the influence.' The unlucky ones have DUIs on their records. Tail lights out or license plate bulbs etc. The laws on the books are ruining lives and indoctrinating 'free' people into a massive surveillance, checkpoint, State.

For the record, I do not do any drugs. Stories are from my childhood years when I was young and dumb. I don't even smoke cannabis anymore.

[Anti Federalist]

All he did was roll the dice. He was gambling with lives. The one and only reason that nobody was injured is that he got lucky.

You're an even worse person than I took you for if you're willing to just brush the stupidity of the action aside.

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.

[kcchiefs6465]

The legal limit should NOT be federally mandated (which is effectively the case) and it should not be .08. The numbers show that almost all fatal drunk driving accidents happen above .16, I believe. Should that be the limit then? I think it should be lower than .16, but I don't think society gains anything by lowering the limit from .1 to .08.

I will rage day and night against drunk driving, but I'll also criticize nanny-staters like MADD who are taking things entirely too far.
I'm of the belief that people driving drunk and getting into accidents is completely overexaggerated. There is no way to tell how many people 'drive drunk' and make it home without incident. All we have is the numbers for those who have had their lives ruined or those in accidents. With regards to the accidents I am sure some of the people that were 'drunk' were not at fault and I am also sure some were shitty drivers to begin with. I don't think it is really justifiable to have these, 'click it or ticket' campaigns (how some otherwise good drivers get pulled over and get charged with a DUI) or to have state highway patrol hiding behind bushes and on off ramps, or check points. I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom for safety. And that comes with me knowing that some person might be impaired and that there is a enormously minute chance that I may be killed by said driver. Whether or not alcohol caused it, they can discuss later.

I just don't like the attitudes of the majority of our supposed-to-be-rebellious people.

[ninepointfive]

.16 when you got to the station? that's nothing


edit: nothing for how crazy you were acting and driving. must be a lightweight

[chudrockz]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.

Chudrockz approves, wholeheartedly. You saved me the trouble of typing up something similar. Thanks.

[Danan]

Should we then issue licenses to the sight-impaired and wait for them to kill or harm someone to do anything about it?

Should we let off those who recklessly and needlessly discharge a firearm in public, just because they didn't kill someone?

Do you wait until a criminal who has a gun pointed at innocent people shoots them before you stop him?

This notion that drunk driving is a victimless crime is absurd. It is at very least grossly negligent and is a huge threat to the liberty and safety of those around you when you hop into a 2 ton hunk of moving steel without the motor skills required to operate it.

I've been there in the OP's situation before, but it doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong jsut because he got lucky and didn't hurt anyone with his reckless drunken behavior.

It doesn't even need to be a "crime" in order to be enforced. It can be enforced like the rule not to be drunk at a shooting range, or other places where being drunk, high, extremely sleepy, etc. is a huge risk to fellow human beings. Ideally you could make a property rights argument.

Without the government, on private roads, there would be nothing wrong with those rules and most likely they would be enforced too. The question of whether or not government is the rightful property owner, or the people "own" it, or nobody owns it at all, is a tricky one. But it's still the least of my worries that they enforce sensible rules that would exist anyway on "their" property, even if they shouldn't "own" it in the first place.

At least no responsible person should do it and certainly nobody should be proud of doing it and talk about it like it's the most hilarious thing on earth.

[heavenlyboy34]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.
+rep

[pcosmar]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.

+1

And everyone should find this and read it. (if you haven't already)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/Fear_and_Loathing_in_Las_Vegas.jpg/200px-Fear_and_Loathing_in_Las_Vegas.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Loathing-Las-Vegas-American/dp/0679785892

[KingNothing]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.


Drunk driving ain't much of a living, boy.

[Wooden Indian]

I see a case for destruction of property (the sign), but nothing else. Someone please name the victims in the case against the OP? I'll wait right here.

I must have missed the list of victims that were surely posted by my Libertarian minded friends here.

[KingNothing]

At least no responsible person should do it and certainly nobody should be proud of doing it and talk about it like it's the most hilarious thing on earth.


I've no idea why people wear stupidity like a badge of honor.

We're all going to die. Most people will die from cardiac arrest or cancer once they reach a certain age. The rest will die from accidents. You greatly increase your chances of dying in an accident if you regularly drive with a BAC over .15. This isn't an argument that only someone with a "stick in his ass" would make. It's common sense. Drunk driving kills people, and worse yet, some of the people that it kills are unwitting contestants. It's obscenely careless, and grown men have no room to be careless.

[Wooden Indian]

If I am stone cold sober, and run over someone's child, dog, or mailbox... I am responsible for my actions. If I had beer, and performed one of those actions, I am still responsible. No difference.

If I am sober and harm no one or nothing, there was no crime.
If had beer and harm no one or nothing, there was no crime.

How is this hard for a few Libertarians to grasp?


....and BTW, I lost a brother to a drunk driver. He was only 12.

[KingNothing]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.


Boy, it would really be a shame if you were killed by a drunk driver.

[kcchiefs6465]

We're all going to die....
Thank you. I think you are starting to see my position.

I'd add that I personally want to die a free man without a radar camera or cop car up my ass. Whether that means me getting hit by a drunk driver or not.

[KingNothing]

If I am stone cold sober, and run over someone's child, dog, or mailbox... I am responsible for my actions. If I had beer, and performed one of those actions, I am still responsible. No difference.

If I am sober and harm no one or nothing, there was no crime.
If had beer and harm no one or nothing, there was no crime.

How is this hard for a few Libertarians to grasp?


....and BTW, I lost a brother to a drunk driver. He was only 12.


Sorry to hear that. I agree with your argument, and I also think it is profoundly stupid to drive drunk and that it is a behavior that should not be encouraged in any way shape or form.

[KingNothing]

Thank you. I think you are starting to see my position.

I'd add that I personally want to die a free man without a radar camera or cop car up my ass. Whether that means me getting hit by a drunk driver or not.


Yes, because that's what I'm advocating -- a police-state. I want everyone to lose freedom when I ask people not to glorify driving drunk. You've nailed me.

[KingNothing]

To paraphrase Chris Rock, you can drive with your feet but that doesn't mean it should be done. Don't drive drunk. Doing so is not smart.

[pcosmar]

Boy, it would really be a shame if you were killed by a drunk driver.

Pretty slim chance statistically.. Far more likely to be killed by a sober driver,, or a hospital.

[Anti Federalist]

Pretty slim chance statistically.. Far more likely to be killed by a sober driver,, or a hospital.

Yup.

The medical/industrial establishment kills over 4 times as many people that die in all forms of automobile accidents.

[Anti Federalist]

Boy, it would really be a shame if you were killed by a drunk driver.

Yeah, I suppose it would be.

I've had family die in gunfire.

I suppose I should be opposed to firearms, right?

[phill4paul]

To paraphrase Chris Rock, you can drive with your feet but that doesn't mean it should be done. Don't drive drunk. Doing so is not smart.

http://yababoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Tisha-UnArmed-Drives-a-Car.jpg

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnCxzQY99xHLNDejx6w066GWcUxlbaw Y-OodkeoLSkmbO4D1QuIw

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7rSw-_ANCggkN_uAUH4ZkfIeZ3PU4C9DVs7IlTYBZrLyPPzkF

[Barrex]

If you killed someone I would have zero compassion for you and would be for life in prison. Being drunk is ok but being irresponsible is not ok. I wasnt there so I can not judge were you irresponsible...and people whining how they can not read about "wall-o-text" lol. It is funny how that impairs you.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes, because that's what I'm advocating -- a policestate. I want everyone to lose freedom when I ask people not to glorify driving drunk. You've nailed me.
You are not detesting it, that's for sure.

As to the second part, some of us have fond memories of times we lived- even the stupid shit we've done. I am not glorifying driving drunk. I am reminiscing on the good times I've had.

Because you have piqued my interest on the subject I decided to do a little looking.


Of 2,509 adults surveyed, 9% said they had driven within the previous 30 days when they believed their blood-alcohol content was .08% or above


The results resemble those of an unrelated, larger study released last week by the federal government. The Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration's survey of 127,000 adults found that 15% of drivers 18 and older said they had driven under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year.

There are 315,000,000 people in the United States, or there about. That's 28,350,000 people at 9%. At 15%, it is 47,250,000.

'Interesting' MADD fact-

Over 1.41 million drivers were arrested in 2010 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.

Now one could say that 45,840,000 people drove drunk without incident. But we haven't gotten into auto accidents, well, I'm getting there.

32,885 is the total number of auto fatalities in 2010. 10,228 were 'alcohol related.' [now we don't know if these people were shitty drivers, or if it was even their fault, mind you] That's 31%.


*According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

**A driver involved in a motor vehicle crash is considered alcohol-impaired if he or she exhibits a BAC of .08 or greater.


So that means that 45,829,772 people drove drunk without incident, a DUI, or dying in an accident. [or even killing another man who was drunk for that matter, i.e. drunken pedestrian]

Let's see the percentage of people killed when compared to those who drove drunk.
0.0216%

Now, after seeing these numbers does it seem justifiable to lock up those unlucky enough to be caught for a by and large victimless crime? Or to have check points or per se DUI laws?

I think not.

[KingNothing]

Now, after seeing these numbers does it seem justifiable to lock up those unlucky enough to be caught for a by and large victimless crime? Or to have check points or per se DUI laws?

I think not.


So, you are completely missing the point. MADD is horrendous. They continue to push for lower and lower legal BAC limits, in spite of the massive amount of data that shows there to be almost no difference between sober-driving and .08-driving. In my ideal world, there is no "legal limit" and there are no public roads, period. What a wonderful place that would be. A consequence would be, however, an increase in drunk-driving related deaths. Given the numbers we do have, we'd be able to conclude that a gigantic chunk of those deaths would be caused by people who habitually get sloshed (~.20) and drive. A compromise between our current drunk driving laws, which are terrible, and my Libertarian utopia, is to increase the legal limit to something around .15, a number that is rooted moreso in facts than MADD's emotion. It's still a utilitarian law and not necessarily a "moral" one, and those always make me feel uneasy. So, what we do is lead by example, discontinue driving drunk, and show that we are responsible enough that no legal action is "required" to prevent us from doing so.

Whether we like it or not, laws will exist until we can strip away all justifications for them. To that end, seeing people celebrate drunk driving is disheartening. .... think it's something Ron Paul would do? I don't. He'd lead by example as we all should, and not be so careless. As Vito Corleone said, men can't be careless.

[kcchiefs6465]

You are missing the point. 'Public safety' is the premise for all of the cops you see. It is the premise for the checkpoints. It is the reason people willingly are sacrificing their rights. The data shows that driving drunk is so damn nonconsequential that it begs the question, why? Why are there more and more cops yearly? More checkpoints, more 'campaigns?' Is it conditioning? Of course. Is it because it generates revenue? [from the prison lobbies, to City Hall] Of course.

Why are we not categorically denouncing their selective facts and reasoning? Because it is emotional and they have driven that home. Kids have died. Innocent people injured. But kids and people die daily. It is not enough for me to give up my rights. My heart bleeds for the kids who were ran over as much as the next but there is no way to tell whose fault it truly was, or whether or not alcohol even played a role. Ron Paul would denounce the police state as much as I. He would also denounce the idea of sacrificing freedom for safety. Especially in this case when the statistics are such that it is absurd.

I agree with highering the limit to .15. Most people would fall into that category and it would help a lot of young adults in the short run. For the long run we need to change how we view the law in general. The amount of people driving completely shit-faced is probably extremely low. There are other crimes and statutes they can be brought up on if needed anyways. Per se DUI laws are Draconian. These need to be addressed first and foremost.

[KingNothing]

You are missing the point. 'Public safety' is the premise for all of the cops you see. It is the premise for the checkpoints. It is the reason people willingly are sacrificing their rights. The data shows that driving drunk is so damn nonconsequential that it begs the question, why? Why are there more and more cops yearly? More checkpoints, more 'campaigns?' Is it conditioning? Of course. Is it because it generates revenue? [from the prison lobbies, to City Hall] Of course.


That, and because MADD distorts the statistics. Drunk driving really is a problem at a certain BAC. At the legal limits MADD pushes for, it is not a concern. Don't ignore that. An overwhelming amount of "alcohol related" (scare quotes intended) accidents happen to VERY drunk individuals.




Ron Paul would denounce the police state as much as I. He would also denounce the idea of sacrificing freedom for safety. Especially in this case when the statistics are such that it is absurd.


And he wouldn't brag about being stupid of driving drunk. Don't ignore that, either.



I agree with highering the limit to .15. Most people would fall into that category and it would help a lot of young adults in the short run. For the long run we need to change how we view the law in general. The amount of people driving completely shit-faced is probably extremely low. There are other crimes and statutes they can be brought up on if needed anyways. Per se DUI laws are Draconian. These need to be addressed first and foremost.

This is a good paragraph.

[heavenlyboy34]

If you killed someone I would have zero compassion for you and would be for life in prison.
Why? How does this help a victim/victim's family? Doesn't restitution make more sense? AF has posted a lot of info about the prison-industrial complex you should read, btw. It will most likely change the way you think of prisons.

[Christian Liberty]

Why? How does this help a victim/victim's family? Doesn't restitution make more sense? AF has posted a lot of info about the prison-industrial complex you should read, btw. It will most likely change the way you think of prisons.

Well, in some cases, although not all, the murderer is a security risk to everyone else... Even if almost all property were privatized, a convicted killer would likely not care about property laws, so he could go anywhere and kill anytime.

More importantly, life in prison is the wrong punishment. Death is the right punishment.


For Libertarian Theory, see here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, in some cases, although not all, the murderer is a security risk to everyone else... Even if almost all property were privatized, a convicted killer would likely not care about property laws, so he could go anywhere and kill anytime.

More importantly, life in prison is the wrong punishment. Death is the right punishment.


For Libertarian Theory, see here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html
I'm familiar with Block's work. His arguments defend my position. See "Defending The Undefendable".

And notice you brought in the "murder" red herring. You just discredited yourself. Vehicular manslaughter and other forms of killing are not inherently murder (unless you can PROVE intent).

[Anti Federalist]

Nice work.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to kcchiefs again."


There are 315,000,000 people in the United States, or there about. That's 28,350,000 people at 9%. At 15%, it is 47,250,000.

Now one could say that 45,840,000 people drove drunk without incident. But we haven't gotten into auto accidents, well, I'm getting there.

32,885 is the total number of auto fatalities in 2010. 10,228 were 'alcohol related.' [now we don't know if these people were shitty drivers, or if it was even their fault, mind you] That's 31%.

So that means that 45,829,772 people drove drunk without incident, a DUI, or dying in an accident. [or even killing another man who was drunk for that matter, i.e. drunken pedestrian]

Let's see the percentage of people killed when compared to those who drove drunk.
0.0216%

Now, after seeing these numbers does it seem justifiable to lock up those unlucky enough to be caught for a by and large victimless crime? Or to have check points or per se DUI laws?

I think not.

[dannno]

The thing is there are people who will drive better with a BAC of .12 than some people with a BAC of 0. I drive much better stoned than most people do sober.

Honestly I don't think I would complain if they had a DUI law of .15, if that was the worst 'offense' the govt. committed against liberty then I'd be pretty happy.

But .08 lets the police act outlandishly with road blocks and stops, it ends up affecting EVERYBODY'S rights whether they drink or not.

[Anti Federalist]

Whether we like it or not, laws will exist until we can strip away all justifications for them. To that end, seeing people celebrate drunk driving is disheartening. .... think it's something Ron Paul would do? I don't. He'd lead by example as we all should, and not be so careless. As Vito Corleone said, men can't be careless.

Well, that just sounds like a self imposed tyranny then.

Sometimes we forget the whole point of this endeavor, it is not to live like cloistered monks, or in a self imposed tyranny of safety or worse yet, a government imposed one.

Liberty is for living.

Maybe somebody can dig up Ron's quote about that and about how people need to be free to make decisions, even dumb ones.

I know plenty of people who recoil in horror at the fact that Ron rides his bike without a helmet.

No, maybe driving drunk is not the greatest example to use, I'll grant you that, but, once have granted the contrary premise, "I can run your life whoever I wish, because everything you do can affect me", then nothing is off the table.

And here we are.

So all things being considered, especially given the statistically insignificant numbers that kc just pointed out, I'll take my chances with drunk drivers and dismantle the safety state.

[Tod]

One of my uncles was killed by a drunk driver. The drunk was driving on the wrong side of the road and nailed my uncle on the crest of a hill.

[Barrex]

I dont like math but you..you are horrible mathematician/logician.


There are 315,000,000 people in the United States, or there about. That's 28,350,000 people at 9%. At 15%, it is 47,250,000.
From those people how many are under-aged, too old etc. and dont drive? I dont mean how many have drivers license but how many drive.



Now one could say that 45,840,000 people drove drunk without incident.
One would be wrong and that one would make assumption that they drove without incident based o no evidence and from there your entire math theorem collapses...


32,885 is the total number of auto fatalities in 2010. 10,228 were 'alcohol related.' [now we don't know if these people were shitty drivers, or if it was even their fault, mind you] That's 31%.
"Alcohol related" in police reports and government statistics universally means caused by alcohol or alcohol was determining/mayor factor.

Drunk driving is like gambling with yous (and you have every right to do that) and what is worse with other peoples lifes (and that is bad).

A man turns the lights off and starts shooting a gun (with a silencer maybe?) in a room with some people in it. He turns on the lights and he sees that he didnt shoot anyone. Victimless crime. No punishment.

A lot of people (in liberty movement) dont understand "victimless crime" concept. Most important factor in it is consent. In drunk driving people dont give any kind of consent for increased risk. There is a lot more but i really dont feel like writing an essay.


Why? How does this help a victim/victim's family? Doesn't restitution make more sense? AF has posted a lot of info about the prison-industrial complex you should read, btw. It will most likely change the way you think of prisons.

Life in prison doesnt exclude restitution. Take all his property. Responsibility for ones actions is base of libertarian movement. If you kill someone while driving drunk you take responsibility for it.

I know responsible people who drive 10 mph when they are drunk and I know retards who turn into maniacs when they drink. Both of them should take responsibility like i mentioned above.

There is nothing libertarian in taking chances on other peoples property/life against their will.


That being said I agree that there are laws and rules about driving that are stupid.

[heavenlyboy34]

Life in prison doesnt exclude restitution. Take all his property. Responsibility for ones actions is base of libertarian movement. If you kill someone while driving drunk you take responsibility for it.

I know responsible people who drive 10 mph when they are drunk and I know retards who turn into maniacs when they drink. Both of them should take responsibility like i mentioned above.

There is nothing libertarian in taking chances on other peoples property/life against their will.


That being said I agree that there are laws and rules about driving that are stupid.
Doing life may not exclude restitution, but so what? It doesn't provide restitution either. Is the perpetrator's spending life in jail going to bring back a dead person or even compensate the victim's family? No. It's just schadenfreude and $ for the prison industrial complex. I agree with you WRT taking responsibility. There simply needs to be a rational way about doing it.

It's entirely libertarian to do things that risk hurting other people. If it weren't, libertarians would not support the existence of automotive vehicles, planes, boats, saws, and the millions of other things that COULD cause bodily harm. As AF pointed out "Safety Uber Alles" is not freedom or even a decent way to live.

[kcchiefs6465]

I dont like math but you..you are horrible mathematician/logician.

Meh. I've been out of school for too long. My brain is getting rusty. As of lately math hasn't been my strong suit, that's for sure.



From those people how many are under-aged, too old etc. and dont drive? I dont mean how many have drivers license but how many drive.


Lmao. I do tend to overlook simple things. The numbers are still completely one sided. 15% of the 208,000,000 drivers [2008] is 31,200,000. 10,288 alcohol related deaths in 2010. [which does NOT mean caused by alcohol] Upon further searching, the number for alcohol impaired traffic deaths was 10,839 in 2008. I'll take my chances. 0.0347% is the percentage of people killed in an alcohol impaired traffic accident compared to the number of people who admitted driving drunk once in the last year. Now most them have probably driven drunk more than once, and some people would not admit as much in a survey. I would bet my bottom dollar that the figures are way more one sided than I could even show or my last calculations showed. No one knows how many times people drive under the influence where nothing happens yearly. We only know the '.0347%' that cause crashes and the people whose lives are ruined by DUI laws.

I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom for safety. I don't give a damn.

ETA: I am assuming if you have a drivers license you drive. The number of people with a license who don't drive is probably offset by the number of people without a license who do drive.

[Barrex]

Doing life may not exclude restitution, but so what? It doesn't provide restitution either. Is the perpetrator's spending life in jail going to bring back a dead person or even compensate the victim's family? No. It's just schadenfreude and $ for the prison industrial complex. I agree with you WRT taking responsibility. There simply needs to be a rational way about doing it.

You mentioned restitution I just responded that one doesnt exclude other.... that makes your "so what" little strange. Punishment is not meant to bring back to life anyone so that argument is silly... no matter how some people love to introduce it into every legal argument. I was referring punishment carried under law and not family killing person who killed their loved one (which if law fails I could not find guilty of anything).
Again punishment is not meant to bring back to life. It is meant for:deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and incapacitation (depends from case to case). Deterrence= people choose not to commit the crime rather than experience the punishment and is most important reason for punishment.

Just because your prison system is screwed doesnt mean that murderer (in my example) should walk free.




It's entirely libertarian to do things that risk hurting other people. If it weren't, libertarians would not support the existence of automotive vehicles, planes, boats, saws, and the millions of other things that COULD cause bodily harm. As AF pointed out "Safety Uber Alles" is not freedom or even a decent way to live.

It is not matter of "COULD".See:
Public endangerment
Reckless endangerment

Again: I already did responde to it in my previous post:

Drunk driving is like gambling with yous (and you have every right to do that) and what is worse with other peoples lifes (and that is bad).

A man turns the lights off and starts shooting a gun (with a silencer maybe?) in a room with some people in it. He turns on the lights and he sees that he didnt shoot anyone. Victimless crime. No punishment.

A lot of people (in liberty movement) dont understand "victimless crime" concept. Most important factor in it is consent. In drunk driving people dont give any kind of consent for increased risk. There is a lot more but i really dont feel like writing an essay.



For those of you who dont agree how would you regulate, formulate or whatever public endangerment and reckless endangerment? How far would you go?

[dannno]

Why isn't driving in and of itself considered reckless endangerment?

[kcchiefs6465]

Why isn't driving in and of itself considered reckless endangerment?
Because you aren't reckless?

Driving like an idiot is.

There's a certain amount of safety you must sacrifice. I'm sure if everyone drove 5MPH traffic related fatalities would be zero. How practical would that be though?

[dannno]

There's a certain amount of safety you must sacrifice.

Is there a certain amount of liberty you must sacrifice?

[phill4paul]

Why isn't driving in and of itself considered reckless endangerment?

Just be glad you are afforded the privilege, mundane.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4844620966461782&pid=15.1

[kcchiefs6465]

Is there a certain amount of liberty you must sacrifice?
I would argue no.


Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

Checkpoints and per se DUI laws show how ridiculous this has all become. [all under the pretense of 'public safety'] That people put up with it is discouraging. I guess if their rights aren't violated at that specific time people couldn't care less.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, in some cases, although not all, the murderer is a security risk to everyone else... Even if almost all property were privatized, a convicted killer would likely not care about property laws, so he could go anywhere and kill anytime.

More importantly, life in prison is the wrong punishment. Death is the right punishment.


For Libertarian Theory, see here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html
Interesting Block would write that, as it is at odds with libertarian theories of justice and his own writing on similar subjects. Maybe he's changed his mind since this piece was published? :confused:

[BamaAla]

.a..

[angelatc]

For those of you who dont agree how would you regulate, formulate or whatever public endangerment and reckless endangerment? How far would you go?





It's really pretty simple. If nobody got hurt and no property was damaged, then there was no crime.

[angelatc]

More importantly, life in prison is the wrong punishment. Death is the right punishment.




Giving the government the power to decide who lives and who dies is never the right answer.

[Anti Federalist]

"Alcohol related" in police reports and government statistics universally means caused by alcohol or alcohol was determining/mayor factor.

Not necessarily.

I've seen with my own eyes, police reports written up where "alcohol" was a determining factor, when it was not.

In one, I recall, it was written up as such, when the victim, who had done nothing wrong at all, was broadsided by a (sober) person who blew a red light.

[bunklocoempire]

It's been said to some extent already.

As I see it...

Fines are warnings attached with a monetary value issued by a third party. Supposedly to curb behavior and protect potential victims. Favors a third party and those who serve the third party.

Punishment is the actual price that is paid for goods when damaged or destroyed. With a third party deciding the cost of those goods -wouldn't ya know.

Each of those two things might be called a deterrent. The second one -punishment- is a stand alone deterrent.

Have we seen actual punishment remain reflective of the victim's "cost of goods damaged or destroyed" while curbing behavior and strengthening victim's rights to compensation, or have we seen fines (warnings) thrive and curb behavior while strengthening the state?

I've seen the latter with an erosion of the victim's rights. And any behavior that might have been curbed isn't curbed because of any fear of encroaching on another individual's rights but rather fear of the state.

[Icymudpuppy]

I must have missed the list of victims that were surely posted by my Libertarian minded friends here.

Here's a list of victims.

1. The car wash owner whose scrubbers were most certainly damaged by ripping the ladder rack off which will need to be fixed. All automatic carwashes are clearly marked that cars with racks are not to be washed there.
2. The sign owner who will need to replace the sign. Seriously, you hit a sign! Dude, you weren't a little buzzed. You were smashed, and damn lucky.
3. The owner of the ditch he tore up when driving through it which will need to be restored and gravelled for proper drainage.

If this had been my son, he'd be getting a whoopin', and I would WALK him to each of the three owners to pay directly from his own money damages.

[Michigan11]

Alot of posts in either of two directions. My original post should be read in the right light, this didn't just happen yesterday, and I wasn't going around drinking and driving like that, being that drunk and driving was a first for me and it was because of that ex-girlfriend who lit my fire, so I had to get away, yet looking back I should have slept in my truck, but it didn't work out that way. Before this incident, I did occassionally drink and drive while having a few, but not much more than that. Like others have stated, and who does MADD think is going out to bars only to stay sober to drive their friends home afterwards.

Years before this disaster I remember a time when I was just getting into college, coming back from a party with a friend who was supposed to be driving us, instead we got lost along the way, after being served excess amounts of vodka with a splash of something. It was a Pontiac Bonneville, we were in and Steve drove us there, which took about 20 minutes, well after 2 hours of passing corn fields and rural houses along the way, we were getting pissed off and said what the fuck is going on here man, where the fuck are we? He didn't know and he was looking like he was going to be passing out soon, so I told him to just stop at the next house we saw. I get out and go ring the doorbell standing on some wooden porch platform, hoping to ask someone where we were at. Next Steve comes out and walks up to the porch and crashes over, gets back up, and I realize there is no damn way he is driving. So I drive, start making turns, and in about another 40 minutes we started recognizing the school again. We didn't know the area, we both just got there, and it was in semi-northern Michigan, once out of a town all the roads become the same scenery. As we're getting close, Steve throws up all over his side of the car, I didn't bother to look, but when we got to the gate, where they ask for ID to get in, they tell me to turn the light on, to see who is in the car. As I looked over, it looked like the interior was totalled. Sometimes plans don't always work out as you think. Should I have just parked the car and waited for the next cop to drive by and arrest us on the side of the road.

I never drove thru the scrubbers at the car wash, only the ones you pull into to spray wash, the height of the structure is what tore my "weekender" ladder rack and ladders off, but they were fastened with straps that allowed my truck to drag them around for a while. The ditch was typical, grass, half tubular shapped, nothing was destroyed except my truck. Sometime along the way, as I was lost, just as Steve above got lost, I began getting irritated as to my bearings and whereabouts. This caused me to turn here, then there, and start wondering which way to go next. Almost I imagine amnesia would be like, waking up driving in a vehicle. The sign I ran over at the end, could have been bent straight up again. It was one of those handicapped parking signs, one metal spike. I was driving a little fast but nothing outrageous on the roads, the cop wrote it up as 10 over in a 35mph, so I was going 45mph. Again I saw his headlights first, knowing at that hour of the night, it had to be a cop, and then the sirens. I wasn't totally oblivious to everything around me, I wasn't swerving on the roads or driving in the wrong lanes. Yet I should not have been driving, and I don't recommend it either.

Drinking, I've learned over the years is something most people discover at different times and different ways, and some take it to an extreme, some learn from that, and some give up. I'm a typical clean cut individual that grew up in a very nice neighborhood, surrounded by fields and woods and lakes. Alot of freedom, outside all day doing stupid shit, around 12 we were raiding our parents liquor cabinets and riding around on mopeds. Younger we built a 6 story tree house, that others could see when going for walks, later becoming a hazardous site, because the parents were scared it was just too much. We liked to get beer and scnappes from the town drunk who would hang out behind the liquor store, and the last time we saw him, he was being pulled off in an ambulance just as we were all walking up to the store looking for him.

The point of alot of this, is that I have always enjoyed alot of freedom, and with freedom you tend to test the limits and get into trouble, not all but some do. I believe this is what Jefferson meant when talking about when he was saying he would rather deal with the problems that go along with freedom rather than the opposite extreme that we are in today. Look at old book stories, alot of them are about causing trouble, but nothing to crazy or bodily harming someone. It's part of life, and I have a much more open mind and opinion and strengths from having too much freedom, than living very restricted as I see kids being raised today, such as my own nieces who I sometimes think, wow how do they deal with such rules. But they are used to those rules, yet rebel in different ways I think. I don't know.

I bet everyone in here has some crazy stories, and can relate if you think about it, and we shouldn't be so knee jerk reactive when we read about things, and go "oh gosh that person could have been in serious trouble". Life isn't just about growing old and dying of a heart attack or being 93 and being misdiagnosed and wrongly having a pace maker put, only to find out from a family member while you were under the knife and out cold in surgery. Life is risk and danger, we need to embrace that, it's what a human needs to live and live properly.

[Barrex]

I am not going after you personally... We all make mistakes and behave little off from time to time. I am just stating general state of things and my point of view in general.

[KingNothing]

Not necessarily.

I've seen with my own eyes, police reports written up where "alcohol" was a determining factor, when it was not.

In one, I recall, it was written up as such, when the victim, who had done nothing wrong at all, was broadsided by a (sober) person who blew a red light.

Correct. The "alcohol related" stat is generally useless because it means that someone involved in the accident tested positive for alcohol. It does not mean they were drunk, the cause of the accident, or that alcohol even played a factor.

[chudrockz]

It amazes me how many people - even liberty minded people - are fine with stepping on rights in the name of combatting drunk driving. We now have DUI checkpoints, police using any excuse under the sun (or none) to stop people, etc.

So the constitution takes yet another beating. And I dunno how it is in other parts of the country, but in rural Minnesota I can genuinely say that inebriated driving as at an all-time, um, high.

Therefore, we're not even trading rights for "safety" from drunk drivers. We're just pissing away rights.

[Shredmonster]

It amazes me how many people - even liberty minded people - are fine with stepping on rights in the name of combatting drunk driving. We now have DUI checkpoints, police using any excuse under the sun (or none) to stop people, etc.

So the constitution takes yet another beating. And I dunno how it is in other parts of the country, but in rural Minnesota I can genuinely say that inebriated driving as at an all-time, um, high.

Therefore, we're not even trading rights for "safety" from drunk drivers. We're just pissing away rights.

BRAVO ! Couldn't have said it better myself. People are brainwashed and this is a PRIME EXAMPLE. Safety if you give up your Liberty. I have no words for these idiots as they are responsible for most of our loss of freedoms in this country.

There is a line that cannot be crossed ever under any circumstances. However people are too stupid to comprehend the founding principles. They just can't except that life is dangerous. And no amount of reduction in liberty is going to make life safe.

Look at all the rules and laws and people still commit murder don't they ?

People that truly cherish freedom and the Constitution and founding principles don't change liberties and rights under any circumstances as they are non- negotiable.

If you are driving and you are drunk you still have not hurt anybody. Most people don't. The average person is .28 when they get into a life threatening drunk driving related situation.
This is a FACT as my friend testified to the State when they were changing the law to .08. It is a joke.

The average person that gets into a life threatening drunk driving related situation has had 10 DWI arrests !

I am so tired of people not knowing the facts, being lied to and being brainwashed.

No I don't want people on the road at .28 but you know what ? - I am not gong to give up my liberties and freedom for without those what good are all your laws and limitations ? You either stick to your principles or you don't in which case you become the enemy.

[Son of Detroit]

Jesus, makes me sick how many people on here are bragging about their drunk driving experiences. I thought Ron Paul supporters were smarter than that. I'm not even old enough to drink legally yet and I'm more responsible with my drinking.

-I've had a lot to drink at a party? I stay with a friend or call a taxi to come pick me up. I'll get my car in the morning.
-If I know I have no option of staying with someone or getting a taxi, I only have 1-2 drinks and make sure I wait an hour or two before I drive.

It's not that hard, seems like common sense to me.

Even if there were no DUI laws like some are wishing for, I wouldn't even think of driving under the influence.

[brandon]

If you're not even 21 yet you probably 1) can't hold your liquor very well 2) don't have much experience driving. Both of these change as you get older and driving under the influence becomes a lot less of a risk factor.

[Anti Federalist]

Jesus, makes me sick how many people on here are bragging about their drunk driving experiences. I thought Ron Paul supporters were smarter than that. I'm not even old enough to drink legally yet and I'm more responsible with my drinking.

-I've had a lot to drink at a party? I stay with a friend or call a taxi to come pick me up. I'll get my car in the morning.
-If I know I have no option of staying with someone or getting a taxi, I only have 1-2 drinks and make sure I wait an hour or two before I drive.

It's not that hard, seems like common sense to me.

Even if there were no DUI laws like some are wishing for, I wouldn't even think of driving under the influence.

You're well conditioned and in full compliance, citizen.

DARE and all the rest did their job well.

When you're middle aged, you will be looking at what the new generation is putting up with and in full compliance with, how much freedom has been sacrificed for safety, and you'll shake your head.

[phill4paul]

You're well conditioned and in full compliance, citizen.

DARE and all the rest did their job well.

When you're middle aged, you will be looking at what the new generation is putting up with and in full compliance with, how much freedom has been sacrificed for safety, and you'll shake your head.

We will be the last generation that kinda, sorta, actually tasted freedom. From here on out it will bubble boy cocoons for everybody.

"What was it like when you were young grandpa?" "I'm forbidden from telling you, my child."

[Anti Federalist]

We will be the last generation that kinda, sorta, actually tasted freedom. From here on out it will bubble boy cocoons for everybody.

"What was it like when you were young grandpa?" "I'm forbidden from telling you, my child."

And, for so many reasons, that is just so goddamned sad, I could fucking cry...

[Barrex]

Not necessarily.

I've seen with my own eyes, police reports written up where "alcohol" was a determining factor, when it was not.

In one, I recall, it was written up as such, when the victim, who had done nothing wrong at all, was broadsided by a (sober) person who blew a red light.




I stand corrected. You got different way of statistics.



My last post on this topic (arrogant style):

It amazes me how many people use liberty as excuse to do anything they want and defend anything and everything. I am sad that so many of libertarians run to their favored tactics of insulting, spitting, name calling and derogatory behavior. Let me try it.

If you are no 100% agreeing with me then you are all cultist, more libertarian than you, creepy, gunner joe, petulant, too smart for science, arrogant, denial-ican, irresponsible, brainwashed, hardhearted, murdereous,drug using, pot smoking, corporate minions, pro slavery, would let old people and poor die from starvation, wannabe revolutionaries, naive, smelling of elderberries...

If you are against me then you truly dont understand what victimless crime, reckless&public endangerment mean. From some of your posts I doubt that some of you understand what liberty means. Sure as hell it doesnt mean "I do whatever the fuck I want".

Alcohol affects vision, reaction time, judgment, risk assessment, ability to divide attention, and induces blackouts, euphoria, unconsciousness,increased self-confidence, decreased Anxiety, shortened attention span, impaired fine muscle coordination, impaired memory and comprehension, delayed reactions, impairs senses.....

If someone is so drunk that he can not walk should be allowed to fire a gun? Drive? Should he be allowed to get on highway driving few tons 80mph? If you say "yes" then you got no idea what liberty is. If you say "no" then you are for stopping DUI. If you say "yes in that case but" then you are arguing a degree of enforcement.



AND I FUCKING LOVE ALCOHOL. MY FAMILY MAKES MOONSHINE FOR CENTURIES. I HAVE DRUNK EVERY ALCOHOL THING THAT IS DRINKABLE IN EVERY COUNTRY THAT I WENT TO AND I WAS IN A LOT OF THEM.

[kcchiefs6465]

It amazes me how many people - even liberty minded people - are fine with stepping on rights in the name of combatting drunk driving. We now have DUI checkpoints, police using any excuse under the sun (or none) to stop people, etc.

So the constitution takes yet another beating. And I dunno how it is in other parts of the country, but in rural Minnesota I can genuinely say that inebriated driving as at an all-time, um, high.

Therefore, we're not even trading rights for "safety" from drunk drivers. We're just pissing away rights.
Exactly. How many millions of people a year drive drunk? There are what, 10,000 alcohol impaired deaths yearly? Seems perfectly reasonable to stop every single car on the road to ask what they are doing and if they have been drinking. Or to have states with DUI laws that have no set limit [the word of the cop is all that is needed] or laws that are such that you can be charged with vehicular manslaughter if you are in a fatal accident with any cannabis present in your system. [i.e smoked a couple weeks ago]

I really do not know how some people justify it.

[TheGrinch]

Barrex' post above was harsh, perhaps unfair, but has truth to it. Liberty does not mean you can just do what you want, it means you can do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on others. However, that doesn't mean we have to wait for them to harm others, to see that driving drunk is a huge threat to other's liberty and safety (I know some already want to respond, but read the whole post first).

It's as if you cannot take a stance on anything without someone acting like you're advocating for the current system. You're speaking to the flaws of the system, not the merits of the law itself.

I keep hearing, oh well it's such a small number, it's not any more negligent than any other negligence while driving, that is all just a cop out.

Standing for liberty also means standing against those who will infringe upon your liberty and safety by recklessly endangering your life. I don't see it as much different than firing off a shot recklessly and needlessly in public, you don't have to hit someone for it be grossly negligent and worthy of penalty.

As I've stated in other threads, I am against arbitrary limits and checkpoints (I am in the beer industry, and it's a real pain in the ass to have to always make sure I don't flirt with that absurdly low line, even though I know I'm fine)... If you simply went back to just dealing with those who cannot drive or walk in a straight line, then there would not be an overreach, and we'd actually be dealing with just the ones who have no business driving and are a very real threat to other's liberty and safety.

Yes, there are other kinds of negligence and accidents that can occur absent alcohol, but when you have a substance that when injested can cause you to not even be able to walk straight, then no, I do not see how you can be an apologist for them risking others lives because they drunkenly decide they're okay, when they're clearly not. What we need is to make a distinction between drunk reckless behavior and relatively harmless driving while drinking, not to act as if it's "no harm, no foul" if you're lucky enough to not harm someone (and yes, it is luck, when you're that intoxicated).

[TheGrinch]

Exactly. How many millions of people a year drive drunk? There are what, 10,000 alcohol impaired deaths yearly? Seems perfectly reasonable to stop every single car on the road to ask what they are doing and if they have been drinking. Or to have states with DUI laws that have no set limit [the word of the cop is all that is needed] or laws that are such that you can be charged with vehicular manslaughter if you are in a fatal accident with any cannabis present in your system. [i.e smoked a couple weeks ago]

I really do not know how some people justify it.

Again, no one here is advocating for the current overreraching revenue-generating system, but that doesn't mean that you can't advocate for fair DUI laws without being a hypocrite. As I've said many times, a sobreity test or car swerving all over the road should be the criteria (assuming no accident, in which case there could be added liability)

You guys are going to get nowhere if you simply dismiss others arguments because the current system (that we're not arguing for) is flawed, and even moreso if you act liek your "right to drive drunk" is something that others should accept.

Not to bring emotion into it, but rather experience: If the drunk driver who hit me going 80 had hit the front of my car instead of snapping my rear axle, I might not be sitting here talking to you today, so don't talk to me like I'm the enemy, like some of you want to.

[kcchiefs6465]

Jesus, makes me sick how many people on here are bragging about their drunk driving experiences. I thought Ron Paul supporters were smarter than that. I'm not even old enough to drink legally yet and I'm more responsible with my drinking.

-I've had a lot to drink at a party? I stay with a friend or call a taxi to come pick me up. I'll get my car in the morning.
-If I know I have no option of staying with someone or getting a taxi, I only have 1-2 drinks and make sure I wait an hour or two before I drive.

It's not that hard, seems like common sense to me.

Even if there were no DUI laws like some are wishing for, I wouldn't even think of driving under the influence.
That is a very good idea. There is no leeway anymore. Under 21 and you must be what, under .02? Mouth wash or Nyquil can put you above.

I can drive drunk better than most people drive sober. [not bragging, just stating a fact] You know what's funny, I'm sure you have seen those 'drunk goggles' where you put them on and it simulates what it's like to be drunk. [not really, but that's what they say] Well they had their anti-drinking and driving camapign at my school with a golf cart and cones set up. It was around prom. I was already partying and driving from city to city at the time so I figured, what the hell, I bet I can drive their course. I put on the goggles and drove this golf cart perfectly around their little cone course. Fun times.

I wouldn't recommend anyone to drive drunk. It will cost you too damn much money if you get caught. That being said millions of people will drive drunk this year. Though there is no way to prove it I bet at least a hundred thousand people will drive drunk today. Yearly there are 10,000 or so alcohol impaired traffic deaths. Does it really seem necessary to you, that we have per se DUI laws and check points? That precedents have been set that under the guise of 'public safety' constitutionality does not matter. And everyone just complies. What the hell is wrong with Americans these days?

[kcchiefs6465]

You're well conditioned and in full compliance, citizen.

DARE and all the rest did their job well.

When you're middle aged, you will be looking at what the new generation is putting up with and in full compliance with, how much freedom has been sacrificed for safety, and you'll shake your head.
We were shown accident photos of mangled cars and mutilated bodies when I was a child. I wonder if they still do that.

As I recall we had an assembly where a man came and spoke about running over a kid. I believe it was a part of his sentence. We had a different assembly where a father came and spoke about his daughter who was killed by a drunk driver.

It ran pretty deep. DARE started at around 3rd grade and you better not question the DARE officer. In 5th grade, I believe, I asked if marijuana caused cancer and he said in no uncertain terms that smoking marijuana will kill you. I was taken out of class afterwards and questioned as to why I asked. I was just curious. I got yelled at for asking stupid questions, or whatever his reason was. He then made a habit to drive around my neighborhood after that. He'd stop me everyone now and then and ask me stupid questions. They ended up taking a drug dealer's car and he upgraded. Drove around in style on 24'' rims. He was replaced by a short little midgety prick with a crew cut. This DARE officer was on a power trip. Grabbed me by the back of my neck a few times and routinely tried to fight me. Searched my locker dumping everything out, not finding anything, and then walking off. It was simply because he did not like me. So I picked all of my shit up off the ground and got my locker situated. He was fired for inappropriate contact with a female student. Groped an 8th grader, IIRC. After all the years of him telling me that I'd never amount to anything I really wanted to find him so I could laugh at him. True story.

I'm glad to see tax dollars going to fund such a useful program. Almost as useful as drowning rhesus monkeys in smoke, or lobotimizing [or was it just implanting electrodes?] '******s' in Lousiana State Penetentiary.

Here's an interesting read of a man many have not heard of, Dr. Robert Heath. It is his study that they flaunt as showing that marijuana kills brain cells. They never mention his other studies though. [not to mention that that study was so damn flawed it really is amazing some people still source it]

Dr. Robert Heath (http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/twoviews_04a.htm)

[TheGrinch]

We were shown accident photos of mangled cars and mutilated bodies when I was a child. I wonder if they still do that.

As I recall we had an assembly where a man came and spoke about running over a kid. I believe it was a part of his sentence. We had a different assembly where a father came and spoke about his daughter who was killed by a drunk driver.

It ran pretty deep. DARE started at around 3rd grade and you better not question the DARE officer. In 5th grade, I believe, I asked if marijuana caused cancer and he said in no uncertain terms that smoking marijuana will kill you. I was taken out of class afterwards and questioned as to why I asked. I was just curious. I got yelled at for asking stupid questions, or whatever his reason was. He then made a habit to drive around my neighborhood after that. He'd stop me everyone now and then and ask me stupid questions. They ended up taking a drug dealer's car and he upgraded. Drove around in style on 24'' rims. He was replaced by a short little midgety prick with a crew cut. This DARE officer was on a power trip. Grabbed me by the back of my neck a few times and routinely tried to fight me. Searched my locker dumping everything out, not finding anything, and then walking off. It was simply because he did not like me. So I picked all of my shit up off the ground and got my locker situated. He was fired for inappropriate contact with a female student. Groped an 8th grader, IIRC. After all the years of him telling me that I'd never amount to anything I really wanted to find him so I could laugh at him. True story.

I'm glad to see tax dollars going to fund such a useful program. Almost as useful as drowning rhesus monkeys in smoke, or lobotimizing [or was it just implanting electrodes?] '******s' in Lousiana State Penetentiary.

Here's an interesting read of a man many have not heard of, Dr. Robert Heath. It is his study that they flaunt as showing that marijuana kills brain cells. They never mention his other studies though. [not to mention that that study was so damn flawed it really is amazing some people still source it]

Dr. Robert Heath (http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/twoviews_04a.htm)

Worth noting that where I lived, it was a low-crime area, so the police got revenue from harassing teenagers, even had an "Underage Drinking Task Force", I shit you not, so I hope you don't think my advocating for fair DUI laws means advocating for police abuse.

I have personally told an officer no he couldn't search my car, and he retorted, " I was just being polite, I'm going to do it anyway". If only I'd been brave enough to call my parents rather than let my buddy get arrested for pot, possession, but nonethless, I realize full and well how they use these kinds of things to their benefit. I just disagree that it changes the merits of standing against truly drunk driving.

[torchbearer]

we have to wait for them to harm others Just say no to pre-crimes.

[kcchiefs6465]

As I've stated in other threads, I am against arbitrary limits and checkpoints (I am in the beer industry, and it's a real pain in the ass to have to always make sure I don't flirt with that absurdly low line, even though I know I'm fine)... If you simply went back to just dealing with those who cannot drive or walk in a straight line, then there would not be an overreach, and we'd actually be dealing with just the ones who have no business driving and are a very real threat to other's liberty and safety.
I think we all agree on what reckless driving is. If you are swerving down the highway or going off the edge of the road then yes, you should be charged with reckless operation of a motor vehicle. We have laws in place already, without the need for these DUI laws. And not having a limit while not abolishing DUI laws altogether is troublesome. A police officer could be sole reason you are arrested and charged. Sure, the charges might get thrown out but still.

I'd like to see a more reasonable approach. If a man goes over the line, he gets a ticket, if it seen that he is intoxicated to the point that he should not be driving, the car should be parked safely off of the road, and the man ought to be given a ride home. Ruining the lives of of young adults for a crime that basically everyone has committed does not seem like justice. Especially when he didn't swerve or exhibit any dangerous actions



Yes, there are other kinds of negligence and accidents that can occur absent alcohol, but when you have a substance that when injested can cause you to not even be able to walk straight, then no, I do not see how you can be an apologist for them risking others lives because they drunkenly decide they're okay, when they're clearly not. What we need is to make a distinction between drunk reckless behavior and relatively harmless driving while drinking, not to act as if it's "no harm, no foul" if you're lucky enough to not harm someone (and yes, it is luck, when you're that intoxicated).
I agree. I think we have about the same position? Aside from maybe what ought to be done if someone clearly should not be operating a vehicle. And that I want to do away with DUI laws and use laws that are already on the books. Reckless op. etc.

[QuickZ06]

Thanks to all who shared there insight.

[Son of Detroit]

You're well conditioned and in full compliance, citizen.

DARE and all the rest did their job well.

When you're middle aged, you will be looking at what the new generation is putting up with and in full compliance with, how much freedom has been sacrificed for safety, and you'll shake your head.

Since when is not wanting to greatly endanger my life as well as the lives of others equal me being a government conditioned citizen?

I never had DARE, it's just common sense to not get behind the wheel of a heavy metal box going 70 mph in an altered state of mind. My parents have told me not to drink and drive, but that's them doing their job as parents.

As others have said, just because people are arguing against the action doesn't mean they're arguing for a "statist" position. I don't agree with random stops or checkpoints either.


When you're middle aged, you will be looking at what the new generation is putting up with and in full compliance with, how much freedom has been sacrificed for safety, and you'll shake your head.

Notice I've never said anything about laws. Even if there were no laws, I would still consider anyone who drives under the influence of alcohol to be horribly irresponsible and would have zero respect for that person.

Just because you have the liberty to do something, doesn't mean you should do it.

[Son of Detroit]

If you're not even 21 yet you probably 1) can't hold your liquor very well

Is this a challenge?

;)

[heavenlyboy34]

Alcohol affects vision, reaction time, judgment, risk assessment, ability to divide attention, and induces blackouts, euphoria, unconsciousness,increased self-confidence, decreased Anxiety, shortened attention span, impaired fine muscle coordination, impaired memory and comprehension, delayed reactions, impairs senses.....

So does lack of sleep, certain medications, and certain medical conditions. Therefore, everyone must be tested for these things at checkpoints. Safety Uber Alles! Remain children forever! It's for your own good and the good of The Borg!

The future is so full of fail. :(

[heavenlyboy34]

Barrex' post above was harsh, perhaps unfair, but has truth to it. Liberty does not mean you can just do what you want, it means you can do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on others. However, that doesn't mean we have to wait for them to harm others, to see that driving drunk is a huge threat to other's liberty and safety (I know some already want to respond, but read the whole post first).

It's as if you cannot take a stance on anything without someone acting like you're advocating for the current system. You're speaking to the flaws of the system, not the merits of the law itself.

I keep hearing, oh well it's such a small number, it's not any more negligent than any other negligence while driving, that is all just a cop out.

Standing for liberty also means standing against those who will infringe upon your liberty and safety by recklessly endangering your life. I don't see it as much different than firing off a shot recklessly and needlessly in public, you don't have to hit someone for it be grossly negligent and worthy of penalty.

As I've stated in other threads, I am against arbitrary limits and checkpoints (I am in the beer industry, and it's a real pain in the ass to have to always make sure I don't flirt with that absurdly low line, even though I know I'm fine)... If you simply went back to just dealing with those who cannot drive or walk in a straight line, then there would not be an overreach, and we'd actually be dealing with just the ones who have no business driving and are a very real threat to other's liberty and safety.

Yes, there are other kinds of negligence and accidents that can occur absent alcohol, but when you have a substance that when injested can cause you to not even be able to walk straight, then no, I do not see how you can be an apologist for them risking others lives because they drunkenly decide they're okay, when they're clearly not. What we need is to make a distinction between drunk reckless behavior and relatively harmless driving while drinking, not to act as if it's "no harm, no foul" if you're lucky enough to not harm someone (and yes, it is luck, when you're that intoxicated).
Wreckless driving and endagerment are legitimate offenses. The issue is whether alcohol should make consequences worse. I say no. Distracted driving is statistically far more dangerous than drunk driving. Just put all dangerous driving under one "umbrella" with varying degrees. That avoids the precrime nonsense that comes with checkpoints and such. A reasonable compromise, I hope. :)

[phill4paul]

Wreckless driving and endagerment are legitimate offenses. The issue is whether alcohol should make consequences worse. I say no. Distracted driving is statistically far more dangerous than drunk driving. Just put all dangerous driving under one "umbrella" with varying degrees. That avoids the precrime nonsense that comes with checkpoints and such. A reasonable compromise, I hope. :)

In the spirit of compromise ( I know, I know :) ) What would all think about this possible solution.

As we know in most offences there are aggravating and mitigating circumstances that define sentencing guidelines. So here is my proposal.

DUI would not be considered a 'stand alone' crime. No check points, no nothing.
DUI would be considered an aggravating factor w/ regards to reckless driving/endangerment laws.
DUI as an aggravating factor could lead to harsher penalties and even court ordered treatment programs. Recurrence (recidivism) of DUI as an aggravating factor in multiple reckless driving/endangerment cases could scale to even harsher penalties reflective of current DUI sentencing guidelines.

Of course this is just an exercise in futility. The prohibitionists have already won and DUI law will never change at this point.

[kcchiefs6465]

Would DUI be considered an aggravating factor for say, speeding, or improper lane change? I could see many instances where the officer would attest that the driving was reckless yet if a sober driver did the same, it would just be considered a moving violation. No turn signal and such.

[phill4paul]

Would DUI be considered an aggravating factor for say, speeding, or improper lane change? I could see many instances where the officer would attest that the driving was reckless yet if a sober driver did the same, it would just be considered a moving violation. No turn signal and such.

OK. To be clear let me get my definition of reckless driving then..... And also in realization that it means something different in each state........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_driving


In United States law, reckless driving is a major moving traffic violation. It is usually a more serious offense than careless driving, improper driving, or driving without due care and attention and is often punishable by fines, imprisonment, and/or driver's license suspension or revocation.

So no, I would not consider it an aggravating factor for moving violations in the above scenario.

[heavenlyboy34]

In the spirit of compromise ( I know, I know :) ) What would all think about this possible solution.

As we know in most offences there are aggravating and mitigating circumstances that define sentencing guidelines. So here is my proposal.

DUI would not be considered a 'stand alone' crime. No check points, no nothing.
DUI would be considered an aggravating factor w/ regards to reckless driving/endangerment laws.
DUI as an aggravating factor could lead to harsher penalties and even court ordered treatment programs. Recurrence (recidivism) of DUI as an aggravating factor in multiple reckless driving/endangerment cases could scale to even harsher penalties reflective of current DUI sentencing guidelines.

Of course this is just an exercise in futility. The prohibitionists have already won and DUI law will never change at this point.
+rep :) In a sane world, a judge and jury would look at the facts and testimony and make a reasonable judgement WRT fines and such...but that's probably not going to happen either. :(

[kcchiefs6465]

OK. To be clear let me get my definition of reckless driving then..... And also in realization that it means something different in each state........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_driving
So no, I would not consider it an aggravating factor for moving violations in the above scenario.
I could get behind it then. I'd be worried about police abusing their authority and drivers being labeled and convicted as reckless on their word alone but aside from that I think it would be ten-fold better than what we have now. Add in HB34's post about a judge and jury assessing each case individually as to the punishment warranted and I think it could work out.

For the children though, it is never going to happen.

[phill4paul]

I could get behind it then. I'd be worried about police abusing their authority and drivers being labeled and convicted as reckless on their word alone but aside from that I think it would be ten-fold better than what we have now. Add in HB34's post about a judge and jury assessing each case individually as to the punishment warranted and I think it could work out.

For the children though, it is never going to happen.

Well, this would certainly have been in line with what the founder of MADD had envisioned. The whole reason MADD was started was to get repeat offenders off the road. She left the organization after MADD's attention focused on changing drinking laws like raising the drinking age to 21.

[Shredmonster]

Fools who give up liberty. How I wished this country was 2 separate countries sometimes and you idiots leave the rest of us alone. Our side will have freedom and you guys go ahead and arrest people in your country for pre-crimes without them hurting anyone.

Why don't we just arrest everybody because everybody has the POTENTIAL to hurt other people be it negligence, intent etc...

Sound stupid ? That is what many here abdicate. You can apply your pre-crime arrest to anything. You might hurt somebody over the course of your life so why don't we just arrest your ass right now and get it over with ? To say this should apply just to drinking is shallow and a total cop out.

Gee lets arrest everyone because at some point in their life they will drive TIRED - look up the stats - way more accidents are cause by tired drivers.

The ignorant (and I mean that in a good way !) cannot separate the concepts of the law, of freedom and of liberty from their specific cause that being in this case drinking. Oh but we only apply pre-crime arrests to those that drink. Why stop there ? What about stupidity - the inability to properly judge speed, distance, cause and effect....
What about drowsiness ? What about medication ? What about texting ? What about radio distraction ?

And why stop at just driving ? Lets expand this everywhere to everything and everybody. Happy now ? Slippery slope anybody ?
And you people will be the first to bitch when YOU LOSE YOUR FREEDOM.

Unfortunately most people today don't have a clue as the the concepts and philosophy let alone knowledge of this country or real history to make any kind of judgement call based on rational thinking and sound principles.

Like I said there are lines you cannot cross and describe yourself as someone who believes in freedom and liberty no matter what your pet peeve is even if it means potential danger. You either believe in freedom or you don't there is no middle nor exceptions.

As others have mentioned if someone swerves we have reckless driving etc... But this thing has gone way way overboard to the point of unconstitutional entrapments and the like.

You think the government gives a shit weather you live or die ? Do you really ? DWI has become a business onto itself for lawyers and rehabilitation, psychologists, etc... Follow the money like always.

However you dogooders take the bait hook line and sinker and are willing to give up your freedoms for safety. People never learn.

[Michigan11]

You know alot of regaining our freedom is going to be able to equate it in a perspective that is digestable for others that have never known such freedom. I still drool at my uncle's stories, of driving around hitting snow banks in the winter, with rear wheel drive grand prix, with tee tops, that I still remember as a kid. He was the opposite of what one might deem irresponsible, he was very together, and a bachelor most of his life, he's older now, and much more mediocre today with a wife now of ten years. My brother had an instance of driving into a neighbors drive way one night, and walking 100' to our house, only to wake up the next morning with a killer headache and regret, being the older brother. Those times are now long past, and my brother was always very responsible, and still is, he has subdued greately, rarely drinks, unless I"m around feeding him good quality beers of course. Back in the day, my father was a small town city manager of where I grew up, and today he says if only more of the local politicians would drink with each other, they might just get along. Yet you can't, you might get a dui, or thrown in a paper on the front page.

Many that have never or will never know the problems that come with getting arrested for drinking and driving, might want to talk with those older. Most of my friends I grew up with and have today, either have a dui or know others that do. It's a perspective to try to see in the right way, not something anyone is advocating to go out and do, nor is the other side of the equation advocating for these laws.

There is however a part 2, or deuce to my story, that involve further police involvement that deserves another thread. The law of this occurrence was of a different nature, however, and is a very dangerous law indeed. I may try to post that here soon.

[Wooden Indian]

Again, no one here is advocating for the current overreraching revenue-generating system, but that doesn't mean that you can't advocate for fair DUI laws without being a hypocrite. As I've said many times, a sobreity test or car swerving all over the road should be the criteria (assuming no accident, in which case there could be added liability)

You guys are going to get nowhere if you simply dismiss others arguments because the current system (that we're not arguing for) is flawed, and even moreso if you act liek your "right to drive drunk" is something that others should accept.

Not to bring emotion into it, but rather experience: If the drunk driver who hit me going 80 had hit the front of my car instead of snapping my rear axle, I might not be sitting here talking to you today, so don't talk to me like I'm the enemy, like some of you want to.

I misunderstood your other post... I can get behind your point here. The DUI arbitrary BAC number is a joke of a system placed in to law by overzealous groups like MADD. Finding someone impaired (alcohol, tired, crying, angry) while operating, swerving or displaying other signs of recklessness, should be (if needed to sleep it off) a night in the pokie with a fine for the paperwork and room/board.

Of course the current laws want to throw someone in a cage for extended stay and ruin them financially when there was no real victim, and that is the problem I have with the system. it's an emotionally driven, lobbyist written, piece of shit, and should not stand in a true society.

Caging a man and ruining his life over hypotheticals is asinine at best. Needless to say, any person that kills another could be charged for manslaughter (in my perfect World) for any negligent death caused on the roadway... alcohol related or not.

The man that killed my brother did 5 years. 5 years for taking the life of a child. Yet, get stuck with a shitty attorney, blow over by .01 and say goodbye to your reputation, your savings, you driver's license, and even your life as you know it.

Bull shit.

[brandon]

Is this a challenge?

;)

lol well maybe you can I don't know you. I just remember when I was 19... getting drunk generally meant getting really sloppy, committing petty crimes, and losing control was kind of celebrated. When you're 30 it's a whole different experience. Getting drunk at 30 means sitting around talking with friends and not really showing any visable signs of intoxication until all of a sudden you spill your drink and everyone stares at you and then you go home. lol

[phill4paul]

lol well maybe you can I don't know you. I just remember when I was 19... getting drunk generally meant getting really sloppy, committing petty crimes, and losing control was kind of celebrated. When you're 30 it's a whole different experience. Getting drunk at 30 means sitting around talking with friends and not really showing any visable signs of intoxication until all of a sudden you spill your drink and everyone stares at you and then you go home. lol

Which really comes down to the minimum age drinking laws which lead to these actions. But, you will never see them role those back due to MADD.

[MelissaWV]

Confessions of someone who damaged property.

I would not really care what the root cause is. At least it seems like the bulk of the damage was to your own property.

[kcchiefs6465]

Which really comes down to the minimum age drinking laws which lead to these actions. But, you will never see them role those back due to MADD.
Roll them back? Hell they're expanding them. More checkpoints and traffic stops. Anything over .02 for anyone under 21. That's one beer and drive and it will be hard to ever get your life back on track. Classes and jailtime, thousands in fines and court costs. It's sickening. As wooden indian stated,
[the system is] an emotionally driven, lobbyist written, piece of shit, and should not stand in a true society. That sums it up nicely.

[Anti Federalist]

Wreckless driving...

Should be the goal of all of us.

;):p

[HOLLYWOOD]

This police Captain (retired) gets it and uses logic about the whole WAR on Drugs, history of prohibition, prison system, Federal laws, etc. Please watch the entire piece.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk

[phill4paul]

Former Sacramento police officer accused of falsifying DUI reports pleads no contest to felony counts

SACRAMENTO, CA - A police officer accused of filing false DUI reports, causing the cases to be thrown out, pled no contest more than two years after he was charged.

Former Sacramento police officer Brandon Mullock, 27, was charged with four felony charges - one count of perjury, three counts of filing false police reports, Sacramento County District Attorney Office spokesperson Shelly Orio said.

Mullock resigned from the police department in August 2010.

Orio said during the investigation, the police department and the D.A.'s office found the Mullock lied about DUI suspects refusing to do field sobriety tests, staggering or slurring their speech, and suspects making incriminating statements about being drunk.

In September 2010, the district attorney had to drop 79 cases written by Mullock after discovering inaccuraopcies in his reports compared to what was recorded by his patrol unit video. The cases mostly involved DUIs and Mullock as the main officer/witness. Orio said 73 of the cases already had convictions, which had to be recalled and set aside.

The trial against Mullock began in May 2011. He was cited in 23 different cases, where he was charged with 33 counts of perjury and filing false reports.

Orio said as part of his agreement with the court, Mullock pled no contest to four felony counts and the judge can consider the dismissed cases when handing down his sentence.

Mullock's sentencing is scheduled for April 19.

http://www.news10.net/news/article/237282/2/Ex-cop-pleads-no-contests-to-false-DUI-reports

[phill4paul]

TN Supreme Court to hear field sobriety case
Driver arrested even after he aced 6 field sobriety tests


The Tennessee Supreme Court has agreed to take a case that could determine whether police can arrest people suspected of driving drunk after they pass field sobriety tests.

The case involves a 2009 DUI charge in Sevier County that was dismissed because driver David Dwayne Bell passed six field sobriety tests.

So far, three Tennessee courts have found that police lacked the probable cause to arrest Bell and order a blood-alcohol test, which showed he was drunk. When police have probable cause, it means they must have enough evidence to show that it is more likely than not that a person committed the crime.

The Tennessee attorney general’s office asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. Its decision could determine how to factor in field sobriety tests when there’s little or no other evidence of drunken driving.

Bell’s attorney, Sevierville lawyer Bryan Delius, said police had probable cause to pull his client over for a traffic violation after police caught him driving on the wrong side of the road in Sevierville and even to ask Bell to do the tests. But he maintains that the grounds to arrest Bell vanished after he passed the tests. They included having Bell stand on one leg while counting to 30, identifying the year he had his 5th, 6th and 7th birthday and saying the alphabet from letters G through S.

Delius maintains that prosecutors and police want to have it both ways: “How can they say, ‘These are outstanding tests,’ use them on a daily basis and then turn around and say you should completely ignore them when somebody does well on them?”

A spokeswoman for Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper wouldn’t comment beyond saying state lawyers are awaiting direction from the Supreme Court, which hasn’t yet set arguments. Sevier County Assistant District Attorney General Greg Eshbaugh, who prosecuted the case, said he could not comment.

Judge didn't allow blood test results
Court records show that after Bell was stopped, he admitted to drinking earlier but said he realized he had made a wrong turn and tried to correct himself right away. A Sevierville officer who administered the field tests testified that Bell performed well on them, but he believed Bell was drunk.

A blood test revealed that Bell had 0.15 percent blood alcohol — nearly twice the legal limit, an official with the Sevier County Circuit Court Clerk’s office said.

Records show that Sevier County Circuit Judge Rex Henry Ogle said he couldn’t have performed better on the tests than Bell did, even sober. The judge said Bell committed a serious driving infraction but said that there had been construction in the area and other drivers had been confused and made the same mistake.

As a result, Ogle refused to allow the results of Bell’s blood test into court, ruling that it was the result of an unlawful arrest and the evidence had been illegally obtained. A General Sessions Court had earlier dismissed the case for the same reason. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals agreed.

“The state is not required to perform field sobriety tests on an individual prior to arresting him or her for driving under the influence,” Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge John Everett Williams wrote in the ruling. “However, if the state chooses to administer such tests, it may not simply disregard the results if the individual involved performs them successfully.”

Advocates worried
Advocates for tougher DUI enforcement are concerned about that ruling.

“I think we have to protect the rights of individuals, even offenders, but we also have to protect the rights of innocent victims,” said Dave Brown, whose daughter, granddaughter and unborn grandson were killed by a drunken driver. Brown believes police ought to have a variety of tools at their disposal when determining whether someone is driving drunk.

“If he passes a Breathalyzer test, then maybe I’m going to agree that you don’t have the authority to draw blood, but up until that point, it looks to me that all the tools should still be on the table.”

Others say it’s just as important that people’s rights be protected.

Nashville attorney Ed Ryan says if police don’t have probable cause to make an arrest, then innocent people are going to pay the price.

“You don’t just throw away a person’s constitutional right not to be arrested just because it’s a DUI case,” Ryan said.

[Anti Federalist]

Bump for relevance.

But honestly, there have been many epic debates on the subject.

Just search RPF for "drunk driving".

"We", as always, were right about the neo-prohibitionists.

Nothing will be enough until total prohibition.

[Anti Federalist]

////

[phill4paul]

Beautiful afternoon. Had my first beer while painting the house. About a beer per hour after that until 5pm when my lady got home. Had two fingers of Knobs Creek (h/t to AntiFed ) while washing the dog (lake jumping hound) and myself. Drove downtown to a new Mexican place. Really impressed. Great food for a change. Had one Margarita and two beers with dinner. Drove home.

I should be arrested for a post-crime just for admitting this.

[Anti Federalist]

Beautiful afternoon. Had my first beer while painting the house. About a beer per hour after that until 5pm when my lady got home. Had two fingers of Knobs Creek (h/t to AntiFed ) while washing the dog (lake jumping hound) and myself. Drove downtown to a new Mexican place. Really impressed. Great food for a change. Had one Margarita and two beers with dinner. Drove home.

I should be arrested for a post-crime just for admitting this.

You are reported, you monster, you, you, horrible, horrible man.

You are worse than Hitler.

LOL.

Seriously though, how was that Knob's Creek? I found it pretty good, and I'm not a huge bourbon fan.

I got some "legal" shine in a bottle I'm gonna try here shortly.

[phill4paul]

You are reported, you monster, you, you, horrible, horrible man.

You are worse than Hitler.

LOL.

Seriously though, how was that Knob's Creek? I found it pretty good, and I'm not a huge bourbon fan.

I got some "legal" shine in a bottle I'm gonna try here shortly.

I decided on Knob's because of your recommendation. A real vanilla aromatic. That's what hit me up front. Not a bad Kentucky Bourbon at all. As you know I'm a fan of Makers. Still, I give Knobs Creek a two thumbs up.

As far as the shine I dunno. Shine in the south is white liquor. Definitely does not have the refinement of a bourbon. It's just pretty much a high octane corn "vodka."

[Anti Federalist]

I decided on Knob's because of your recommendation. A real vanilla aromatic. That's what hit me up front. Not a bad Kentucky Bourbon at all. As you know I'm a fan of Makers. Still, I give Knobs Creek a two thumbs up.

Excellent, yes I noticed that vanilla scent as well.

Like I said, I enjoyed it, and I'm not a huge bourbon drinker, but it was plenty smooth, it mixed well and was tasty straight up.


As far as the shine I dunno. Shine in the south is white liquor. Definitely does not have the refinement of a bourbon. It's just pretty much a high octane corn "vodka."

Yup, that's pretty much what this is.

[heavenlyboy34]

We will be the last generation that kinda, sorta, actually tasted freedom. From here on out it will bubble boy cocoons for everybody.

"What was it like when you were young grandpa?" "I'm forbidden from telling you, my child."
I dunno, I had a bit of freedom, and I'm slightly over 30. A generation or so younger than you, IIRC. I never wore a helmet when riding a bike, climbed trees totally unsupervised, shot slingshots and air riflies and shotguns...pretty much all the "kid stuff" my parents did, AFAIK. I would say my generation is definitely the last to ever experience life outside a plastic safety bubble.

[bolil]

I miss the confessions of a fascist pig/ Hey lurking five o or whatever the fuck, go find a glock to suck. That trigger your kind pull on a daily basis cannot be all that bad, so inset barrel and pull. Bacon boy.

Tonight I overheard your kind spout about, they didn't like the reason I dropped on them. I guess said reason would have been //better received had it been delivered via drone. FUCK A PIG, FUCK ALL PIGS. Bunch of sallies that they are.

[heavenlyboy34]

You are reported, you monster, you, you, horrible, horrible man.

You are worse than Hitler.

LOL.

Seriously though, how was that Knob's Creek? I found it pretty good, and I'm not a huge bourbon fan.

I got some "legal" shine in a bottle I'm gonna try here shortly.
You'll have to report me too. I started nursing some O'Mara's (13% alcohol) at lunchtime and had several glasses throughout the day. Didn't get buzzed, but I daresay I enjoyed myself. :eek:

[phill4paul]

Excellent, yes I noticed that vanilla scent as well.

Like I said, I enjoyed it, and I'm not a huge bourbon drinker, but it was plenty smooth, and was tasty straight up.

FTFY. :D

As far as the shine goes it depends. Sometimes we call it "Thunder Head" for the storm in the noggin the following day. Depending on how it's made it can be good or bad. Same as store bought. Some is straight corn others, depending on corn price, go to fruit. I've had both and almost always cut it with water.

[phill4paul]

I dunno, I had a bit of freedom, and I'm slightly over 30. A generation or so younger than you, IIRC. I never wore a helmet when riding a bike, climbed trees totally unsupervised, shot slingshots and air riflies and shotguns...pretty much all the "kid stuff" my parents did, AFAIK. I would say my generation is definitely the last to ever experience life outside a plastic safety bubble.

I'll give you the honor of being the last generation. For what it is worth.

[Anti Federalist]

FTFY. :D

As far as the shine goes it depends. Sometimes we call it "Thunder Head" for the storm in the noggin the following day. Depending on how it's made it can be good or bad. Same as store bought. Some is straight corn others, depending on corn price, go to fruit. I've had both and almost always cut it with water.

LOL, I know I know...

I'll give that shine a whirl, but I'm not gonna punish myself, not when I have two bottles of Tito's on the shelf.

That stuff there is, jeez, like nectar, as smooth as can be, and I feel fine the next day, hell maybe better.

[kcchiefs6465]

I dunno, I had a bit of freedom, and I'm slightly over 30. A generation or so younger than you, IIRC. I never wore a helmet when riding a bike, climbed trees totally unsupervised, shot slingshots and air riflies and shotguns...pretty much all the "kid stuff" my parents did, AFAIK. I would say my generation is definitely the last to ever experience life outside a plastic safety bubble.
I am 21 and remember the days of piling into the back of the pick up truck, cooler full of beer, and heading to the drive in. It was changing already, we just didn't really care. Good times. :(

Hell, I remember picking my dad up out of the county, full 30 pack on ice, and driving around all day tipping a few back. Gone are the days of drinking and fishing. I am a simple man. They really ruined everything I would consider fun. Laws on top of laws on top of regulations. I could probably shed a tear thinking about the fun we had when I was a kid.

[bolil]

goddamn this lukewarm place. I might be dead when you are caught, even so I will be laughing.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll give you the honor of being the last generation. For what it is worth.
An honor and a tragedy at the same time. :( Thanks, though. ~hugs~ :)

[phill4paul]

LOL, I know I know...

I'll give that shine a whirl, but I'm not gonna punish myself, not when I have two bottles of Tito's on the shelf.

That stuff there is, jeez, like nectar, as smooth as can be, and I feel fine the next day, hell maybe better.

I've not tried Tito's. I am a fan of Absolut. I've had that on the rocks and love it. Anything top shelf makes a world of difference. I've tried Knob's Creek at your suggestion and will give Tito's a try. When I drink vodka I usually do it as a mixed "Best Damn Bloody Mary Evar." Which really doesn't lead to nuance of vodka. However, a dirty martini tends to establish the vodka base. So perhaps a Tito's, dirty, with shaved ice is in my future this week.

[heavenlyboy34]

Bump for relevance.

But honestly, there have been many epic debates on the subject.

Just search RPF for "drunk driving".

"We", as always, were right about the neo-prohibitionists.

Nothing will be enough until total prohibition.
Ban fun and pleasure.

[Anti Federalist]

Ban fun and pleasure.

Already been done.

[Anti Federalist]

I've not tried Tito's. I am a fan of Absolut. I've had that on the rocks and love it. Anything top shelf makes a world of difference. I've tried Knob's Creek at your suggestion and will give Tito's a try. When I drink vodka I usually do it as a mixed "Best Damn Bloody Mary Evar." Which really doesn't lead to nuance of vodka. However, a dirty martini tends to establish the vodka base. So perhaps a Tito's, dirty, with shaved ice is in my future this week.

I think you will be pleased with both of those made with Tito's.

I had moved on from Absolut, to Grey Goose to Ketel One and Tito's surpasses them all, I think.

[MelissaWV]

I'm glad someone bumped one of these threads, actually. I thought of you all while driving this morning.

There are always those who argue that 0.08 is obviously drunk. You're past that limit, and you deserve to go to jail or at least lose your license. You are automatically unable to drive.

Strange, though, that I don't recall anyone arguing that 0.05 was any of those things. Now that the "recommendation" is to lower the BAC to that level, what about it? Were people driving drunk all this time and we were just too fixated on the super-flimsy limit to capture them? Doesn't this just strengthen the argument that pulling someone over should be based on what they are doing (ie - how they are driving, etc.) rather than checkpoints or suspicions?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Oh yea. have the girlfriend trained to stay sober and drive you when you get drunk.

There is another alternative :D

Guy comes out of a bar at closing time.
The cops are out in force across the street, just waiting...
He staggers over to his car, hops in, squeals out of the parking lot and and is swerving all over the road.
Cops are on him like flies on sh*t...
They tell him to get out and do a sobriety test.
He passes it perfectly...
Cop says: "What's going on here?"
Guy says: "I'm the designated decoy! - All my friends went THAT way!"

Did you get the ladders back?

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

I'm glad someone bumped one of these threads, actually. I thought of you all while driving this morning.

There are always those who argue that 0.08 is obviously drunk. You're past that limit, and you deserve to go to jail or at least lose your license. You are automatically unable to drive.

Strange, though, that I don't recall anyone arguing that 0.05 was any of those things. Now that the "recommendation" is to lower the BAC to that level, what about it? Were people driving drunk all this time and we were just too fixated on the super-flimsy limit to capture them? Doesn't this just strengthen the argument that pulling someone over should be based on what they are doing (ie - how they are driving, etc.) rather than checkpoints or suspicions?

DC lowered it's BAC to determined when you were legally drunk. Now you are legally intoxicated after one and a half glasses of wine or shots or beers.

Who goes out to dinner and just drinks one glass of wine or a bar and just drinks one beer?

Hay bartender - gimme a shot of whiskey and a shirly temple...

-t

[Michigan11]

Never retrieved those ladders. Yeah I shouldn't have been driving that night, and I shouldn't have gone to jail that night either, from hearing stories from those older before the whole DUI system took place in this country. Cost alot of damn money, more money than most people have in their retirement accounts today from what I read, that means if your an average American worker or non worker, than you go straight to jail get released and will then at sentencing go back to jail since you won't be able to pay the fines, and won't have the money for a lawyer.

The cops used to just tell you to pull it over or go up the road and get some coffee from what I've been told. It cost me alot of loot, and stress, and time lost. Now that night wasn't the norm, there was emotions mixed in there with a sudden departure. Normally I'm a professional when I go out and the key is to stick with good liquors, good beers, and stay hydrated. Yep we all fuck up and thats life, and anyone who thinks different is living a boring ass life.

BAC to the .05 bac discussion: After getting rid of smoking in most bars and restaurants, they took the fun out for some, left the non-fun for the rest. Now with the current bac of .08, which is ridiculously low, leaving many to sacrifice drinking at all when going out, in fear of a bac number, few can be completely confident in, if put to the test. The results thus far, have been less than steller times for many going out for the night, due to having to take precariously energy reducing, stress inducing precautions such as who will drive and possibly get the DUI tonight(like a lottery system), or do we know anyone Amish who doesn't drink yet will drive us later.

Fewer drink, more smoke weed, maybe not due to the more stringent laws, who knows, but fewer are going out and having a good time, and those that do, have a lesser time with the thoughts of cops out there looking around the corner, watching you leave a parking lot. Weed is good too, but people don't go out to smoke weed, so I'm wondering if the police state is punishing smoking cigs and drinking alcohol in public, to keep people from socializing as much as should take place.

Now with the .05 Bac, altoids, mouthwash, rubbing alcohol absorbed in the skin, a hangover from the night before, could trigger a DUI for the masses now. A friend of mine got a DUI at noon on a Sunday, from drinking the night before. He was driving fine, just speeding, and that's the key here, you don't have to be doing anything wrong to trigger a possible DUI, beside just driving out there on the roads.

So in the near future, as people go out, their night will be one that is made of food, no smoking, no cigars, no drinking, just food, and still the possiblity of getting pulled over and a fine for something. Sounds like a night out at a church. Doesn't sound like a place of fun or that I want to spend my days in. Sounds like a society of robots.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm glad someone bumped one of these threads, actually. I thought of you all while driving this morning.

There are always those who argue that 0.08 is obviously drunk. You're past that limit, and you deserve to go to jail or at least lose your license. You are automatically unable to drive.

Strange, though, that I don't recall anyone arguing that 0.05 was any of those things. Now that the "recommendation" is to lower the BAC to that level, what about it? Were people driving drunk all this time and we were just too fixated on the super-flimsy limit to capture them? Doesn't this just strengthen the argument that pulling someone over should be based on what they are doing (ie - how they are driving, etc.) rather than checkpoints or suspicions?

Yes, yes it does, which is why MADD, for one, doesn't support the rule, yet.

They have to manufacture some way to spin the obvious that you just pointed out.

Give them a few weeks to get their shit together, line up the propaganda lies, and they'll be all for it.

[Origanalist]

I like the one eye rule.

[Anti Federalist]

Weed is good too, but people don't go out to smoke weed, so I'm wondering if the police state is punishing smoking cigs and drinking alcohol in public, to keep people from socializing as much as should take place.

Wow, there's a conspiracy for you...would not surprise me at all.

Especially when you consider how many revolutions have been plotted in taverns and pubs and over drinks.

And, at least for right now, face to face communications are tough for the system to monitor, if you take a few precautions.

Not so for all the communications that go on while we hide behind our curtains, huddling in the house, hoping to be left alone for one more day.


So in the near future, as people go out, their night will be one that is made of food, no smoking, no cigars, no drinking, just food, and still the possiblity of getting pulled over and a fine for something. Sounds like a night out at a church. Doesn't sound like a place of fun or that I want to spend my days in. Sounds like a society of robots.

Outside, it's AmeriKa...

[PaulConventionWV]

FTFY. :D

As far as the shine goes it depends. Sometimes we call it "Thunder Head" for the storm in the noggin the following day. Depending on how it's made it can be good or bad. Same as store bought. Some is straight corn others, depending on corn price, go to fruit. I've had both and almost always cut it with water.

The secret to avoiding a hangover is water. You should plan on drinking twice as much water as alcohol in terms of regular beer either while you're drinking or some time that same night before you go to bed.

[Origanalist]

Wow, there's a conspiracy for you...would not surprise me at all.

Especially when you consider how many revolutions have been plotted in taverns and pubs and over drinks.

And, at least for right now, face to face communications are tough for the system to monitor, if you take a few precautions.

Not so for all the communications that go on while we hide behind our curtains, huddling in the house, hoping to be left alone for one more day.



Outside, it's AmeriKa...

You're hitting the nail on the head harder than I think even you know.

[Origanalist]

The secret to avoiding a hangover is water. You should plan on drinking twice as much water as alcohol in terms of regular beer either while you're drinking or some time that same night before you go to bed.

In other words stay sober.

[phill4paul]

The secret to avoiding a hangover is water. You should plan on drinking twice as much water as alcohol in terms of regular beer either while you're drinking or some time that same night before you go to bed.

I see college has served you well. :D JK. That and Vitamin C. The last drink I take of the evening is usually about 16 oz. water mixed with dissolvable C. I never take acetaminophen or the like. That is just accelerated liver damage. Water IS a good thing. Cheers!

[phill4paul]

In other words stay sober.

Lol. Yeah I'm not gonna match a glass of water to each beer. The designers of beer in their infinite wisdom included water in their recipe.

[heavenlyboy34]

I like the one eye rule.
I say, sing "the star spangled banner" or "The Anacreontic Song" and it's all good. (rumor has it that the tune was used as a gauge of drunkenness in the 18th century...not being able to sing it meant one is too drunk to be served again)

[heavenlyboy34]

Wow, there's a conspiracy for you...would not surprise me at all.

Especially when you consider how many revolutions have been plotted in taverns and pubs and over drinks.

And, at least for right now, face to face communications are tough for the system to monitor, if you take a few precautions.

Not so for all the communications that go on while we hide behind our curtains, huddling in the house, hoping to be left alone for one more day.



Outside, it's AmeriKa...
The Telescreens are coming soon... :(

[Origanalist]

I say, sing "the star spangled banner" or "The Anacreontic Song" and it's all good. (rumor has it that the tune was used as a gauge of drunkenness in the 18th century...not being able to sing it meant one is too drunk to be served again)

You really don't want me singing anything.

[Anti Federalist]

The Telescreens are coming soon... :(

Most everybody has one in their pocket already.

With an added, bonus, nightmare Orwell couldn't even imagine:

It tracks your location everywhere you go.

[bolil]

Keep the hair of the dog that bit you handy in the morning. Problem solved.

[Jamesiv1]

There's a lot of messed up shit in America, but keeping drunk people off the road isn't one of them. If the only person risking death was the drunk driver, then I would say live it up - but it doesn't work that way.

If you're getting pissed off reading this, then you might want to go see what's up at an AA meeting.

[Anti Federalist]

There's a lot of messed up shit in America, but keeping drunk people off the road isn't one of them. If the only person risking death was the drunk driver, then I would say live it up - but it doesn't work that way.

If you're getting pissed off reading this, then you might want to go see what's up at an AA meeting.

Excellent.

I'll count on your support.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?414368-Feds-Want-To-Lower-Legal-Blood-Alcohol-Limit-for-Drivers&p=5024679&viewfull=1#post5024679

[Origanalist]

There's a lot of messed up shit in America, but keeping drunk people off the road isn't one of them. If the only person risking death was the drunk driver, then I would say live it up - but it doesn't work that way.

If you're getting pissed off reading this, then you might want to go see what's up at an AA meeting.

How do you determine if someone is too drunk to drive and what do you propose to be the solution to keep them off the road? Do you believe anything over 1 beer is dangerous?

[kcchiefs6465]

If you ask me, we need drowsy checks as well. No bags under the eyes. Third offense is a felony.

And I don't like talking on a phone when driving so I don't care. If someone is caught talking on the phone while driving they should take their phone, escort them home, and fine the shit of them./slippery statist speak.


Seriously, a few pages back, check out some of the stats. We are talking about such a significantly insignifcant number that I have trouble putting it into words.

[bolil]

FUCK A STATISTIC. STATistic. Yeah, and how is pig iron doing now, after the sixth three year plan?

[Anti Federalist]

If you ask me, we need drowsy checks as well. No bags under the eyes. Third offense is a felony.

And I don't like talking on a phone when driving so I don't care. If someone is caught talking on the phone while driving they should take their phone, escort them home, and fine the shit of them./slippery statist speak.


Seriously, a few pages back, check out some of the stats. We are talking about such a significantly insignifcant number that I have trouble putting it into words.

Zero Tolerance.

Text and Drive?
Jail for Five!

And since the entire system has access to your phone records now, it'll be no problem to get real time data to bust your ass.

We're Cracking Down, For Your Safety!

[heavenlyboy34]

If you ask me, we need drowsy checks as well. No bags under the eyes. Third offense is a felony.

And I don't like talking on a phone when driving so I don't care. If someone is caught talking on the phone while driving they should take their phone, escort them home, and fine the shit of them./slippery statist speak.


Seriously, a few pages back, check out some of the stats. We are talking about such a significantly insignifcant number that I have trouble putting it into words.
Don't forget cell phone checks and car radio checks. And kids/pets in the car checks.

[Anti Federalist]

Don't forget cell phone checks and car radio checks. And kids/pets in the car checks.

We need random checkpoints for that.

Until we can mandate real time video and audio surveillance for the interior of every vehicle.

[kcchiefs6465]

And LOL at the AA recommendation. With the recent group therapy I've been receiving here I suppose it only makes sense that people would know enough about me through 12 point to offer life advice. As some are quick to point out, I am slothful. I don't do steps.

[Origanalist]

Zero Tolerance.

Text and Drive?
Jail for Five!

And since the entire system has access to your phone records now, it'll be no problem to get real time data to bust your ass.

We're Cracking Down, For Your Safety!

"Litter and it will hurt" "Click it or ticket" ..........

[Origanalist]

And LOL at the AA recommendation. With the recent group therapy I've been receiving here I suppose it only makes sense that people would know enough about me through 12 point to offer life advice. As some are quick to point out, I am slothful. I don't do steps.

I just can't abide all the whining.

[kcchiefs6465]

Text and drive, Jail for five
Has a nice ring to it. I don't text and drive so I don't care. Hell, being that dangerous on the road? Third offense should be executionable.

[Origanalist]

I just can't abide all the whining.

Quitters.

[bolil]

Whoever brought AA into these forums violated a tradition and should be ashamed of themselves.

Seriously. That is a program that saves lives and is taken very seriously. Pig. I don't actually possess the proper mastery of english to describe your transgression. Pig should do thou, yes pig, that will do.

[kcchiefs6465]

I just can't abide all the whining.
Yeah, holding yourself personally responsible is a no no. I've known a couple people who had success with it so I try not to knock it too hard. Whatever floats boats. It's definitely not for me though.

What that just reminded me of is that Half Baked scene where Dave Chappelle is at the NA meeting for weed. Lmao.

[heavenlyboy34]

We need random checkpoints for that.

Until we can mandate real time video and audio surveillance for the interior of every vehicle.
My driver's ed teacher predicted that cars would one day drive themselves on a track or something. Mandate that. Make the roads safer and stimulate the economy at the same time. ;)

[Origanalist]

Yeah, holding yourself personally responsible is a no no. I've known a couple people who had success with it so I try not to knock it too hard. Whatever floats boats. It's definitely not for me though.

What that just reminded me of is that Half Baked scene where Dave Chappelle is at the NA meeting for weed. Lmao.

Actually I'm just having a bit of fun. While it's not something for me, it's helped plenty of people who have serious drinking problems.

[tangent4ronpaul]

My driver's ed teacher predicted that cars would one day drive themselves on a track or something. Mandate that. Make the roads safer and stimulate the economy at the same time. ;)

There are these wondrous things called roller coasters. Sometimes they malfunction, leaving people hanging upside down at the top of loops. Sometimes they derail. Imagine the potential of hacking into such a system - kidnapping made simple. Then there is the audio and video monitoring, as it's inefficient for everybody to have their own car. I'm sure the virii and bacteria will love this arrangement also.

-t

[bolil]

A voluntary association that helps people better their lives... LET;S MAKE A MOCKERY OF IT HURRAH!

[Jamesiv1]

Excellent.

I'll count on your support.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?414368-Feds-Want-To-Lower-Legal-Blood-Alcohol-Limit-for-Drivers&p=5024679&viewfull=1#post5024679
slips, trips and falls are accidents. drinking and driving is a choice that puts others at risk.

if you make choices that put me and mine in danger, then I'm happy to see your ass get fined heavily. And if you do it again, I'm happy to see your ass lose its license to drive. And if you keep doing it, I'm quite happy to see your ass in jail for a good long while and I'll feel safer because of it.

[bolil]

slips, trips and falls are accidents. drinking and driving is a choice that puts others at risk.

if you make choices that put me and mine in danger, then I'm happy to see your ass get fined heavily. And if you do it again, I'm happy to see your ass lose its license to drive. And if you keep doing it, I'm quite happy to see your ass in jail for a good long while and I'll feel safer because of if.

Oh, and will you feel safer when guns are congregated in the hands of costumed super heroes? So it follows. I may have driven drunk, and if so I did not kill anyone. The abitrary designation of .08 or whatever the fuck is the issue.

[Origanalist]

slips, trips and falls are accidents. drinking and driving is a choice that puts others at risk.

if you make choices that put me and mine in danger, then I'm happy to see your ass get fined heavily. And if you do it again, I'm happy to see your ass lose its license to drive. And if you keep doing it, I'm quite happy to see your ass in jail for a good long while and I'll feel safer because of if.


Federal accident investigators recommended Tuesday that states cut their threshold for drunken driving by nearly half, matching a standard that has substantially reduced highway deaths in other countries.

The National Transportation Safety Board said states should shrink the standard from the current .08 blood alcohol content to .05 as part of a series of recommendations aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths.

More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to a report by the board's staff. In Europe, the share of traffic deaths attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within 10 years after the standard was dropped.
[...]
A woman weighing less than 120 pounds can reach .05 after just one drink, studies show. A man weighing up to 160 pounds reaches .05 after two drinks.

New approaches are needed to combat drunken driving, which claims the lives of more than a third of the 30,000 people killed each year on U.S highways — a level of carnage that that has remained stubbornly consistent for the past decade and a half, the board said.

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable," NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said. "Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents, they are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will."
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?414368-Feds-Want-To-Lower-Legal-Blood-Alcohol-Limit-for-Drivers
----------------

You're in great company....

[kcchiefs6465]

You know what I miss? FUI. Whatever happened to that damn past time?

For a guess, as I believe it was before my time, do gooders happened.

[heavenlyboy34]

You know what I miss? FUI. Whatever happened to that damn past time?

For a guess, as I believe it was before my time, do gooders happened.
:confused: Fornicating Under the Influence?

[Jamesiv1]

You're in great company....
whatever.

If you think trying to keep drunks off the road is somehow infringing on your rights, then you might want to see whats up at an AA meeting.

[bolil]

whatever.

If you think trying to keep drunks off the road is somehow infringing on your rights, then you might want to see whats up at an AA meeting.

You;re that pig, you ever been to an AA meeting? If so, you are a prick for shitting on their traditions. If not, why do you blather about things you know naught of? Drunks off the road? Yeah, that makes sense. That is why there is an arbitrary designation of .08. I assume you are a statistocrat, I will laugh when you get caught in your own trap.

Cavalier shit sucker.

[kcchiefs6465]

:confused: Fornicating Under the Influence?
Fishing.

It might vary state to state. I know in Ohio you can't drink at the state parks. Takes all the fun out of it.

I'm not too good with AZ laws.

[heavenlyboy34]

whatever.

If you think trying to keep drunks off the road is somehow infringing on your rights, then you might want to see whats up at an AA meeting.
If you think Safety Uber Alles is necessary, you might want to live in a bubble and leave the rest of us alone.

[Origanalist]

whatever.

If you think trying to keep drunks off the road is somehow infringing on your rights, then you might want to see whats up at an AA meeting.

I think you already said that. Umm, not sure what you think I would get there. Anything else I can do to make you feel safer? Check under the bed maybe? The closet?

[fr33]

slips, trips and falls are accidents. drinking and driving is a choice that puts others at risk.

if you make choices that put me and mine in danger, then I'm happy to see your ass get fined heavily. And if you do it again, I'm happy to see your ass lose its license to drive. And if you keep doing it, I'm quite happy to see your ass in jail for a good long while and I'll feel safer because of it.
Driving alone puts others at risk. Slippery slope gets more slippery every day.

[heavenlyboy34]

Fishing.

It might vary state to state. I know in Ohio you can't drink at the state parks. Takes all the fun out of it.

I'm not too good with AZ laws.
Thanks. :) Haven't been fishing in many, many moons, but I seem to recall people drinking while at the lake. The law may have changed since then. :/ I'd have to google it. Too many damn laws. :P

[Anti Federalist]

whatever.

If you think trying to keep drunks off the road is somehow infringing on your rights, then you might want to see whats up at an AA meeting.

No no, I was in earnest.

Zero Tolerance.

You do support the new move to mandate a .05 BAC right?

But I say, why stop there?

There is no logical reason not to make it .00 right?

I mean, you don't support killing toddlers and puppies, do you?

Zero Tolerance.

*sigh*

Seeing a bunch of drunks at AA is not a legitimate reason to erect a police state.

When do I get to fine your ass for making me live under such conditions?

[kcchiefs6465]

Thanks. :) Haven't been fishing in many, many moons, but I seem to recall people drinking while at the lake. The law may have changed since then. :/ I'd have to google it. Too many damn laws. :P
It's a nice sized fine out there. The rangers will even come up to you to see what is in your cup and if you have a license. I've been checked a few times and luckily had my license. I usually didn't buy one.

[Anti Federalist]

slips, trips and falls are accidents.

What if they were drinking?

Zero Tolerance.

[Anti Federalist]

It's a nice sized fine out there. The rangers will even come up to you to see what is in your cup and if you have a license. I've been checked a few times and luckily had my license. I usually didn't buy one.

Free Country.

If you've ever been too drunk to fish....

You might be a Redneck.

[Anti Federalist]

Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset.

When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage.

America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government.

Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long. - Ron Paul

[bolil]

What the fuck, I would think a group like AA would meet with nothing but respect from liberty minded people... being a voluntary, self funded, organization whose sole goal is to assist those afflicted in finding a better path. Propaganda works, evidently. AA is a good model for any voluntary association... check out the numbers. AA, where hope is extended to the most hopeless situation. It doesn't matter, denigrate away a group with numbers 'liberty' would gizz to have.

A bunch of drunks at AA. SMFH. Full disclosure: I am done on this note, and will leave ignorance to its uninformed way.

[Origanalist]

What the fuck, I would think a group like AA would meet with nothing but respect from liberty minded people... being a voluntary, self funded, organization whose sole goal is to assist those afflicted in finding a better path. Propaganda works, evidently. AA is a good model for any voluntary association... check out the numbers. AA, where hope is extended to the most hopeless situation. It doesn't matter, denigrate away a group with numbers 'liberty' would gizz to have.

Who's going after AA? I made a couple of jokes, then said they were only jokes and that it helped a lot of people.

[tangent4ronpaul]

A woman weighing less than 120 pounds can reach .05 after just one drink, studies show. A man weighing up to 160 pounds reaches .05 after two drinks.


I knew it! DUI laws are SEXIST! as well as, um... weight advantaged... er... disadvantaged? I got it! WEIGHTIST! - Yeah, that's it!

-t

[Jamesiv1]

You;re that pig, you ever been to an AA meeting? If so, you are a prick for shitting on their traditions. If not, why do you blather about things you know naught of? Drunks off the road? Yeah, that makes sense. That is why there is an arbitrary designation of .08. I assume you are a statistocrat, I will laugh when you get caught in your own trap.

Cavalier shit sucker.
lol

yeah, I've been to a few. Probably 4 or 5 a week for the past 17 years. And I'm quite certain I'm not violating any of the traditions.

[Carehn]

It is a fact that more accidents happen when drivers are sober.

[Anti Federalist]

A bunch of drunks at AA. SMFH. Full disclosure: I am done on this note, and will leave ignorance to its uninformed way.

I think you're missing my point.

I have nothing bad to say about AA one way or the other, far as I know, they do some good work.

My point is: that's what the poster I was responding to is projecting...that a "bunch of scary drunks can be seen at AA".

The implied point being that, if it wasn't for ultra harsh drunk driving laws and the boys in blue that bravely enforce them, mass chaos and carnage would ensue.

[kcchiefs6465]

Free Country.

If you've ever been too drunk to fish....

You might be a Redneck.
I've been so drunk that the fish caught me. :eek:

[Anti Federalist]

I've been so drunk that the fish caught me. :eek:

Now that there is knee crawling, commode huggin' God's Own, drunk.

[Origanalist]

lol

yeah, I've been to a few. Probably 4 or 5 a week for the past 17 years. And I'm quite certain I'm not violating any of the traditions.

Do you think alcohol should be outlawed? If not, where and when should you be allowed to consume it? Does the thought of someone having a second glass of wine with their dinner make you uncomfortable?

[tangent4ronpaul]

It is a fact that more accidents happen when drivers are sober.

I'd like to see a ref or three in some credible journals about that.

2 people I've known have died in head on collisions due to drunk drivers (not them). Granted, I was living in a mountainous area with lots of curvy roads. I was also working EMS right by a highway.

I seriously doubt your statement.

-t

[bolil]

lol

yeah, I've been to a few. Probably 4 or 5 a week for the past 17 years. And I'm quite certain I'm not violating any of the traditions.

Nah, you know, if you have one half of a mind you know. I don't really care, but it is what it is.

you know, hear here and all that. This does not belong here, and fuck me if I brought it here. End of it, mmmkay?

[kcchiefs6465]

I'd like to see a ref or three in some credible journals about that.

2 people I've known have died in head on collisions due to drunk drivers (not them). Granted, I was living in a mountainous area with lots of curvy roads. I was also working EMS right by a highway.

I seriously doubt your statement.

-t
I do not. Just the sheer number of sober drivers vs. drivers who have had a drink, or smoked, or what have you, would lead me to believe more accidents are attributed to them. (sober) Granted the good majority are probably fender benders.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'd like to see a ref or three in some credible journals about that.

2 people I've known have died in head on collisions due to drunk drivers (not them). Granted, I was living in a mountainous area with lots of curvy roads. I was also working EMS right by a highway.

I seriously doubt your statement.

-t
More than twice as many non-alcohol related accidents as alcohol related accidents.
http://padui.org/information/crash-facts/
Can't copypasta the graph, sorry.

[Anti Federalist]

I'd like to see a ref or three in some credible journals about that.

2 people I've known have died in head on collisions due to drunk drivers (not them). Granted, I was living in a mountainous area with lots of curvy roads. I was also working EMS right by a highway.

I seriously doubt your statement.

-t

In 2011 there were 32,367 vehicle fatalities in the US.

In 2011 of those deaths, 9,878 were listed as alcohol being a factor (this is very loose and open ended defining factor btw).

Thus 22489 people died in accidents that were not alcohol related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html#DD

[Weston White]

If I am stone cold sober, and run over someone's child, dog, or mailbox... I am responsible for my actions. If I had beer, and performed one of those actions, I am still responsible. No difference.

If I am sober and harm no one or nothing, there was no crime.
If had beer and harm no one or nothing, there was no crime.

How is this hard for a few Libertarians to grasp?

Here is the crystallizing distinction:

The sober driver will instantly realize their error and stop at the scene to ensure that medical aid is on its way and wait to make a police report.

The intoxicated driver will either wake up, hung-over in their bed the next day, only to later find unexplainable damage to the front-end of their vehicle or will wake up hung-over in a jail cell, confused, wondering just what in the heck they are doing there.

[Jamesiv1]

Do you think alcohol should be outlawed? If not, where and when should you be allowed to consume it? Does the thought of someone having a second glass of wine with their dinner make you uncomfortable?
Of course it shouldn't be outlawed. We tried that - didn't work. But trying to keep drunk people from getting behind the wheel is good, common sense. I bet the good Doctor would agree.

I haven't studied up on BAC limits, how they do it in Europe and what not... but making the punishment harsh enough to make one think twice before ordering one for the road? sure, I'm for it.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I do not. Just the sheer number of sober drivers vs. drivers who have had a drink, or smoked, or what have you, would lead me to believe more accidents are attributed to them. (sober) Granted the good majority are probably fender benders.


More than twice as many non-alcohol related accidents as alcohol related accidents.
http://padui.org/information/crash-facts/
Can't copypasta the graph, sorry.

TY and +rep to both of you!

I kind of had in the back of my mind semi drivers nodding off...

Still, percentage of ppl that have accidents if sober vs percentage of people that have accidents if drunk...

-t

[Weston White]

It is a fact that more accidents happen when drivers are sober.

Regardless, that is only because the ratio of sober drivers to intoxicated drivers is vastly dominated by sober drivers.

[Anti Federalist]

I bet the good Doctor would agree.

I'm pretty sure he made himself clear:


Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset.

When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage.

America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government.

Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long. - Ron Paul

[kcchiefs6465]

I haven't studied up on BAC limits, how they do it in Europe and what not... but making the punishment harsh enough to make one think twice before ordering one for the road? sure, I'm for it.
Forgive me for being frank, but this is why the future is so bleak.

[Anti Federalist]

Of course it shouldn't be outlawed. We tried that - didn't work. But trying to keep drunk people from getting behind the wheel is good, common sense. I bet the good Doctor would agree.

I haven't studied up on BAC limits, how they do it in Europe and what not... but making the punishment harsh enough to make one think twice before ordering one for the road? sure, I'm for it.

Well, we are at .08

The FedCoats are moving to achieve global compliance and reduce it .05

But why would anybody be in favor of that?

It should be .00

Zero Tolerance.

[tangent4ronpaul]

In 2011 there were 32,367 vehicle fatalities in the US.

In 2011 of those deaths, 9,878 were listed as alcohol being a factor (this is very loose and open ended defining factor btw).

Thus 22489 people died in accidents that were not alcohol related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html#DD

You must spread some rep around before giving it to AF again....

-t

[Origanalist]

Well, we are at .08

The FedCoats are moving to achieve global compliance and reduce it .05

But why would anybody be in favor of that?

It should be .00



Zero Tolerance.

And on and on it goes.

[Anti Federalist]

Forgive me for being frank, but this is why the future is so bleak.

Indeed.

The argument being made for that, is the same argument that is being used to eviscerate the last shreds of liberty left everywhere else.

Doing a damn good job of it, too.

[Origanalist]

Indeed.

The argument being made for that, is the same argument that is being used to eviscerate the last shreds of liberty left everywhere else.

Doing a damn good job of it, too.

And on that depressing note I bid you all a good night.

[tangent4ronpaul]

night

-t

[Jamesiv1]

Nah, you know, if you have one half of a mind you know. I don't really care, but it is what it is.

you know, hear here and all that. This does not belong here, and fuck me if I brought it here. End of it, mmmkay?
what you're referring to is called breaking someone else's anonymity. "Who you see in here and what you hear in here, stays here."

If I see you in a meeting, then go tell others I saw you in a meeting, then I'm breaking your anonymity, which is a no-no.

If I tell people that I'm an active member of AA, I'm breaking my own anonymity, which is fine. I'm not very "anonymous" as you can see - and that's fine, too. I don't put it on my resumé, but I like to be available if someone is looking for some help.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, we are at .08

The FedCoats are moving to achieve global compliance and reduce it .05

But why would anybody be in favor of that?

It should be .00

Zero Tolerance.
Damn straight. Ban mouthwash and communion wine.

[Anti Federalist]

I want somebody to explain to me why the BAC should not be .00

[Anti Federalist]

Damn straight. Ban mouthwash and communion wine.

Grape Juice and non alcoholic mouthwash.

[John F Kennedy III]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.


Amen bro.

[heavenlyboy34]

Grape Juice and non alcoholic mouthwash.
As the lawrd would want it, amen. /sarc

[Anti Federalist]

Amen bro.

LOL - Thanks for bringing that back up.

I had totally forgotten King Knows Nothing trolled me in this thread.

[Anti Federalist]

Why isn't driving in and of itself considered reckless endangerment?

It will be.

Here is your driverless car, Citizen.

You can no longer be trusted to drive at all.

Now, sit quietly for the surveillance cameras while this safe and sane "people pod' drives you to your government approved destination.

Have a nice day Comrade.

[John F Kennedy III]

Grape Juice and non alcoholic mouthwash.

Ban them too.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Damn straight. Ban mouthwash and communion wine.

Ummm... I think that might effect the human population growth curve... :(


I want somebody to explain to me why the BAC should not be .00

Because PROBATION WORKS!
AND THE GVMT NEVER DOES ANYTHING THAT WORKS!

lol!

-t

[Weston White]

I want somebody to explain to me why the BAC should not be .00

Personally, I think it should not be so cut and dry, for example, it should be scientifically formulated based upon the driver’s listed height and weight (as noted on their license—which is legally required to be accurate within small degree of error), should account for distinct tolerances between male and female, should account for the person being of drinking age (e.g., under 21-years of age with a BAC of .02, they would be deemed legally intoxicated), and it should be required that the driver exhibits one or more signs of intoxication that would attribute to diminished motor-skills or physical reaction (excluding from this requirement—as a singular indication: scent of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, verbal admissions, flushed skin, unkempt appearance, etc.)

* While on the issue, I also think that it should perfectly lawful for people to drink alcohol while driving, so long as the driver is able of maintaining their BAC below the legal limit. If you can handle a coffee, pop, or juice while driving you can just as well handle a can of beer, a sip of vino, or a swig of Black Label.

[Anti Federalist]

* While on the issue, I also think that it should perfectly lawful for people to drink alcohol while driving, so long as the driver is able of maintaining their BAC below the legal limit. If you can handle a coffee, pop, or juice while driving you can just as well handle a can of beer, a sip of vino, or a swig of Black Label.

Why?

Buzzed driving is drunk driving.

Zero tolerance.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Personally, I think it should not be so cut and dry, for example, it should be scientifically formulated based upon the driver’s listed height and weight (as noted on their license—which is legally required to be accurate within small degree of error), should account for distinct tolerances between male and female, should account for the person being of drinking age (e.g., under 21-years of age with a BAC of .02, they would be deemed legally intoxicated), and it should be required that the driver exhibits one or more signs of intoxication that would attribute to diminished motor-skills or physical reaction (excluding from this requirement—as a singular indication: scent of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, verbal admissions, flushed skin, unkempt appearance, etc.)

* While on the issue, I also think that it should perfectly lawful for people to drink alcohol while driving, so long as the driver is able of maintaining their BAC below the legal limit. If you can handle a coffee, pop, or juice while driving you can just as well handle a can of beer, a sip of vino, or a swig of Black Label.

What LEA do you work for?

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why?

Buzzed driving is drunk driving.

Zero tolerance.

Are you sarcastically arguing for prohibition or did you loose someone close to you due to ETOH?

-t

[Weston White]

What LEA do you work for?

-t

Sorry, I cannot divulge that; it is against departmental policy. (I am not LEO though, but do work with LEO in a “civilian” capacity.)

[Weston White]

Why?

Buzzed driving is drunk driving.

Zero tolerance.

Because there is a line that once one crosses they should no longer possess or manage anything that might possibly harm others in society, including but not limited to: firearms, explosives, automobiles, heavy equipment or machinery, etc.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Because there is a line that once one crosses they should no longer possess or manage anything that might possibly harm others in society, including but not limited to: firearms, explosives, automobiles, heavy equipment or machinery, etc.

And that is a slippery slope. Take for example NYC raiding psych docs offices for patient records and then raiding any patients home that had a gun permit and was on certain meds.

I generally agree with you on this one... Except the "should no longer possess" part. Possess, yeah, use while on meds or whatever - no.

-t

[Weston White]

And that is a slippery slope. Take for example NYC raiding psych docs offices for patient records and then raiding any patients home that had a gun permit and was on certain meds.

I generally agree with you on this one... Except the "should no longer possess" part. Possess, yeah, use while on meds or whatever - no.

-t

Oh yes, I meant only while under the influence of whatever. Although I do hold concern about acknowledged mentally ill or deranged individuals possessing things such as firearms. But, in general, simply because somebody is on medication (say because they cannot sleep, have been feeling depressed lately, were suicidal in the past, suffer from OCD, etc.) they should not be stripped of their rights.

Why would mental health practitioners have gun permit information though (that seems rather odd no)?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Oh yes, I meant only while under the influence of whatever. Although I do hold concern about acknowledged mentally ill or deranged individuals possessing things such as firearms. But, in general, simply because somebody is on medication (say because they cannot sleep, have been feeling depressed lately, were suicidal in the past, suffer from OCD, etc.) they should not be stripped of their rights.

Why would mental health practitioners have gun permit information though (that seems rather odd no)?

Mental health practitioners do not have gun permit information.

The NYC cops get copies of the psych records and run names. If a patient shows up in the gun permit DB, they look for what meds they are on.

On one hand I agree with this. 90-95% of mass shooters have been on SSRI's (anti-depressants). However, these things only seem to happen when: 1) Just placed on the drug. 2) Recently changed dose 3) Just got taken off the drug. There are a few other drugs that will set a person off too - for example a smoking cessation aid. Rx.

On the other hand, I really do not. Someone gets stable, into a regular drug regime - why strip them of their 2A rights? The windows of trouble are pretty small.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why would mental health practitioners have gun permit information though (that seems rather odd no)?

Not only them but your physician. They are encouraging them to ask you about firearms ownership as a public health issue. They are also asking your kids!

-t

[kcchiefs6465]

Personally, I think it should not be so cut and dry, for example, it should be scientifically formulated based upon the driver’s listed height and weight (as noted on their license—which is legally required to be accurate within small degree of error), should account for distinct tolerances between male and female, should account for the person being of drinking age (e.g., under 21-years of age with a BAC of .02, they would be deemed legally intoxicated), and it should be required that the driver exhibits one or more signs of intoxication that would attribute to diminished motor-skills or physical reaction (excluding from this requirement—as a singular indication: scent of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, verbal admissions, flushed skin, unkempt appearance, etc.)

* While on the issue, I also think that it should perfectly lawful for people to drink alcohol while driving, so long as the driver is able of maintaining their BAC below the legal limit. If you can handle a coffee, pop, or juice while driving you can just as well handle a can of beer, a sip of vino, or a swig of Black Label.
.02 huh? It's already that way, and many lives are ruined as a result. Keep perpetuating putting people into the system. I am sure you favor probation, and classes, and plate colors and mandatory days. Not to mention heavy fines. Smdh. I really wish I could scream in some people's ear, "THERE ARE 10,000 DEATHS YEARLY, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DRIVE DAILY, 112,000,000 A YEAR, 15% ADMIT TO DRIVING DRUNK IN THE LAST MONTH" Do you not see how ridiculously low of a figure that is?

And FFS, when you say it shouldn't be so cut and dry, what you are actually promoting is it being lowered for some people.

This is exactly why I will one day move to the mountains. Not because of the drunk drivers and all the carnage they cause (you know, one fifteenth as many deaths as medical malpractice deaths.. we really ought to ban medicine) but because people can't mind their own goddamn business.

What has this world come to? Particularly, the United States. Sacrificing freedom for safety is a damn epidemic. Boston bomber throws grenades? Submit to the use of armed drones. A school gets shot up by a lunatic? Submit to background checks and further restrictions on who can own a gun. They could tell you anything, and half of you would be walking to the grave blindly sucking your thumb. All it takes is a little fear. And life's uncertainties definitely are a good place to start.

I drove 'drunk' for years. My father drove 'drunk' for decades. I don't think I know one person who doesn't drive drunk or stoned at least many times monthly if not daily. None of them have had an accident, some have had incidents. (because of nosy pig fucks who can arbitrarily stop you for any reason they see fit) Put me down. Or financially enslave me. It doesn't affect you so why should you care? Don't ask for my sympathies when the next thing is banned. I can't wait.

AF has the right idea. Half steps are for pussies. Kids are dying daily. Bubble wrap will save lives. Our stated goal is to get the amount of people who die yearly to zero. Not for the MedicalIC or PIC or the MIC of course. Deaths there are tragic but a necessary evil. Consider it civilized collateral damage.

Sigh.

[Anti Federalist]

Because there is a line that once one crosses they should no longer possess or manage anything that might possibly harm others in society, including but not limited to: firearms, explosives, automobiles, heavy equipment or machinery, etc.

Exactly.

And once having granted the premise, that BAC limits set by the FedCoats and unconstitutional random roadblocks and checkpoints and now the drawing of blood on the side of the road, are "permissible", then you have already crossed that line, marched right over that fucker, and there is now no logical or legal reason to not set a .00 - Zero Tolerance - limit.

No reason other than not wanting to spook the herd into resisting, that is.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you sarcastically arguing for prohibition or did you loose someone close to you due to ETOH?

-t

Both.

I've lost friends and family to drink, to drugs and to death by firearm.

Which, of course, has only stiffened my resolve to declare that all of these laws and prohibitions, and the police state we have erected to enforce them, are all useless for the purpose of preventing such things.

[Seraphim]

SHUT YOUR LOGICAL MOUTH MUNDANE.



Both.

I've lost friends and family to drink, to drugs and to death by firearm.

Which, of course, has only stiffened my resolve to declare that all of these laws and prohibitions, and the police state we have erected to enforce them, are all useless for the purpose of preventing such things.

[Anti Federalist]

AF has the right idea. Half steps are for pussies. Kids are dying daily. Bubble wrap will save lives. Our stated goal is to get the amount of people who die yearly to zero. Not for the MedicalIC or PIC or the MIC of course. Deaths there are tragic but a necessary evil. Consider it civilized collateral damage.

Glad to see you on board!

C'mon, step up, everybody: BAN ALL THE THINGS!

Zero Tolerance in all aspects of life.

What a great way to live.

[kcchiefs6465]

Glad to see you on board!

C'mon, step up, everybody: BAN ALL THE THINGS!

Zero Tolerance in all aspects of life.

What a great way to live.
I can't wait. The little joys of my life (cruising country roads and tipping a few back) don't appeal to anyone so why wouldn't I support the little joys of their lives being stripped away as well? We can all be miserable. It's the American way.

I don't drink pop. So, no one should drink pop. I think I'm off to start a crusade. (for the children of course, not because I am a miserable little bitch)

[Anti Federalist]

I can't wait. The little joys of my life (cruising country roads and tipping a few back) don't appeal to anyone so why wouldn't I support the little joys of their lives being stripped away as well? We can all be miserable. It's the American way.

I don't drink pop. So, no one should drink pop. I think I'm off to start a crusade. (for the children of course, not because I am a miserable little bitch)

Mayor Doomberg approves.

Life in AmeriKa, where a bunch of frightened and emasculated busybodies, peer out from behind closed blinds and shuttered windows, with 911 on speed dial.

See Something Say Something.

Which, btw, brings up another point.

Somebody, somewhere, had posted a whole slew of "bad habits" Gauleiter Doomberg engages in.

As is usually the case, the one yelling loudest for restrictions on everybody else, does so because they have issues they cannot control, and thus project that onto everybody else.

[Soca Taliban]

Both.

I've lost friends and family to drink, to drugs and to death by firearm.

Which, of course, has only stiffened my resolve to declare that all of these laws and prohibitions, and the police state we have erected to enforce them, are all useless for the purpose of preventing such things.This is the point the freedom trampling hoard seems to overlook. If the natural possible consequences of drunk driving doesn't stop the individual from getting behind the wheel of car, then a 1000 new laws or a lower BAC limit will have zero effect.

We already have reckless driving laws.......no DUI laws needed.