How many drive home early on a holiday to not get a DUI?

[Michigan11]

Looks like the police state is already in our inner circles. I just got home, it's the 4th, or 4.0 one notch below the 5, just so I don't get the ever watchful eyes seeing me make a small swerve lighting a cigarette or looking out a window in strange direction.

Becareful out there yet it pisses me off to no end, that on these days, I know to hang low and just call it early before they all come out in masses. Bastards!

[kathy88]

I'm off the roads for the night.

[Anti Federalist]

Nothing says freedom like a police state.

[shane77m]

Not a good idea to be driving while intoxicated.

[Michigan11]

Not a good idea to be driving while intoxicated.

Let's not go there just yet. Right now were talking about the police state intercept within our inner lives. Or we could go back in time just a few years, with the term "roadies", or even just a bit further back on our slide to see bottle slidding out on a cops foot, while everyone laughs and says go up ahead and get a cup of coffee and carry on.

[ObiRandKenobi]

Not a good idea to be driving while intoxicated.

I don't mind.

[shane77m]

Let's not go there just yet. Right now were talking about the police state intercept within our inner lives. Or we could go back in time just a few years, with the term "roadies", or even just a bit further back on our slide to see bottle slidding out on a cops foot, while everyone laughs and says go up ahead and get a cup of coffee and carry on.

Still not a good idea to drive while intoxicated. Get a dd or call a cab. If some drunk SOB were to hit and kill a family member of mine and the SOB survived, well.....

[Keith and stuff]

Never. While I live in the highest drinking and least expensive liquor state in the country, I don't drink and drive. I'm frugal and not interesting in paying the government.

[Michigan11]

Still not a good idea to drive while intoxicated. Get a dd or call a cab. If some drunk SOB were to hit and kill a family member of mine and the SOB survived, well.....

If one of my asshole helpers on my crew that I hire came in on a hang over to work, without my knowing, possibly even intoxicated and dropped a hammer on my head while working above me, and later I live, well..... gonna have some words and who knows what else (1,000 ways to die)

[Natural Citizen]

I drive home early just to avoid the careless drunk drivers that get behind the wheel once they have their swerve on. Is why I'm home now. I could technically still be at the legion cookout since it's still going on, I think.

Of course, now I have this idiot behind me setting off huge fireworks. Driving my dogs nuts...fire hazard...may have to go out and flex here in a minute.:rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

Still not a good idea to drive while intoxicated. Get a dd or call a cab. If some drunk SOB were to hit and kill a family member of mine and the SOB survived, well.....

What if some sober idiot did it?? (80-90% more likely) Would they be less dead?

[pcosmar]

I avoided going anywhere today. not because of drunks,, and not because I'm drinking. (I'm not)
I had nothing to celebrate and I heard that the Police State was in full force today.

A good day to stay on the farm.

[Michigan11]

What if some sober idiot did it?? (80-90% more likely) Would they be less dead?

You know if we were gauging the equity markets, you'd be running Goldman Sachs. It's a crazy mindset we are living amongst when emotions carry such a weight as figures and facts, yet emotions tend to out weigh those numbers.

[Generalissimo]

I don't ever have this problem.

http://cdn.meme.li/instances/300x300/39425016.jpg

[Warlord]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua_ODg0FmzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua_ODg0FmzQ

reeeeaaaal soon.

The speakers on the macbook are superb.

[shane77m]

It boggles my mind when people try to justify getting sloshed and driving. If you want to do it, please don't be on the same road that me and mine are on but whatever.

[muzzled dogg]

Damn y'all got me paranoid now

[Scrapmo]

Never. While I live in the highest drinking and least expensive liquor state in the country, I don't drink and drive. I'm frugal and not interesting in paying the government.

This.
I dont drink and drive. I dont speed. I wear my seat belt. I make sure everything on my car is functional.
I do this for the same reason I dont drive into the projects. The fewer encounters I have with armed gang members the better.

[TheGrinch]

What if some sober idiot did it?? (80-90% more likely) Would they be less dead?

If they were being grossly negligent, like driving down the road blindfolded, then yeah, probably...

Accidents happen, but some, such as drunk driving are completely reckless and easily avoidable, and it's well known when you get in your car that you will not have the same motor skills required to operate it as you would sober...

But yes, let's compare people on a substance that makes it tough to walk a straight line, let alone drive a car, with the far more innocent reasons for accidents. That makes sense.

Fine if you don't like the drunk driving laws, I don't either, but I'm baffled how some of you can defend the behavior and compare it to normal reasons for accidents.

[pcosmar]

It boggles my mind when people try to justify getting sloshed and driving. If you want to do it, please don't be on the same road that me and mine are on but whatever.

It boggles my mind that the propaganda is swallowed so readily.

Now I haven't had a drink in several years.. But I have had 2 DUIs.
The first one, I was going to sleep in my car,, and not driving anywhere.
The second one I was driving home on my motorcycle,, no where near drunk,, but I had some beers.

I have, however, driven drunk. many many times. For years. I have never had an accident,, Drunk or sober.
I am not saying it is a good idea. I am saying the laws are stupid,, and the hype is repugnant.

of overall fatalities. or even non fatal accidents,, Alcohol imparement is a very small fraction of the whole.
Most (overwhelmingly) accidents are caused by sober drivers.

[kathy88]

Not a good idea to be driving while intoxicated.

I don't drink at all and I'm still not taking the chance if running into a checkpoint or an over zealous pig.

[pcosmar]

I don't drink at all and I'm still not taking the chance if running into a checkpoint or an over zealous pig.

Exactly.
A much more realistic threat than some drunk.

[Michigan11]

Maybe I started the wrong thread title.

New Thread: "How did all of these assholes get their licenses to drive and why is the government allowing these assholes to hit me on the roadway?"

[Matt Collins]

I'm tucked away at my hotel... in the pool... surfing RPF.... geesh I need a life

[Generalissimo]

I'm tucked away at my hotel... in the pool... surfing RPF.... geesh I need a life

http://i.imgflip.com/32p.jpg

[presence]

I don't drink at all and I'm still not taking the chance if running into a checkpoint or an over zealous pig.

ditto, dirt roads on the 4th

[enhanced_deficit]

The first one, I was going to sleep in my car,, and not driving anywhere.


Not sure if it applies here but in a driving class I took few years ago to cut speeding ticket fine, instructor had told class that cops can ticket a person sleeping off party buzz even in a parked car AS LONG AS keys are in the ignition. Don't know if laws have been changed since or that is still the law.

[pcosmar]

Not sure if it applies here but in a driving class I took few years ago to cut speeding ticket fine, instructor had told class that cops can ticket a person sleeping off party buzz even in a parked car AS LONG AS keys are in the ignition. Don't know if laws have been changed since or that is still the law.

That is the case (I was listening to the radio,,on acc.)
I was not previously informed of that "legal" detail.

I am now.

edit,, it was over 25 years ago.

[enhanced_deficit]

That is the case (I was listening to the radio,,on acc.)
I was not previously informed of that "legal" detail.

I am now.



It's natural for people to want to play music when staying in parked car with no intention of driving at a given time. Automakers haven't built options to play music without keys in ignition even today.

[Elias Graves]

No, I'm at the fireworks display now and I'll be driving home after, quite sober. If hassled, I will respond as I always do. Produce the legally required documents and keep my mouth shut. I do nothing provocative or cooperative either way.

[Generalissimo]

It's natural for people to want to play music when staying in parked car with no intention of driving at a given time. Automakers haven't built options to play music without keys in ignition even today.

I don't know what car you drive, but every car I've owned I've been able to turn the radio on without the keys in the ignition.

[liberty2897]

I don't ever have this problem.

http://cdn.meme.li/instances/300x300/39425016.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/r13teVT.jpg

[brandon]

In my state they have to publicly announce when and where they are going to set up checkpoints. For some reason last weekend was checkpoint weekend, so not really much to worry about tonight unless you're running red lights and doing 20 over the limit.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

it's a pain in the ass until someone you love dies because some stupid kid drank 10 beers and thought he was OK to drive. But don't worry, the nanny-staters will also send the host of the party to jail under manslaughter charges for not stopping him from driving.

[Root]

I drove about 250 miles today. Only saw one cop.

[mad cow]

I don't know what car you drive, but every car I've owned I've been able to turn the radio on without the keys in the ignition.

I won't swear to it,but I don't think I have ever owned a car or truck where you could turn on the radio without the keys in the ignition.

[oyarde]

I won't swear to it,but I don't think I have ever owned a car or truck where you could turn on the radio without the keys in the ignition.

Only one I could , that I remember was my 57 Chevy, I could actually start it too with out the key if you just turned it to off and pulled it out , You had to click it over one more to need the key , otherwise you coud just turn the ignition and start it . I actually liked that.

[Generalissimo]

I won't swear to it,but I don't think I have ever owned a car or truck where you could turn on the radio without the keys in the ignition.

Must be a European things. I've owned a Mercedes, Audi, and Opel. In all of them you could turn he radio on without the keys in the ignition.

[heavenlyboy34]

Must be a European things. I've owned a Mercedes, Audi, and Opel. In all of them you could turn he radio on without the keys in the ignition.
I am impress! :cool: Why the hell aren't cars sold in the US able to do that? :/

[Generalissimo]

I am impress! :cool: Why the hell aren't cars sold in the US able to do that? :/

They should be. My Mercedes was built in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

[heavenlyboy34]

It boggles my mind that the propaganda is swallowed so readily.

Now I haven't had a drink in several years.. But I have had 2 DUIs.
The first one, I was going to sleep in my car,, and not driving anywhere.
The second one I was driving home on my motorcycle,, no where near drunk,, but I had some beers.

I have, however, driven drunk. many many times. For years. I have never had an accident,, Drunk or sober.
I am not saying it is a good idea. I am saying the laws are stupid,, and the hype is repugnant.

of overall fatalities. or even non fatal accidents,, Alcohol imparement is a very small fraction of the whole.
Most (overwhelmingly) accidents are caused by sober drivers.
+a zillion

[heavenlyboy34]

They should be. My Mercedes was built in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Huh. I haven't been in a mercedes since the early 90s or so when riding with my auntie. None of the domestic cars I've been in have radios that operate that way. /jealous

[Anti Federalist]

Huh. I haven't been in a mercedes since the early 90s or so when riding with my auntie. None of the domestic cars I've been in have radios that operate that way. /jealous

Prolly some Fedcoat regulation against it.

[Brian4Liberty]

I want maximum government to protect me from drunk drivers and terrorists. If you are innocent, why do have a problem with that?

[ObiRandKenobi]

Just as likely to be killed by a swarm of killer bees but whatever.

[Generalissimo]

Just as likely to be killed by a swarm of killer bees but whatever.

10,000 people in the US are killed yearly by killer bees?

[The Free Hornet]

10,000 people in the US are killed yearly by killer bees?

That is a number based on propaganda:


The truth is closer to 10% of all highway fatalities are CAUSED by drunk drivers. This isn't good, but let's at least put the issue in perspective. Our government and certain self serving "non-profit" organizations have exaggerated this problem beyond any sense of reality to promote an agenda that eliminates basic individual rights, undermines our system of due process and heaps onerous penalties on people who have not injured anyone and may not have met any reasonable standard of "impairment."

...

The federal government defines an alcohol-related fatal traffic accident as an accident where someone died and a person involved in the accident had some measurable amount of alcohol in his or her system. For example, a sober driver hits a pedestrian who has been drinking, even modestly. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. A sober driver rear-ends a driver that has had something to drink. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. A man has a drink before committing suicide in his vehicle. That's an alcohol-related accident. A driver has a single drink and is involved in a fatal accident that he did not cause. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. Do these sound like "drunk-driver-caused" accidents to you? That's what the government and the anti-drinking organizations would like you to believe.

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

Keep in mind, "drunk" for most adults who drink regularly (25yrs+, not 16-21 types) is going to be north of 0.08 (and 0.05 is just a sad fucking joke - I don't drink and that shit scares me). IIRC, the stats show the danger - statistically - spiking above 0.10 such that 0.12 is unambiguosly more dangerous and 0.15, even more so. At and below 0.10, other factors are likely more important. Age, for example.

[shane77m]

Maybe one day roads will be privatized and the owners of the roads will allow impaired driving. Until then though I will support the police removing impaired drivers from the public roads. Getting loaded and getting behind the wheel only shows me that someone is careless and has no regard for their life or the lives of others that share the roads with them. So to me it is a good thing for those to be arrested and removed from the public road. The roads are dangerous enough as it is. Don't need someone just barely keeping it between both white lines on the road with me or mine.

[WM_in_MO]

I support catching and convicting impaired drivers.

I do NOT support violating everyone's rights in the name of safety.

Clear?

P.S. I must regrettably admit that I have made the mistake of driving home impaired on a handful of occasions when I was younger. That is no longer the case. I know my limits, I know my habits. I have a system to ensure I have the best chance of getting home alive without hurting anyone. Its a little thing called personal accountability.

[kathy88]

Maybe one day roads will be privatized and the owners of the roads will allow impaired driving. Until then though I will support the police removing impaired drivers from the public roads. Getting loaded and getting behind the wheel only shows me that someone is careless and has no regard for their life or the lives of others that share the roads with them. So to me it is a good thing for those to be arrested and removed from the public road. The roads are dangerous enough as it is. Don't need someone just barely keeping it between both white lines on the road with me or mine.

Shane, I'm 5'2" tall and weigh about 120. One beer puts me over the limit. No one here is saying that drunk driving is a good idea, but there are tens of thousands of people who have had their lives and families ruined over drunk driving laws that are so cut and dried.

[Wooden Indian]

Maybe one day roads will be privatized and the owners of the roads will allow impaired driving. Until then though I will support the police removing impaired drivers from the public roads. Getting loaded and getting behind the wheel only shows me that someone is careless and has no regard for their life or the lives of others that share the roads with them. So to me it is a good thing for those to be arrested and removed from the public road. The roads are dangerous enough as it is. Don't need someone just barely keeping it between both white lines on the road with me or mine.

Who needs liberty when we can have safety? Amirite? I mean, sure, there wasn't any victim involved with that fella driving home after a few beers, but there COULD have been. Throw him in a rape cage! ARRRG!! FREEDOM!!!

Awesome.

[tod evans]

The propaganda regurgitated in this thread is nauseating!

Freedom my ass.

[DaninPA]

Maybe one day roads will be privatized and the owners of the roads will allow impaired driving. Until then though I will support the police removing impaired drivers from the public roads. Getting loaded and getting behind the wheel only shows me that someone is careless and has no regard for their life or the lives of others that share the roads with them. So to me it is a good thing for those to be arrested and removed from the public road. The roads are dangerous enough as it is. Don't need someone just barely keeping it between both white lines on the road with me or mine.

Got pulled over driving home from a college party in 1982. Totally shitfaced, crossed the double yellow. Cop gave me a $51 underage drinking ticket and A RIDE HOME.

That's how to get drunk drivers off the road. Not wrecking someone's life 'cause they blew a .09 at an illegal checkpoint.

[shane77m]

Got pulled over driving home from a college party in 1982. Totally shitfaced, crossed the double yellow. Cop gave me a $51 underage drinking ticket and A RIDE HOME.

That's how to get drunk drivers off the road. Not wrecking someone's life 'cause they blew a .09 at an illegal checkpoint.

So it is not okay to potentially wreck someones life that is doing something really stupid that could increase their likelyhood of wrecking someone elses life in a permanent fashion? There are consequences to stupid actions.

If someone is going to drink then don't drive. Get a dd or call a cab or stay where you are.

[kcchiefs6465]

I support catching and convicting impaired drivers.

I do NOT support violating everyone's rights in the name of safety.

Clear?

P.S. I must regrettably admit that I have made the mistake of driving home impaired on a handful of occasions when I was younger. That is no longer the case. I know my limits, I know my habits. I have a system to ensure I have the best chance of getting home alive without hurting anyone. Its a little thing called personal accountability.
Well if you asked me, I'd say a $1,500 dollar fine plus court costs is in order. Three days in the county, reporting probation and the fees that accompany that along with AA classes and a license suspension of 90 days.

But that was before I saw "handful." You are a danger to society. A repeat offender and must be treated as such. On your second DUI I'd go with a $2,000 fine. You don't seem to have learned your lesson with the first one so 30 days in the county ought to clear your mind enough to consider all of the children you could have killed. Two years reporting probation, a breathalyzer to start your car, which you will be funding, and another year of AA.

Third DUI, as some have so elegantly put it, "You should be killed." I'm a law and order type. Slave labor is more orderly. Now you are aware your third DUI is a felony right? Mandatory year in jail? I wish I could give you more for all of your sins but I can't. Five thousand dollar fine. License suspension of a year. Bracelet to monitor BAC, rehabilitation courses while in jail, AA upon release. Strict reporting probation with random alcohol and drug screenings.

Fourth DUI, I'd recommend three to five years in prison. Numbers. You'll make friends fast. Ten thousand dollar fine, permanent license revocation, 10 years reporting probation with stipulations for random drug and alcohol screenings. I'd add the court costs in but I'm sure by now you know you're paying that.

Aren't you just lucky?

[libertarianMoney]

I don't drink. (Heck, I barely drive anymore)

Question for anyone that drinks and drives:

Have you ever been driving home completely wasted and thought... "I'm driving too slow. Cops are going to realize something is wrong. I better speed up so I don't get pulled over," or anything similar.

Basically I'm asking, do you drive more dangerously because you fear police catching you?

I know when a cop pulls behind me and I'm sober... I often look drunk based on sheer discomfort alone. (I've been pulled over a couple times for it. "No officer... I just get scared of police.")

Studies have shown that a drink can actually improve someones driving. While they're physically less capable of driving properly, they drive more cautiously than drivers that didn't drink.

I personally think drunk driving is irresponsible and stupid but I'm trying not to let my bias shade my judgement. Could the strict laws cause more harm than good?

[kcchiefs6465]

So it is not okay to potentially wreck someones life that is doing something really stupid that could increase their likelyhood of wrecking someone elses life in a permanent fashion? There are consequences to stupid actions.

If someone is going to drink then don't drive. Get a dd or call a cab or stay where you are.
Sleepy drivers are a hazard. They put people's life at risk daily. As an action to take against this, we are going to have sleepy checkpoints where a set of standards are used to determine if one is too tired.

If you are going to be tired then don't drive. Go to sleep where you are.

I don't like people who drive while on cell phones either. They are a hazard. Mandatory jamming shall be put in every car built after 2015.

Don't even get me started on senior drivers. You know their risk of heart attack is astronomically higher than the average person? A ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Mandatory physicals every year after the age of 62 which shall include, but not be limited to, eye sight and hearing. There was a story I read the other day that made me have nightmares. A senior driver ran someone over and didn't realize. She went on driving and a couple miles away ran someone else over. I believe one was critical, probably brain dead or dead by now, and the other died on scene. When I heard that, I knew in my heart what had to be done. Saturation patrols and laws and regulations and safety considerations. This is America. Home of the safe.

People shouldn't eat when they're driving and we ought to discourage as much by drive through windows being mandated eliminated.

Blunt force trauma to the head is a major cause of death in auto accidents. I am being serious when I say that all front seat occupants be mandated to wearing a helmet. This helmet should beep when not worn in a moving car. Doors should not open when helmet determines car is moving, or rather, not in park.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't drink. (Heck, I barely drive anymore)

Question for anyone that drinks and drives:

Have you ever been driving home completely wasted and thought... "I'm driving too slow. Cops are going to realize something is wrong. I better speed up so I don't get pulled over," or anything similar.

Basically I'm asking, do you drive more dangerously because you fear police catching you?

I know when a cop pulls behind me and I'm sober... I often look drunk based on sheer discomfort alone. (I've been pulled over a couple times for it. "No officer... I just get scared of police.")

Studies have shown that a drink can actually improve someones driving. While they're physically less capable of driving properly, they drive more cautiously than drivers that didn't drink.

I personally think drunk driving is irresponsible and stupid but I'm trying not to let my bias shade my judgement. Could the strict laws cause more harm than good?
The stricter laws definitely do more harm than good. Eliminating freedom is never a good thing. (DUI checkpoints, mandatory self-incrimination) That is before we even discuss how many people's lives are impeded by the consequences of a victimless crime. It is a starter point. Notice the "click it or ticket" campaigns. Now they have seatbelt checkpoints. (thanks in part to the standing ovation DUI laws get)

To answer your question if I've had anything to drink I am driving as if a cop is behind me. That is because in all probability in today's great society, a cop is probably behind me. (if not behind me then hidden on the side of the road or on the off ramp) I have never had an accident in my life. I have avoided accidents where the State would deem me unfit to drive.

I know people who legitimately can't drive. My sister's husband was like that. Almost killed me twice being in the car with that idiot. He's a few years old than I and has totaled three cars.

I know people who'd "drive drunk" daily. They avoided a sure accident while I was in the car. It was the other car's fault and the first time my life ever flashed before my eyes. I would trust that person driving in any situation. He drove field cars on his farm since he was 10. Forty plus years of accident free driving ought to entitle him to something. (during most of which a cooler was kept in the car)

Some people can't drive. Some people can. The stats are insignificant when you consider something like 5-8 million people drive drunk monthly. That is just admitted to once. Many of these people drive drunk daily and many of the people won't admit to driving drunk if randomly asked on a survey. It's absurd to have checkpoints and strict sentencing guidelines. The whole damn thing.

[shane77m]

Yep sleepy people shouldn't drive.
Shouldn't drive distracted either.
My family disabled my grandfathers truck so he couldn't drive. Needed to be done.

I guess it is okay to do stupid things even though they might end up causing you to violate someone elses right to life.

Next I guess it will be wrong to for employers to fire employees that come to work under the influence.

[kcchiefs6465]

Next I guess we can mandate helmets and round off sharp edges.

Or cut the bullshit and go straight to the supplier. (http://www.uline.com/cls_17/Bubble-Wrap)

[kcchiefs6465]

Yep sleepy people shouldn't drive.

I agree that it is more dangerous than driving (which is inherently dangerous) fully alert.

What should we do about it though? We can have checkpoints. They're tried and true and now as American as apple pie. If someone is determined sleepy they could face hefty fines and jail sentences. Safety classes and participate in awareness campaigns. I'm just brainstorming. What do you think ought to be done to someone who adds more risk to the risk of driving? Simply adds more risk, doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't get in a crash.

Is reckless operation of a motor vehicle sufficient for someone who goes over the line while tired? Or should we aggravate the charges and/or create a new class of penalty?

[shane77m]

If legislation was passed that people on public roads had to wear helmets then I guess peolple in vehicles would have to wear them.

If we ever get private roads and I am driving on a private road that the owner allows people to get tanked then I expect to cross paths with some idiot driving under the influence.

Hopefully none of you who support driving under the influence will never have to deal with the life altering consequences of someone who has chosen to drive under the influence or you will not be the persont to alter someones life.

[kcchiefs6465]

Hopefully none of you who support driving under the influence will never have to deal with the life altering consequences of someone who has chosen to drive under the influence
A few points, I do not advocate driving drunk in the same way I do not advocate driving tired. I would never consider checkpoints to check how tired someone is. I would never consider it a crime in and of itself to be tired while driving. And I'd never choose to sacrifice my freedom for safety. That comes with me knowing full well that there is in chance, however infinitesimally small, that a sleepy driver, or a drunk driver, or a distracted driver may run me over or crash into me.

As I've stated there are bad drivers as is. A few rain drops halts traffic out here. If we are talking about dangerous driving we should also include in it a public that completely stops on a highway for a few raindrops or the people who drive without getting 6-8 hours of good sleep. The elderly as well. Good luck trying to get them to vote that they should have yearly license renewals and physicals. But I'd be damned if they didn't turn out in swaths to vote away my rights for their perceived safety.



or you will not be the persont to alter someones life.
Well truthfully, the same to you. Children running out into traffic can happen to anyone. I'd feel horrible if one were to run in front of my car and I hit them. Whether I was drinking or sober or whether or not my reaction was affected. The difference would be I'd go to prison for a very long time in one instance and in the other I would not.

What it all boils down to is what kind of society do you wish to have? A society of precrime where Rights are dictated away by a fearful and predictable majority (Fourth and Fifth, mainly here), or actual Liberty and the risk that comes with it?

And if you wouldn't mind, can you please respond to post #61. I'm trying to get a feel for your opinion on DUI laws.

[shane77m]

As far as drunk driving laws, I think driving under the influence is really a victimless crime per say. Unless said person infringes upon somone elses rights while doing so by hitting others with their vehicle. I would argue that operating a motor vehicle on a public road is not a right. So if someone has proven that they are a liability to the safety of those on a public road then that person should not be allowed to use the public roads to operate a motor vehicle whether that person be a drunkard, perpetual texter, sleepy, and etc. Which the same should be said for the police and their use of laptops and etc while driving their patrol vehicles.

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe one day roads will be privatized and the owners of the roads will allow impaired driving. Until then though I will support the police removing impaired drivers from the public roads. Getting loaded and getting behind the wheel only shows me that someone is careless and has no regard for their life or the lives of others that share the roads with them. So to me it is a good thing for those to be arrested and removed from the public road. The roads are dangerous enough as it is. Don't need someone just barely keeping it between both white lines on the road with me or mine.

More people die from slips trips and falls around the home than from drunk driving accidents.

I imagine more than a few are caused by drinking.

These reckless and careless people have direct impact on my ObamaCare mandatory rates I am required by law to pay.

I demand an immediate zero tolerance policy for people in the home.

Wearing of helmets and fall arresting harnesses is now mandatory for all waking hours.

Compliance will be achieved through random inspections by law enforcement and full video and audio monitoring of every hom.

[shane77m]

I don't really care what people do in their homes. What I do care about is idiots driving under the influence of some substance while driving on the same public roads I drive on. If they are private roads then whatever the owners says goes. I don't see how being mandated to wear helmets at home can be equated with driving under the influence on public roads being illegal. Seems like a fail analogy to me.

[Qdog]

I try to drive as little as possible. Its expensive, frustrating and dangerous.

[Generalissimo]

I try to drive as little as possible. Its expensive, frustrating and dangerous.

So are women.

[tod evans]

I'm so tired of the hypocrisy associated with DWI laws and those who support them!

Old folks on mixed meds are more dangerous.

Young men hot-rodding are more dangerous.

Women texting/make-uping are more dangerous.

Sleep deprived are more dangerous.

People having relationship/job/kid issues are more dangerous.

80% (guess) of DWI charges are levied against people perfectly capable of safely piloting their automobile, they are levied not to protect anyone, but to assure political favor.

[kcchiefs6465]

As far as drunk driving laws, I think driving under the influence is really a victimless crime per say. Unless said person infringes upon somone elses rights while doing so by hitting others with their vehicle. I would argue that operating a motor vehicle on a public road is not a right. So if someone has proven that they are a liability to the safety of those on a public road then that person should not be allowed to use the public roads to operate a motor vehicle whether that person be a drunkard, perpetual texter, sleepy, and etc. Which the same should be said for the police and their use of laptops and etc while driving their patrol vehicles.
I'm just wondering how you'd propose to enforce this. Perpetual texter? I knew girls in high school who'd text 4,000 messages a month. Should their license be revoked? Truck drivers drive very long lengths to make time, should they now be banned from driving because they are probably more tired than the next? We both agree driving is inherently dangerous and that people shouldn't drive under the influence or distracted or tired. But until they actually commit a crime there is no crime. How do you enforce what you are proposing without a massive, police/nanny/surveillance State? Would you agree that this anti-DUI crusade is very hazardous to the ideals of freedom? That it is a stepping stone?

Truth be told I'd wager a buck or two that tired driving is responsible for more auto fatalities a year than drunk driving. I don't know how many could argue with a straight face for mandatory prison time or even death (as someone here did for a multiple DUI offender) for someone who drives tired on occasion. And I don't know how they'd reconcile their blatant hypocrisy to condemn one and not the other. To wish to imprison one and not the other.

[The Free Hornet]

Maybe one day roads will be privatized and the owners of the roads will allow impaired driving. Until then though I will support the police removing impaired drivers from the public roads.

The DUI agenda is unambiguosly NOT about impairment. That is why you can be in a private lot, parked and get a DUI because you had the heater on.

Why do you post here if you refuse to follow the links provided and educated yourself on the subject?

Even somebody sympathetic to your POV ought to realize the current regime does jack shit to protect the innocent because no contestable evidence is required to convict. Breathalyzers are too imprecise and never will be since they don't measure BAC directly. More so, cops aren't required to preserve samples so they can - and have every incentive to - lie about anybody they want to frame.

How the fuck you tolerate this is a mystery. If you gave a shit about impairment like you claimed, then your posts would emphasize the need for

a) actual impairment levels (for 25+ adults that drink regularly, this is north of 0.10)
b) proof of BAC level - not breathalyzer proxies
c) the right of all suspects to get a 3rd party blood draw for their own defense
d) NO MORE CHECKPOINT CHARLIES!

Cops love checkpoints since they get to write lots of tickets for insurance, seatbelt, child seat, and then the 0.03s (e.g., a CDL holder), 0.05s, and 0.08s. None of these groups are impaired but they are easier to catch than the guy swerving on the road.

Of course, a lot of the morons support mandatory insurance which is funny because more money goes to the insurance industry overhead, profit, and advertising than actually goes to repair the god-damn vehicles. Think about it.

[phill4paul]

I don't really care what people do in their homes. What I do care about is idiots driving under the influence of some substance while driving on the same public roads I drive on. If they are private roads then whatever the owners says goes. I don't see how being mandated to wear helmets at home can be equated with driving under the influence on public roads being illegal. Seems like a fail analogy to me.

Read the entirety of this series and see if you are of the "if it saves just one life it is worth it" mentality........

http://peterlance.com/wordpress/?p=1210

[mac_hine]

Legalize Drunk Driving
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 3, 2000
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

[kathy88]

Nice find Mac.

[Origanalist]

I'm a habitual offender. I drink a ice cold one on the way home all the time, been doing it for decades.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't really care what people do in their homes. What I do care about is idiots driving under the influence of some substance while driving on the same public roads I drive on. If they are private roads then whatever the owners says goes. I don't see how being mandated to wear helmets at home can be equated with driving under the influence on public roads being illegal. Seems like a fail analogy to me.

Because these careless and reckless idiots, walking around their house drunk, cause my ObamaCare premiums to rise, cost me more in taxes for those who are not insured, and I just plain want to be able to bark orders at people, boss them around and have cops put them in cages because that satisfies one of my basic human needs, that all of us have:

The exercising of petty power over my fellow man.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm a habitual offender. I drink a ice cold one on the way home all the time, been doing it for decades.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6ZY5ES3BDbk/UXfvkZWf6vI/AAAAAAAAB-A/Ck-buqmfZj4/s1600/warning_police_greeting_card-p137500156069768357b21fb_400.jpg

Sir, step away from your computer, get down on your knees and put your hands on your head.

Sit still and await SWAT, which will be on scene in a moment.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Warning_for_police_brutality.svg/511px-Warning_for_police_brutality.svg.png

[TaftFan]

Not me, I'm a good enough person not to drink and drive. Or text and drive.

[Origanalist]

That's coming soon enough. ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Screw it, if I'm breaking laws I don't even know about daily........shrug. If it's been a long hot day, a nice cold one is a special treat. I pack one in my lunch cooler in the morning. :)

[Origanalist]

Lol, the old Oky who broke me in drank a half case of Bud EVERY day at work. Popped his first top as he was walking out his door. He never got in one wreck that I'm aware of.

[Anti Federalist]

Not me, I'm a good enough person not to drink and drive. Or text and drive.

Oh, you're committing a felony there somewhere, товарищ.

And sooner or later, we'll be by, to pick you up for non compliance.

[kcchiefs6465]

Not me, I'm a good enough person not to drink and drive. Or text and drive.
http://i.imgur.com/wIeHm0x.gif?1

http://reactiongifs.com/?p=3076

[TaftFan]

Oh, you're committing a felony there somewhere, товарищ.

And sooner or later, we'll be by, to pick you up for non compliance.

Murder is illegal too, but that isn't why I don't do it.

There is no reason to put other drivers in danger except for your own selfishness.

[Anti Federalist]

Murder is illegal too, but that isn't why I don't do it.

There is no reason to put other drivers in danger except for your own selfishness.

Ah, we have a "Perfect One" here.

You are just the sort that is The System's raw meat.

Good Luck, comrade.

[Origanalist]

Murder is illegal too, but that isn't why I don't do it.

There is no reason to put other drivers in danger except for your own selfishness.

Does my drinking a cold beer put other drivers at risk? I didn't say a six pack, I said a beer. This zero tolerance shit is as bad as the nonsense in the schools.

[TaftFan]

Does my drinking a cold beer put other drivers at risk? I didn't say a six pack, I said a beer. This zero tolerance shit is as bad as the nonsense in the schools.

Are you buzzed? Then yes.

[Anti Federalist]

Does my drinking a cold beer put other drivers at risk? I didn't say a six pack, I said a beer. This zero tolerance shit is as bad as the nonsense in the schools.

Annnnd this goes right here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417749-1941-Harper-s-Magazine-Who-Goes-Nazi

[TaftFan]

Ah, we have a "Perfect One" here.

You are just the sort that is The System's raw meat.

Good Luck, comrade.

Hardly perfect, I'm just not reckless. You too can learn to control yourself. Notice I did not say the state.

[Anti Federalist]

Hardly perfect, I'm just not reckless. You too can learn to control yourself. Notice I did not say the state.

"But, but, but, I didn't do anything wrongggggg!!! Look, look, I'll make you a deal...take those guys over there!!! See, they've admitted it! Why are you still arresting meeeee??? Arrest them!!!"

[TaftFan]

"But, but, but, I didn't do anything wrongggggg!!! Look, look, I'll make you a deal...take those guys over there!!! See, they've admitted it! Why are you still arresting meeeee??? Arrest them!!!"

Incoherant ranting.

[susano]

Hmm. I've never given much thought to this subject. If drinking and driving isn't the problem and bad driving (impaired or not) is the problem, then how do you guys think bad driving should be handled (if at all)? Wait until damages occur, perhaps?

[Anti Federalist]

Incoherant ranting.

Usually what happens when people are dragged off to their doom, for no apparent reason.

Whether you realize it or not, you support a system that does that.

Take some time to think about it...

[TaftFan]

Usually what happens when people are dragged off to their doom, for no apparent reason.

Whether you realize it or not, you support a system that does that.

Take some time to think about it...

Yeah, lets all kill each other because the state is against it!

If they are going to arrest for it is must be a good thing!

Contrarianism is a stupid ideology because it can be just as wrong as mainstream thought, which is why I'm a realist.

[Origanalist]

Are you buzzed? Then yes.

Man, you got it bad. Hook, line and sinker.

[TaftFan]

Man, you got it bad. Hook, line and sinker.

I totally want guys like this on the road:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBFj66niZvI

Nah, they couldn't be distracted at all.

[Anti Federalist]

I totally want guys like this on the road:

Nah, they couldn't be distracted at all.

You want this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX6_QWieZlU

Congratulations, you got it.

Looks like freedom to me.

[Anti Federalist]

Man, you got it bad. Hook, line and sinker.

Which is why the system will reel these "easy pickings" in the boat first.

[TaftFan]

You want this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX6_QWieZlU

Congratulations, you got it.

Looks like freedom to me.

Can't you read? No, because you are a drone.

I said drunk driving or any driving impairment is bad. People in this thread are bragging about not getting DUI. Not the search they are avoiding...but the DUI.

I am against traffic stops and blood samples. I'm not necessarily a proponent of impaired driving laws but I am certainly a proponent of being aware of your surroundings and not endangering others.

[Origanalist]

You want this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX6_QWieZlU

Congratulations, you got it.

Looks like freedom to me.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8HBbwaZCe54IxfGN92QGZ6M949kNUo jCXE7aZ3XtF6DCsphNKNXMxsqq5dA

[TaftFan]

Which is why the system will reel these "easy pickings" in the boat first.

Have fun righting tyranny half drunk! ROFL!

[Origanalist]

Have fun righting tyranny half drunk! ROFL!

It worked out ok for George Washington and crew.

[Anti Federalist]

Can't you read? No, because you are a drone.

...


I totally want guys like this on the road:

(video of some drunk being busted on the side of the road)

Nah, they couldn't be distracted at all.

Yeah, I can read...

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not necessarily a proponent of impaired driving laws but I am certainly a proponent of being aware of your surroundings and not endangering others.

Freedom is dangerous.

To a certain degree you have to be able to look the other way when people do dumb things...even dumb things that may pose an element of risk to you.

[TaftFan]

Freedom is dangerous.

To a certain degree you have to be able to look the other way when people do dumb things...even dumb things that may pose an element of risk to you.

OKAY, and I am saying don't be dumb.

But no, all of these tough guys can "handle it".

Lots of good talk until people get killed over it. Then dead silence.

[susano]

I'll ask again: If impaired driving is not a problem and just plain bad drivers are the problem, should anything be done prior to damage done or just wait until damage occurs?

[Origanalist]

I'll ask again: If impaired driving is not a problem and just plain bad drivers are the problem, should anything be done prior to damage done or just wait until damage occurs?

If the driver can't stay between the lines. he or she shouldn't be on the road.

[Anti Federalist]

OKAY, and I am saying don't be dumb.

But no, all of these tough guys can "handle it".

Lots of good talk until people get killed over it. Then dead silence.

I've had friends and family killed by reckless gun violence.

You will not find a more strong supporter of gun rights.

Fail...

[Anti Federalist]

I'll ask again: If impaired driving is not a problem and just plain bad drivers are the problem, should anything be done prior to damage done or just wait until damage occurs?

I'd be inclined to say "until damages are done".

If spotted and clearly a menace, there are reckless driving laws to cover that as well, regardless of what was causing the recklessness.

[TaftFan]

I've had friends and family killed by reckless gun violence.

You will not find a more strong supporter of gun rights.

Fail...

Really not a fail at all.

You can't make me endorse drunk driving no matter how many times you shout freedom and blood tests. I have only brought up the action, not the penalty.

The action is idiotic. People should not drink and drive.

[Anti Federalist]

Really not a fail at all.

You can't make me endorse drunk driving no matter how many times you shout freedom and blood tests. I have only brought up the action, not the penalty.

The action is idiotic. People should not drink and drive.

And what are you prepared to do to force compliance?

And what is drunk driving?

Origanalist's after work beer?

The cocktail I had with dinner out tonight?

[TaftFan]

And what are you prepared to do to force compliance?

And what is drunk driving?

Origanalist's after work beer?

The cocktail I had with dinner out tonight?

I support an across the board impaired driving law. Don't ask me to craft the details tonight.

[Anti Federalist]

I support an across the board impaired driving law. Don't ask me to craft the details tonight.

Then you support those cops taking blood against people's will and violating their 5th Amendment rights.

Because that's where it ends up...always.

[TaftFan]

Then you support those cops taking blood against people's will and violating their 5th Amendment rights.

Because that's where it ends up...always.

A police officer videotaping reckless driving via dashboard cam would suffice. Taking blood won't prove whether someone was texting or not.

[Anti Federalist]

A police officer videotaping reckless driving via dashboard cam would suffice. Taking blood won't prove whether someone was texting or not.

So no new laws are needed...reckless driving is already against the law.

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul friendly states drink the most.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/07/20130704_drink.jpg

[Nobexliberty]

Uff dah North Dakota

[Origanalist]

I support an across the board impaired driving law. Don't ask me to craft the details tonight.

Bullshit, give us thumbnails then. Present a outline.

[Kregisen]

Just to give my 2 cents....

This last New Years Eve, I was out and had a single small drink, and waited 90 minutes to drive home. A cop pulled me over for turning left and having my "left tire go over the line when turning". I agreed to do the first sobriety test so I could go on my way. It was the HGN/follow the light test. He said I failed it. He later wrote in the police report I got all 6 cues of impairment (statistically means you have a 80% chance of being at .1% BAC or above....very intoxicated)

After that I could tell he was trying to manufacture evidence so I declined all other sobriety tests and the portable breathalyzer. He obviously bet his colleagues a lot of money who could arrest the most people that night.

On the police report he also said I was swaying back and forth 2.5 inches while trying to stand still talking to him, he also said my eyes were bloodshot red and that he could smell moderate amount of alcohol on me.

Forked up the money to get a lawyer since the blood test I later took, ended up taking 3 months to get the results back.

BAC results came back .01%. Virtually sober.

Legal fees for me were in the thousands.

Fuck all police officers who try to ruin people's lives.

[Anti Federalist]

You drove after having a drink?

You're an awful, awful man.

Should have been flogged on the side of the road.



Just to give my 2 cents....

This last New Years Eve, I was out and had a single small drink, and waited 90 minutes to drive home. A cop pulled me over for turning left and having my "left tire go over the line when turning". I agreed to do the first sobriety test so I could go on my way. It was the HGN/follow the light test. He said I failed it. He later wrote in the police report I got all 6 cues of impairment (statistically means you have a 80% chance of being at .1% BAC or above....very intoxicated)

After that I could tell he was trying to manufacture evidence so I declined all other sobriety tests and the portable breathalyzer. He obviously bet his colleagues a lot of money who could arrest the most people that night.

On the police report he also said I was swaying back and forth 2.5 inches while trying to stand still talking to him, he also said my eyes were bloodshot red and that he could smell moderate amount of alcohol on me.

Forked up the money to get a lawyer since the blood test I later took, ended up taking 3 months to get the results back.

BAC results came back .01%. Virtually sober.

Legal fees for me were in the thousands.

Fuck all police officers who try to ruin people's lives.

[kcchiefs6465]

I support an across the board impaired driving law. Don't ask me to craft the details tonight.
If you could elaborate on post #61 on what ought be done about these sleepy drivers I would appreciate it.

They are endangering people and causing accidents.. even killing people in some instances.

Would you endorse mandatory sentences if one were found to be sleepy?

[Anti Federalist]

If you could elaborate on post #61 on what ought be done about these sleepy drivers I would appreciate it.

They are endangering people and causing accidents.. even killing people in some instances.

Would you endorse mandatory sentences if one were found to be sleepy?

"They" just cut trucker's hours back again.

Won't be able to drive for more than four hours after a while.

The safety uber alles crowd often points to air travel as the ne plus ultra of safety.

But the airlines are a failed model, constantly going tits up, getting worse and worse in terms of service, and always in need of a government bailout or subsidy.

[Origanalist]

But the airlines are a failed model, constantly going tits up, getting worse and worse in terms of service, and always in need of a government bailout or subsidy.

Just what is needed for the new paradigm comrade.

[Anti Federalist]

And a bump

[shane77m]

I have clearly been outed as a controlled op statist. I need to take some pointers from the others on this board that haven't been found out about yet. Can one of ya'll pm me details on how to avoid detection?

The gubment can pass new laws or not. Whatever. We can use existing reckless driving laws or not. Whatever. But idiots that drive on public roads that are a danger to others, should not be allowed on the roads. Until we get private roads I will support keeping impaired drivers off of the public roads. I would agree with Taftfan that video evidence should be enough. Or looking at the persons driving record would be enough to see if a person is a perpetual dumbass.

I guess if that means I support people getting hauld off ot the Gulag, then whatever.

[nobody's_hero]

Ron Paul friendly states drink the most. [. . .]

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/07/20130704_drink.jpg

. . . beer.

Now let's see a bar graph on who drinks the most moonshine so we can tell those pussies in ND to suck it. :p

[nobody's_hero]

I have clearly been outed as a controlled op statist. I need to take some pointers from the others on this board that haven't been found out about yet. Can one of ya'll pm me details on how to avoid detection? .

Stay out of the immigration and drunk driving threads.

[Anti Federalist]

. . . beer.

Now let's see a bar graph on who drinks the most moonshine so we can tell those pussies in ND to suck it. :p

Been enjoying the hell outta this stuff...

http://www.aatiffany.com/images/OleSmoky_Moonshine_422.jpg

[Origanalist]

Been enjoying the hell outta this stuff...

http://www.aatiffany.com/images/OleSmoky_Moonshine_422.jpg

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4995791042707568&pid=15.1

[Ender]

So no new laws are needed...reckless driving is already against the law.

In absolute agreement.