PDA

View Full Version : Drinking and Driving vs. Drunk Driving




Anti Federalist
11-02-2015, 12:14 PM
Drinking and Driving vs. Drunk Driving

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/11/02/drinking-and-driving-vs-drunk-driving/

by eric • November 2, 2015

It is important to make distinctions. To know exactly what we are talking about before we “do something” about it.

For instance, drinking and driving and drunk driving. There is a distinction to be made here.

An important one.

Why on earth should it be illegal – a crime – merely to have been drinking and driving?

Emphasis on merely.

Put another way, why should it be a punishable offense to have been drinking when one’s driving can’t be faulted? Unless of course the object of the exercise is to impose a kind of low-rent Prohibition – to punish people for drinking – this makes no sense at all.

But it does seem to be the object of the exercise.

Which is why the law increasingly package-deals the consumption of alcohol – any alcohol at all – with “drunk” driving. Those under 21 (who may not legally buy, possess or consume alcohol) can be convicted of “drunk” driving if they are found with even a single empty beer can in the car at a “sobriety checkpoint.” It does not matter whether the driver even drank the single can of beer. The presence of the empty can is sufficient.

For those over 21, the definition of “drunk” is nearly as hysterical.

In every state, you are automatically presumed to be a “drunk” driver if your blood alcohol content is .08 regardless of your driving. Mark that. Your actual driving is not the issue, as far as the law is concerned. It is not necessary for the arresting officer to even assert that he saw you driving erratically, much less prove that you were.

Even if you got him to concede in open court that he’d been following you for miles as you drove down a curvy mountain road and could not point to anything about your driving that indicated that you were other than in full control of you vehicle before finally pulling you over for a seatbelt violation or because the little light over your license plate was out – and subsequently, you “blew” a .08 in the Breathalyzer – it would not matter.

You are a “drunk” driver.

You could win the Indy 500 – sure proof that no matter what proof your blood might be, you are a damned fine driver but if your BAC is over whatever the arbitrary number is (currently, it is .08; it used to be .10 and before that, it was .12) then legally speaking, you are a dangerous, reckless, irresponsible, out-of-control “drunk.”

Your faultless driving is not admissible evidence that while you may indeed have been drinking, you weren’t “drunk.”

This is crazy. Like Carrie Nation.

But the law is lazy.

It does not want to be burdened with the obligation to prove that you – specifically – have had “too much” to drink. That would need to be established on a case-by-case basis, because each individual varies in his driving ability as well as his ability to handle his booze.

A person of low-average ability behind the wheel who has had nothing to drink but nonetheless wanders across the double yellow in every curve is legally acceptable (or at most, if a cop witnesses it, may get cited for a minor traffic offense) while the high-skilled driver who stays in his lane even though he has had a couple of beers gets arrested at a “sobriety checkpoint” solely because his BAC is over the ever-diminishing allowable threshold. The former faces a small fine and gets to drive home, wandering all over the road. The latter faces thousands in fines and goes to jail.

Because the law wants a one-size-fits-all (and thus, necessarily dumbed-down) standard that is based on a bait-and-switch.

Driving is no longer the focus. That would require observation and evidence, which was as it used to be. If you were driving erratically – across the double yellow, for instance – that was the necessary probable cause for pulling you over to investigate further. But if you weren’t driving erratically then a cop had no legal basis to pull you over because he had no probable cause. If your driving could not be faulted, the presumption was you were a competent driver. Whether you’d been drinking was immaterial. As it ought to be.

This reasonable standard has been replaced by shockingly unreasonable random stops without any probable cause whatsoever and the conflation of arbitrarily decreed trace amounts of alcohol in one’s system with drunkenness.

The sell is that more “drunks” are captured this way. In truth, they are merely catching more people who’ve been drinking.

It’s not quite the same thing.

If the argument is that people who drink (even a little) and drive are as a general rule “drunk” by definition (no matter their individual driving) and the only criteria necessary to establish a criminal case is the presence of small traces of alcohol in their system (or even just a single empty can of beer on the floorboards) then why shouldn’t people who are over the age of say 65 who – in general – have weaker eyesight and slower reflexes and a higher likelihood of being afflicted with dementia and so on – likewise be presumed dangerous behind the wheel, regardless of their competence behind the wheel?

Arrest them all!

Of course, grokking this point requires a conceptual faculty, the ability to discern principles and apply them to particulars. Most Americans lack this, courtesy of government schooling – which trains them to react emotionally instead. This makes it easy to demonize demon rum without (for the moment) demonizing older people as a class.

Their turn will necessarily come. Because one thing does follow another.

Most people, unfortunately, do not comprehend.

They target fixate on the emotional jihad du jour. Right now it is “drunk” driving. Perhaps tomorrow it will be elder driving. Or some other goat group.

Government schools have done their work, brilliantly.

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2015, 12:41 PM
There was a time when drinking while driving was perfectly acceptable, yet drunk driving was not.

But today, we have drivers out there who have no business driving while stone cold sober. They are unsafe at any speed. Yet, an excellent driver after one drink is demonized, and it is considered one of the worst crimes in our nation.


This is crazy. Like Carrie Nation.

Absolutely. It is neoprohibitionism combined with the highway robbery of government revenue generation.

Ronin Truth
11-02-2015, 02:12 PM
If you can make it home without getting pulled over by the cops, you win. ;) :)

presence
11-02-2015, 02:19 PM
There ought to be a law = There ought to be a gov't agent to thump you on the head with a stick if you refuse.

amartin315
11-02-2015, 02:57 PM
Ahh...first world problems

TheTexan
11-02-2015, 04:08 PM
Sleeping behind the wheel causes many accidents also. We need to make that illegal too.

Maybe if you're caught driving with bags under your eyes you should go to jail.

paleocon1
11-02-2015, 04:23 PM
If you can make it home without getting pulled over by the cops, you win. ;) :)

If you drive poorly enough to get pulled over THAT by itself is proof of driving impaired. Putting other people at risk for trivial personal convenience violates the NAP.

r

PRB
11-02-2015, 04:25 PM
there is no such thing as drunk driving, drunk is subjective and there's no evidence that says being drunk makes driving more risky. no harm no victim no crime.

PRB
11-02-2015, 04:26 PM
If you drive poorly enough to get pulled over THAT by itself is proof of driving impaired. Putting other people at risk for trivial personal convenience violates the NAP.

r

BULLSHIT. NAP is not violated until you HARM SOMEBODY. Risk is not harm. "Trivial personal convenience" is your Fascist opinion because you clearly don't value freedom. Freedom isn't meant to be practical, freedom is meant to be freedom even if it's "trivial" in your statist mind.

PRB
11-02-2015, 04:28 PM
Sleeping behind the wheel causes many accidents also. We need to make that illegal too.

Maybe if you're caught driving with bags under your eyes you should go to jail.

majority of car accidents happen when a person is
-sober
-buckled up
-awake
-adult
-driving under 200mph

So if we wanted to reduce car accidents, we ought to start by banning all of the above. Statistics proves being drunk, unbelted , sleeping, driving over 200mph and underage do not cause most accidents, therefore would not curb anything by addressing them.

PRB
11-02-2015, 04:29 PM
If you can make it home without getting pulled over by the cops, you win. ;) :)

it has sadly come down to this standard, we are afraid of nothing but public servants to claim to serve and protect us.

paleocon1
11-02-2015, 04:31 PM
BULLSHIT. NAP is not violated until you HARM SOMEBODY. Risk is not harm. "Trivial personal convenience" is your Fascist opinion because you clearly don't value freedom. Freedom isn't meant to be practical, freedom is meant to be freedom even if it's "trivial" in your statist mind.

OK so you feel entitled to place others at risk to suit your whims. Good luck with the cops, sport. I will be rooting for them.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2015, 04:35 PM
OK so you feel entitled to place others at risk to suit your whims. Good luck with the cops, sport. I will be rooting for them.

PRB is trolling, but he's right about this.

Everything you do can be presumed to put somebody else "at risk".

You like bacon?

Well, I'm calling the cops on you because bacon causes cancer and you have no right to put me at risk blowing cancerous cooking fumes at me.

PRB
11-02-2015, 04:35 PM
OK so you feel entitled to place others at risk to suit your whims. Good luck with the cops, sport. I will be rooting for them.

fuck off statist.

PRB
11-02-2015, 04:36 PM
PRB is trolling, but he's right about this.

Everything you do can be presumed to put somebody else "at risk".

You like bacon?

Well, I'm calling the cops on you because bacon causes cancer and you have no right to put me at risk blowing cancerous cooking fumes at me.

where am I wrong, where do we disagree and why am I acused of trolling?

Ronin Truth
11-02-2015, 05:17 PM
it has sadly come down to this standard, we are afraid of nothing but public servants to claim to serve and protect us.

When in reality their only real job is law enforcement, not service nor protection. <shrug>

presence
11-02-2015, 06:36 PM
OK so you feel entitled to place others at risk to suit your whims.

Consider for a moment how many people in the US are prescribed and drive to work on narcotic painkillers. Totally legit.

PRB
11-02-2015, 06:46 PM
Consider for a moment how many people in the US are prescribed and drive to work on narcotic painkillers. Totally legit.

Exactly, if you're not perfect you have no right to criticize other people for "putting others at risk" there is no constitutional right to safety.

brandon
11-02-2015, 06:52 PM
From my own experimentation (not in a vehicle, just in general) I've found somewhere like 0.12-0.14 is where my motor skills and attention start being affected. If the BAC limit was like 0.12 it would at least be more reasonable than 0.8. 0.8 is easy to hit in a couple hours of casual bar drinking. 0.12 requires more of a serious effort to get drunk.

PRB
11-02-2015, 06:55 PM
From my own experimentation (not in a vehicle, just in general) I've found somewhere like 0.12-0.14 is where my motor skills and attention start being affected. If the BAC limit was like 0.12 it would at least be more reasonable than 0.8. 0.8 is easy to hit in a couple hours of casual bar drinking. 0.12 requires more of a serious effort to get drunk.

no, it wouldn't be "more reasonable", government is government and if you don't hate it like I do, you're part of the problem. Fascism is fascism and if fascism isn't OK at .08, it's not OK at .12, it's all arbitrary.

The government has no business telling us how much alcohol we can have in our blood, no harm, no victim, no crime.

Legalize drunk driving.

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

ghengis86
11-02-2015, 08:40 PM
PRB is trolling, but he's right about this.

Everything you do can be presumed to put somebody else "at risk".

You like bacon?

Well, I'm calling the cops on you because bacon causes cancer and you have no right to put me at risk blowing cancerous cooking fumes at me.


where am I wrong, where do we disagree and why am I acused of trolling?

Uh, right above sport.


Exactly, if you're not perfect you have no right to criticize other people for "putting others at risk" there is no constitutional right to safety.


no, it wouldn't be "more reasonable", government is government and if you don't hate it like I do, you're part of the problem. Fascism is fascism and if fascism isn't OK at .08, it's not OK at .12, it's all arbitrary.

The government has no business telling us how much alcohol we can have in our blood, no harm, no victim, no crime.

Legalize drunk driving.

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

You're trolling has more vitriol as of late; what happened?

specsaregood
11-02-2015, 09:08 PM
./

PRB
11-02-2015, 09:13 PM
Uh, right above sport.


Not disagreeing with him at all. So what's the problem?




You're trolling has more vitriol as of late; what happened?

how so?

pcosmar
11-02-2015, 10:24 PM
If you drive poorly enough to get pulled over THAT by itself is proof of driving impaired.


Driving poorly is proof of nothing,, except driving poorly.

and you CAN BE PULLED OVER FOR ANYTHING (or nothing),, REGARDLESS OF DRIVING ABILITY.

Being pulled over is proof of nothing.

PRB
11-03-2015, 08:40 AM
Driving poorly is proof of nothing,, except driving poorly.

and you CAN BE PULLED OVER FOR ANYTHING (or nothing),, REGARDLESS OF DRIVING ABILITY.

Being pulled over is proof of nothing.

not that driving ability means shit, no harm, no victim, no crime, what's so hard to understand about this?

kcchiefs6465
11-03-2015, 10:54 AM
Ahh...first world problems
I believe governments extorting and robbing their citizens is a universal norm.

kcchiefs6465
11-03-2015, 10:59 AM
When I was living in the 2nd world... once while high on some awesome coke, I suddenly found myself standing in a pool of gasoline at the filling station (thieves had cut my gas line to drain the tank). A pair of cops appeared and helped me push the truck out of the gasoline, the numerous empty beer bottles on the floorboards clinked audibly through the rolled down windows and they said not a word. I bought them a 6pack of Amstel and myself a bottle of whisky, then they gave me a lift home.
I got two DUIs on a single traffic stop with a BAC of .01.

phill4paul
11-03-2015, 11:07 AM
I got two DUIs on a single traffic stop with a BAC of .01.

That must be some kind of record!

kcchiefs6465
11-03-2015, 11:14 AM
That must be some kind of record!
Even most people from per se DUI states aren't usually aware it's possible.

My first automatic conviction came when I hesitated to blow into a breathalyzer. Eventually coming to terms with that I was going to jail regardless and wishing to speed up the process so that I could go to sleep, I complied and blew into a breathalyzer. My BAC was .01. I was under twenty one so the legal limit was .02. They were surprised so they ordered me to take a piss test. I told them to eat a bag of dicks so that was my second automatic DUI conviction.

Then they added every conceivable misdemeanor imaginable. So much for Fifth Amendment protections.

kcchiefs6465
11-03-2015, 11:33 AM
In case some aren't aware, many states have per se zero tolerance laws with regards to trace amounts of illegal drugs in one's system.

So for instance, if you smoke a joint, and two weeks later you are pulled over, you could and will be convicted of driving under the influence if for whatever reason they do a urinalysis.

If you smoke a joint and two weeks later a child runs in front of your car and is hit and dies, you could and in fact would in many states, be charged with something akin to vehicular manslaughter. Regardless of one's sobriety at the time of the accident.

enhanced_deficit
11-03-2015, 11:36 AM
What about drinking and riding in cabs?

http://www.chewboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Taco-Bell-exec-Benjamin-Golden-caught-on-camera-assaulting-Uber-driver-326x245.jpg

Video Shows Taco Bell Exec's Alleged Drunk Attack on Uber Driver (http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-shows-drunk-uber-passengers-attack-driver-back/story?id=34913912)
ABC News-13 hours ago

PRB
11-03-2015, 02:20 PM
Even most people from per se DUI states aren't usually aware it's possible.

My first automatic conviction came when I hesitated to blow into a breathalyzer. Eventually coming to terms with that I was going to jail regardless and wishing to speed up the process so that I could go to sleep, I complied and blew into a breathalyzer. My BAC was .01. I was under twenty one so the legal limit was .02. They were surprised so they ordered me to take a piss test. I told them to eat a bag of dicks so that was my second automatic DUI conviction.

Then they added every conceivable misdemeanor imaginable. So much for Fifth Amendment protections.

drinking under 21 ? We have a role model here.

pcosmar
11-03-2015, 02:28 PM
drinking under 21 ? We have a role model here.

It was legal at 18,,when I was 18.

PRB
11-03-2015, 02:33 PM
It was legal at 18,,when I was 18.

it should be 1. The government has no business telling people what they can or can't put in their bodies

phill4paul
11-03-2015, 02:35 PM
It was legal at 18,,when I was 18.

Same with me. Except for one month out of the year. I was of drinking age during the climb to 21 in North Carolina. So eleven months out of the year I was good to go. Then for an arbitrary reason I was no longer legal for the next month before becoming legal again for eleven months. I was in the military at the time and could drink on base all year long though. So at least there was that.

phill4paul
11-03-2015, 02:36 PM
it should be 1. The government has no business telling people who they can or can't put in their bodies

The issue always has to come around to gay rights, don't it?

PRB
11-03-2015, 02:44 PM
The issue always has to come around to gay rights, don't it?

good catch, LOL

kcchiefs6465
11-03-2015, 02:50 PM
drinking under 21 ? We have a role model here.
What of it? Ask the policeman when he had his first drink.

PRB
11-03-2015, 03:25 PM
What of it? Ask the policeman when he had his first drink.

I said you're a role model, what's your problem?

paleocon1
11-03-2015, 05:22 PM
PRB is trolling, but he's right about this.

Everything you do can be presumed to put somebody else "at risk".

You like bacon?

Well, I'm calling the cops on you because bacon causes cancer and you have no right to put me at risk blowing cancerous cooking fumes at me.

Sport, ya walk into my kitchen uninvited bacon is the least of your immediate worries.

phill4paul
11-03-2015, 05:32 PM
Sport, ya walk into my kitchen uninvited bacon is the least of your immediate worries.

Ah, but bacon is going to be your immediate worry. AF didn't say he was going to walk into your kitchen. He said that he was going to call the cops. And the way things are going the day will come when we read on these forums the case of some schlep getting whacked for cooking bacon.

tod evans
11-03-2015, 05:32 PM
Same with me. Except for one month out of the year. I was of drinking age during the climb to 21 in North Carolina. So eleven months out of the year I was good to go. Then for an arbitrary reason I was no longer legal for the next month before becoming legal again for eleven months. I was in the military at the time and could drink on base all year long though. So at least there was that.

Enlisted could drink at 17 at Great Lakes, 18 for civilians..

pcosmar
11-03-2015, 05:49 PM
Enlisted could drink at 17 at Great Lakes, 18 for civilians..

a Yooper could get served at 16,, if he behaved himself..

just sayin'

phill4paul
11-03-2015, 05:54 PM
Enlisted could drink at 17 at Great Lakes, 18 for civilians..

Still remember flying out to boot camp at 18. Mom, dad and I were sitting at the bar before going to the airport. We ordered a round of beers. The waitress asked for my I.D. Dad said "He's not buying the beer. I'm buying it for him." She brought the round. Gotta love that guy.

PRB
11-03-2015, 11:14 PM
Still remember flying out to boot camp at 18. Mom, dad and I were sitting at the bar before going to the airport. We ordered a round of beers. The waitress asked for my I.D. Dad said "He's not buying the beer. I'm buying it for him." She brought the round. Gotta love that guy.

16 is still too high. It should be 1. Humans are humans, the idea that you're only responsible at 18 and not 13 is ageist and statist.

Danke
11-03-2015, 11:16 PM
Next person that responds to the troll gets a neg rep.

Dr. Dog
11-03-2015, 11:41 PM
16 is still too high. It should be 1. Humans are humans, the idea that you're only responsible at 18 and not 13 is ageist and statist.
So 13 year old should be allowed to fly F16s?

PRB
11-03-2015, 11:43 PM
So 13 year old should be allowed to fly F16s?

Yes, and smoke, and have sex. Feel free to give me your justification why they shouldn't be allowed to.

Jingles
11-03-2015, 11:59 PM
My DUI involved me blacking out at the wheel on graduation night. Apparently, I woke up from a party and drove to both McDonalds and Burger King for breakfast (with dicks drawn all over my face), ate food in the parking lots, and then tried to drive back. On the way back I guess I crashed into a tree... My grandfather was going to have me drive his truck home after I called him and say he was driving. The cops came first, sadly. Man, I hope I never see that mugshot lol.

Danke
11-04-2015, 12:08 AM
So 13 year old should be allowed to fly F16s?

Neg repped.

Dr. Dog
11-04-2015, 12:21 AM
Neg repped.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7aBesvnS7BM/Uo52S9PQSFI/AAAAAAAAPEg/WfQHOkmoi00/s1600/you-liar.gif

PRB
11-04-2015, 12:32 AM
My DUI involved me blacking out at the wheel on graduation night. Apparently, I woke up from a party and drove to both McDonalds and Burger King for breakfast (with dicks drawn all over my face), ate food in the parking lots, and then tried to drive back. On the way back I guess I crashed into a tree... My grandfather was going to have me drive his truck home after I called him and say he was driving. The cops came first, sadly. Man, I hope I never see that mugshot lol.

cool story bro.