Intrusion

[steve74baywin]

I agree Velo I've always thought DD laws were like the pot law in TN, there's no allowance, for personal use, if you're caught growing they assume it's for sale. Driving drunk and not crashing or harming another person or property should not be a crime. Now if you DO crash while drunk and hurt someone they should put you under the jail.

Drunk driving laws is a perfect example of a system gone wrong, a means that doesn't work, and people being led. There already was laws against killing, and damaging property. We did not need the million ways to kill and hurt to be broken down and made into individual laws. We did not need to treat innocent people who damaged no ones property or hurt no one to be treated like criminals, just because the had 3 beers and under two hours. This is a sign of an anal control freak type society.

[glasseye]

Drunk driving laws is a perfect example of a system gone wrong, a means that doesn't work,

Then how do you explain the drop in drunk-driving-caused motor vehicle accidents, injuries and deaths observable in those societies who have implemented those very laws?

[Velokid1]

And more importantly, how is getting rid of dd laws a better solution? Some dude has two beers in an hour and plows into my wife and kids in a car and kills them and a good solution is for the guy to pay me some money, go to jail for five years and I should just get over it because that guy was just exercising his constitutional right to put my family in danger?

Nope, I don't like it. Sounds like a shitty plan to me.

[steve74baywin]

Drunk driving laws is a perfect example of a system gone wrong, a means that doesn't work,

Then how do you explain the drop in drunk-driving-caused motor vehicle accidents, injuries and deaths observable in those societies who have implemented those very laws?

Why should I have to explain? The ends does not justify the means.
Kill 50% of the toughest males in a society and you may see a drop in crime, does that make it right? Perhaps there is a deduction, but does that somehow make it right? All the people who have suffered hardship becuase they were arrested and had the jail and or high fines hurt their family, perhaps their kids went down the wrong path during the struggle the family went through when dad got a DUI for 5 beers, on his way home from the bar he stopped at, after work, like he did 100 times before, hurting no one, no crime, no victim, but he gets a DUI and during that time his kids get into horrible things that ruin their life. Sure if you put enough fear and make the penalties so severe you might get a drop in drunk related deaths. You could make the penalties so high for anything to do with a car, and you may see the number of people driving drop, and you may then see less accidents. But, that does not make it right.
Just becuase a slight or good improvement can be shown, that does not make any action whatsoever then okay. The world is not that simple.
By system gone wrong I mean, all the people who hurt no one being fined and jailed just to reduce the number of people who do hurt while drunk is holding a blind eye to all that suffer under a DUI just to feel things are a tad bit safer.
Punishing someone becuase they are doing something that someone else did becuase when that other person did it he did wrong is just not right. People have killed after watching TV, so anyone who watched TV in the past should go to jail.

[steve74baywin]

And more importantly, how is getting rid of dd laws a better solution? Some dude has two beers in an hour and plows into my wife and kids in a car and kills them and a good solution is for the guy to pay me some money, go to jail for five years and I should just get over it because that guy was just exercising his constitutional right to put my family in danger?

Nope, I don't like it. Sounds like a shitty plan to me.

Killing your wife and kids is and was against the law before DUI laws.
The penalty would be adjusted based on the circumstances. Total accident while fully sober, less penalty, drunk for the second time, much worse penalty. Having the current DUI laws doesn't magically and mystically remove anyone from the road who is drunk and driving, that is a false sense of security. People get killed still today by drunk drivers. To punish people who hurt no one just to increase the chances your family lives seems very selfish to me.

Constitutional right to put your family in danger? By you putting your family in a car you have put your family in danger.

This makes about as much sense as putting any one who smokes pot in jail because some other people have hurt or stolen after smoking pot. There already are laws for hurting and stealing, what does it matter if they watched TV before it, or smoked pot, or drank beer, the crime is still the crime. No blanket prejudice here.

When this topic gets discussed usually the only leg people have to stand on is this, they say that person did something to ever so slightly decrease their ability to drive. That is what it boils down to. Most states are .08, that is an ever so slight impairment. Therefor, following that logic, anyone who does anything to ever so slightly impair the ability to drive would need to suffer the same penalty. Even if they take a second job to provide better for their family, they have chosen to do something that can ever so slightly impair their ability to drive, hence putting YOUR family in danger.
Someone driving a VW bus instead of a brand new vehicle should also perhaps suffer the same punishment as like a DUI, they have done something that put your family at an increased risk of danger.

[Velokid1]

We could go on sparring philosophically forever. You're good at it; I'm good at it. Bottom line: your solution is impractical. It may sound fun to have people driving all over drunk but the reality wouldn't be so fun. (See: America; 1970s) Other bottom line: I get to vote and I will never vote to do away with DUI laws. I think they need to based on actual impairment rather than BAL, but to do away with them completely would be profoundly foolish.

If that idea is hardline constitutional and is supported by the Libertarian faith as a whole, I would assume that Ron Paul would also like to see DUI laws done away with. And if that assumption is correct, he would do well to keep that lil tidbit to himself if he ever wants to be taken seriously. Doing away with the Federal Reserve and also legalizing drunk driving would be quite the interesting platform to run on!

Peace-

[RSorak 71Westy]

Yes Steve understands my objection to DD laws perfectly. The mostly punish the innocent for the crimes of a few. It's like 1st grade when someone steals something and the whole class gets punished for it.

DD should not be determined by some arbitrary BAC, it should be determined by level of impairment. If someone is pulled over and can't walk, talk, etc then that should be a crime, even if they have hurt no one up to this point. So I guess my views are mixed on this. Steve what are your thoughts about this person who is obviously impaired yet insists on driving?
Should it be legal? Where is the line?

[BellePlaine]

Anybody can drive drunk all day long without fear of getting in trouble with the law... as long as it's on their own private property. But the driver's license that you carry is actually a contract between you and your state government that acknowledges that you've agreed to the terms if you are going to drive on our roads. Dig?

[Amskeptic]

Why should I have to explain? The ends does not justify the means.

All the people who have suffered hardship becuase they were arrested and had the jail and or high fines hurt their family, perhaps their kids went down the wrong path during the struggle the family went through when dad got a DUI for 5 beers, on his way home from the bar he stopped at, after work, like he did 100 times before, hurting no one, no crime, no victim, but he gets a DUI and during that time his kids get into horrible things that ruin their life.

What? Dumb dad exercised dumb choices so his kids get into horrible things and ruin their lives, are going to try to pin that horseshit on drunk driving laws?
You who preach personal responsibility?

If you think drunk driving laws are an unacceptable means to save the lives of innocents, then I do have to conclude that your ideological purity is otherworldly.
All you have to do to avoid such draconian overreach of the nanny state is to not drink then drive. Whoa.
Colin

[ruckman101]

Anybody can drive drunk all day long without fear of getting in trouble with the law... as long as it's on their own private property. But the driver's license that you carry is actually a contract between you and your state government that acknowledges that you've agreed to the terms if you are going to drive on our roads. Dig?

I Dig. Was it Glasseye that pointed to the statistics? I have one. A DUII. A few years ago now. Blush, yeah, I'm not a spring chick any more. That DUII has been back a couple of decades. Keeps me out of Canada. They'll have none of that drunkenness, eh? Ya hoser.

Poor choices are often made especially when raging drunk. My legal brush certainly made me exceedingly cognizant of consequences that has never left me.

I support anti-drunk driving law. So ya didn't kill yourself or others this time is a feeble excuse to roll back those laws.


neal

[ruckman101]

I had an exceptional high school instructor, who opined that this is a free country. You can do anything you want. Rob a bank, yep, we're free. Anything you want. Just don't get caught. Yep. Folks with guns will take you down in a worst case scenario.

We're free, with choices, and those choices bear consequences, we don't live in vacuums.


neal

[steve74baywin]

(See: America; 1970s) Other bottom line: I get to vote and I will never vote to do away with DUI laws.

Peace-

I do remember the 70's. I don't recall anyone I know experiencing anything with drunk drivers. I do think it was hyped up and fear mongered like I have witnessed other things be hyped up since. I firmly believe the drunk driving campaign was typical BS to get the masses to allow intrusive laws. It reminds me alot of the drug laws. Pot smokers killing and raping people all over the place, they all should be arrested. Muslims wanting to kill us, let's invade countries. Yes it is a philosophy. You can't have it both ways, you think DUI laws are okay, granny thinks pot laws are okay, Jo Jo thinks wiccan's should be burned, etc, etc. There are unlimited opinions about what is so bad that you have to legislate for it, if you do not follow a basic guide line, you will end up with a totalitarian system.

Steve what are your thoughts about this person who is obviously impaired yet insists on driving?
Should it be legal? Where is the line?

Sometimes, or maybe most times we just need to look to a time before these draconian laws. If a person was that drunk, the cop (peace officer) took him home or followed him, or worst case held him overnight, with no other legal repercussions. Unless he commits a crime of stealing, hurting or killing, he should be a free man. Granted, if he was warned a bunch of times this could weigh in on his sentencing if he ever does harm.

I got to spend a few weeks in Ecuador back in the early 90's. When I was out on the main street I asked them about the drinking and driving laws. They said they had none, but if you killed someone while drunk, you'd probably be killed. I'm not saying I am for the death penalty, but you can have harsh punishment for actually crimes, and believe it or not it does work. Actual crime has a victim, not just the fear that there could be a victim.

What? Dumb dad exercised dumb choices so his kids get into horrible things and ruin their lives, are going to try to pin that horseshit on drunk driving laws?
You who preach personal responsibility?

If you think drunk driving laws are an unacceptable means to save the lives of innocents, then I do have to conclude that your ideological purity is otherworldly.
All you have to do to avoid such draconian overreach of the nanny state is to not drink then drive. Whoa.
Colin

Colin, In all honesty I find this very hypocritical. You show an extra amount of concern for your pet peeve ideas, but than you show no mercy in other cases. You are extra sympathetic for some social programs, wanting to use force to get us all in this here land to pay for the mistakes and hardships of others, and then show nothing for the kids in this case.

In all honesty to me many people let emotions instead of logic dictate.

To allow or want such a harsh punishment for laws that have a low BAL in fear of getting hurt or having a loved one get hurt would indicate to me one letting fear rein instead of love.

[RussellK]

Yeah and there are laws around here that say I can't shoot my .30-06 in the air. I mean that's bullshit. That bullet hasn't come down and hit anyone yet. Whats the deal with that? I mean we don't even know if it's going to come down do we? It might just knick a plane or keep on going in the gut of a seagull. Then if it drops it's the pilots or the seagulls responsibility. This is bullshit. We know our founding fathers didn't care if we shot our guns in the air or they would have mentioned it in the constitution. In Pakistan they get to shoot their guns in the air with abandon. And I thought we lived in a free country.

[BellePlaine]

Steve,

I think you and I might have different viewpoints on this topic. Here's what I think:

1) Intoxicated driving increases the risk to other drivers that they could unwillingly get hurt. It's the inability of the other drivers to make a smart choice (with all of the risks involved) that is undermined when others drive drunk.

2) Drivers on public roads are bound by contracts, not rights. No one has given up any freedoms that they did not willingly do so.

3) Driving and criminal activity is/should be a state issue. I am slightly less libertarian to state/local issues than I am to federal issues. The reason being is that states have to have a balanced budget and they cannot create money, so if their constituents wish to adjust the BAC, driving age, drinking age, etc they must do so under the regulation of a fixed income. Although I don't think that we really want the sheriff judging shades of gray, it's to your point that the local officials are better apt to handle these things (such as your example of a cop following a DD home instead of arresting them).

Also, I don't understand the relationship we are making between smoking pot and drunk driving? Unless we are talking about driving while high (which I don't think that we are) I see these activities as two different things. The main difference is that other than the smoker no one else is at risk whereas a drunk driver involves unwilling participants.

I do, agree with you, though that we have to stand up for victims. If you hurt someone or damage property for driving drunk/passing in a no-passing zone/running a stop light/pooping in a stream/or excavating land which had safely stored toxic chemicals, you must bear the consequences of your actions.

[steve74baywin]

Also, I don't understand the relationship we are making between smoking pot and drunk driving? Unless we are talking about driving while high (which I don't think that we are) I see these activities as two different things. The main difference is that other than the smoker no one else is at risk whereas a drunk driver involves unwilling participants.

It is logic, with the drunk driving laws they are saying that anyone who has been drinking more than just X needs to be punished a certain amount. They make statements as if everyone who had the X amount of drinks is driving in such a manor that he IS putting others in danger. This simply is not so. Just as those who wanted pot illegal say some go out and commit crimes and such, therefore we shall punish all as if they too have committed those crimes. That is why I am comparing those two. Because both take the worst case example that only happens a percentage of time and punishes a person accordingly, even though they drive home slowly, calmly and safely, they want a law that punishes them as if they were wild, reckless, and damaging property. That is the same thing with drug laws, site the worst case scenario and punish all as if they are acting like that worst case.


If I may apply a little more logic to the DUI Laws.
I would think that the biggest deterrent to driving drunk is as follows.
The thought of killing someone would be the biggest deterrent.
The thought of hurting myself a close second
The thought of the penalties for killing someone, or hurting someone is big also.
The thought of repairing someones property is big also.
The thought of $5000 in fines and lawyer fees, and perhaps some jail for blowing over .08 if I happen to get stopped and checked is way down on the list of deterrents.
Yeah, what I am saying is the current laws that nail people who only had more than .08 is hardly a deterrent. If the first few I list hasn't stopped someone from driving when the were too drunk to, the last one won't stop them either.
I think these laws are most certainly a false sense of security, and it is at a great expense.


I say peoples opinions are emotional based because the argument they make must consist of visions of innocent women and children being plowed down by drunk drivers, like that vision then means it is okay to have huge penalties on anyone having more then one drink an hour irregardless of how safely they were driving. It seems logic is removed, the thought of a drunk driver hurting someone has been conditioned into a deep part of the brain. Emotions are a powerful tool when it comes to conditioning. I really think it is the same thinking that killed the jews, gives us the war on terror, killed witches in the past. It is blanket type stereo typing and discrimination, and there are tons of innocent people hurt and who suffer, just so some can have a little more sense of safety.