Make Americans safer by repealing victimless crime laws

www.lp.org/lpnews ^ | 7.25.03 | Bill Winter

[robertpaulsen]

"How do those pose any danger to others?"

Because I say so.

Just like you say to me that you'll take away my freedom if I'm driving along minding my own business while over .08. I used to be able to do that, legally, but you changed your mind and arbitrarily cut the BAC in half.

To be consistent, the author should have advocated the elimination of BAC limits. If a driver is considered impaired by the arresting officer, for any legal reason, he should be charged. But not for exceeding some "limit".

But seatbelts were the author's #1 issue. I wonder how many lives were saved by seatbelt laws (which he wants to get rid of) vs. the number of lives saved by the .08 BAC laws (which he wants to keep)?

[samuel_adams_us]

The reason we have these stupid laws is to keep the idiot lawyers employed, if you get rid of 2/3 of the attorney's in this country 99% of the problems will go away.

[MrLeRoy]

"How do those pose any danger to others?"

Because I say so.

Just like you say to me that you'll take away my freedom if I'm driving along minding my own business while over .08.

The .08 limit is not based on "Because I say so."

If a driver is considered impaired by the arresting officer, for any legal reason, he should be charged. But not for exceeding some "limit".

I'm not necessarily opposed to that.

I wonder how many lives were saved by seatbelt laws (which he wants to get rid of) vs. the number of lives saved by the .08 BAC laws (which he wants to keep)?

Apples and oranges; seatbelt laws save the restricted persons' lives---pure Nanny Statism---while BAC laws save the lives of others.

[Trailerpark Badass]

So if its really about protecting society, as criminal justice is supposed to be, shouldn't we be more focused on those people that engage in activity that actually is a threat?

According to moral authoritarians, the criminal justice system is supposed to promote certain popular morals and effect some ersatz social engineering. By promoting zeal, industry, and piousness over sloth and ease, the criminal justice system will lead us to a brighter, more Godly future, and those who resist will receive the benefit of incarceration from their loving Christian brothers.

[Final Authority]

In Massachusetts cops aren't arresting people for much of any crime, they are busy on "detail" staring into holes in the ground, half asleep, a cup of coffee in hand, sucking money out of our pockets. Other than Bill Bulger, the highest paid civil employees in MA are cops due to overtime pay.

Based on the fact that adults have the freedom not to use seatbelts in NH, although a survey determined that use in NH is higher than in most states where it is mandatory, the project to create a Libertarian state should be centered in NH. Maybe we can chase out all of the Massholes.

[Trailerpark Badass]

The (L)libertarians seem to be inconsistent when they call for enforcing DUI/DWI laws when no one has been harmed.

They "seem" inconsistent until you give it a nanosecond's thought. Which, apparently, you did not.

[MrLeRoy]

By promoting zeal, industry, and piousness over sloth and ease, the criminal justice system will lead us to a brighter, more Godly future, and those who resist will receive the benefit of incarceration from their loving Christian brothers.

LOL! Very nice.

[secretagent]

A driver may be at .09 or .10 BAC and you would arrest, convict, fine, and jail him not because he has actually harmed anyone, but because you consider him a threat when he is over some arbitrary, generalized BAC limit?

Perhaps not. The breathalyzer tests have their problems. Different individuals can handle different concentrations, and we might have problems of calibration. Perhaps a field sobriety test such as "walking the line", videotaped, would meet our concerns better.

Where's the victim?

None yet, and none needed to sustain a conviction for threat of immediate physical harm.

You're saying we can invent "potential victims" just by setting up some arbitrary limits?

No invention, but real people driving the freeways.

Which change over time? My, my, that opens the door wide open, doesn't it?

The principle doesn't change over time. My goal: wide enough to let in those that threaten immediate physical harm, and narrow enough to exclude those that don't.

[secretagent]

To be consistent, the author should have advocated the elimination of BAC limits. If a driver is considered impaired by the arresting officer, for any legal reason, he should be charged. But not for exceeding some "limit".

Welcome to the libertarian movement. Disagreements like this abound.